Portland, Seattle, and Denver ban the use of tear gas against protestors

a reply to: Gryphon66

My first recommendation to prevent civil uprising would be for the police to stop executing citizens in the streets.

I second that ^^^.

If police stopped executing citizens in the street, there would be no need for protests, and no occasion for it degenerating into mayhem and riots.

The next step is for our elected and appointed officials to take concrete steps to listen to the people and address their demands. The people are making it clear that executing citizens in the streets is not acceptable. Minnesota has a 28-point plan for addressing lethal force by police, which was a cooperative effort including law enforcement, which could be and should be implemented immediately.

When there is no end in sight to citizens being executed on the streets in broad daylight, there is no end in sight to the civil unrest and outrage.

Nor should there be.

a reply to: Boadicea

Exactly.

Also, when an individual is killed or suffers grave injury by police in the process of law enforcement, a grand jury should be impaneled to investigate the matter. It should not be left to the local police department, the local DA, etc.

The problem here is not good police officers doing their jobs. The problem here is criminals in cop uniform committing murder in the streets and never being held accountable.

Well, thats one of the most obvious problems, anyway.

It's also valuable to note here that for almost 100 years, the use of tear gas and similar weapons have been forbidden in war by the Geneva Convention.

Tear gas cannot be used in war which is a deadly enterprise, but can be used against citizens in their own street.

Yes, I totally approve of what these cities have done to ban this type of riot control..

a reply to: Gryphon66

Will the cure be worse than the problem?

Tear gas is meant to disburse a crowd without the police having to close with them in a perfect world, yes it can cause problems for people with respiratory issues, but which is worse tear gas or a billy club to the noggin.

If tear gas cant be used when they are told to clear people from an area they will have to resort to water hoses and billy clubs.

dont know about you, but I was in a gas chamber for the military I would take that 10 times out of 10 over a high pressure water hose or a billy club.

a reply to: Boadicea

It will also be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with qualified immunity. It certainly doesn't help that when an officer actually does go to trial it's almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

Will the cure be worse than the problem?

Tear gas is meant to disburse a crowd without the police having to close with them in a perfect world, yes it can cause problems for people with respiratory issues, but which is worse tear gas or a billy club to the noggin.

If tear gas cant be used when they are told to clear people from an area they will have to resort to water hoses and billy clubs.

dont know about you, but I was in a gas chamber for the military I would take that 10 times out of 10 over a high pressure water hose or a billy club.

Well, a few things occur to me.

Perhaps we need to review what the legal terms are for "unlawful assembly" and what the proper response of law enforcement should be.

Perhaps the money we invest as a society in law enforcement should also include not only non-lethal but non-dangerous methods of crowd control.

I don't think we have to say that not using tear gas and other explosives against the citizen populace means the only option is to wade in with batons or use water cannon.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Perhaps the money we invest as a society in law enforcement should also include not only non-lethal but non-dangerous methods of crowd control.

Cheaper to just shoot a couple worfless looty-dudes and a couple dozen I Din Do Nuffins when they run. Not talking grazing fire ... yet.

Trust me ... no great loss ... and everyone around gets the message and understands the rules without having to shplain a damned thing.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Perhaps the money we invest as a society in law enforcement should also include not only non-lethal but non-dangerous methods of crowd control.

Cheaper to just shoot a couple worfless looty-dudes and a couple dozen I Din Do Nuffins when they run. Not talking grazing fire ... yet.

Trust me ... no great loss ... and everyone around gets the message and understands the rules without having to shplain a damned thing.

Sure, that's an option if you promote the continued creation of a terrorist police state in the US.

For the most part totally against the idea of the rule-of-law and our Constitution, but it's an option.

I hope you're exaggerating for effect.

a reply to: Gryphon66

not sure how that can be reviewed, if people gather march get their message out 9 times out of 10 the police just stand there. (that 10th time is a problem with that department usually)

When they start looting and burning things its no longer a lawful assembly, its a riot

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

not sure how that can be reviewed, if people gather march get their message out 9 times out of 10 the police just stand there. (that 10th time is a problem with that department usually)

When they start looting and burning things its no longer a lawful assembly, its a riot

Yes. We need to find ways to prevent riots (and looting, etc.)

I don't believe one of those is using tear gas and explosive devices against our population. I would guess that actually instigates more riots than it prevents.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Exactly.

Also, when an individual is killed or suffers grave injury by police in the process of law enforcement, a grand jury should be impaneled to investigate the matter. It should not be left to the local police department, the local DA, etc.

Yes. And in fact we need to bring back the Citizen's Grand Jury, with full investigatory, subpoena and charging powers. It was a very important and valuable tool for the citizens to keep their government officials (and everyone) in line.

The problem here is not good police officers doing their jobs. The problem here is criminals in cop uniform committing murder in the streets and never being held accountable.

Well, thats one of the most obvious problems, anyway.

And this cannot be emphasized enough. It's ridiculous to portray anyone against abuse of power -- especially lethal force -- as being against police or policing in its entirety. Demanding appropriate policing is necessary and proper for a fair and civil society.

Yearh who would need that anymore... Gucci !

a reply to: Boadicea

Spot on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We need to find ways to prevent riots

That's the rub, how do you separate the two, its the same problem the military has faced over the last 2 decades in Iraq and Afghanistan, and back in Vietnam.

How do you separate the trouble makers from the good people, since they look and dress the same, especially when the actual protestors have every right to be there and if they dont want to leave while the rioters are snaking into the protest.

way smarter people than me have tried to figure that out and failed, I dont have an answer.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Boadicea

It will also be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with qualified immunity. It certainly doesn't help that when an officer actually does go to trial it's almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

Yes, it will be interesting. I get the distinct feeling that the SC really doesn't want to have to rule on it one way or another. Maybe they are acting with an abundance of caution, but this is their job.

There is a gross double standard at play here, with the people told that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and held to the highest standard of the law, by the same people who claim immunity for their own "ignorance," or that if it's not explicitly forbidden then it's okay.

And while it might sound good in theory, in practice, it doesn't help the honest and honorable so much as it aids and abets the dishonest and the dishonorable.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I think the answer has to be ... we can't at the current time so that has to govern our official actions.

Let me be clear on a few items. I know that people in groups behave differently than individuals. I know that our legal system, by and large, is focused on dealing with individuals not groups. We have developed special legal systems to deal with crime "syndicates" ... with varied success.

Oddly enough, I generally think of Agent K from Men in Black in this instance: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

The United States presents a series of impediments to efficient control of the population by the government.

That is intentional. (LOL)

I think there's a reason that most statutes regarding "riot" specify that it must be a group of three or more ... because groups of two don't usually exhibit rioting (or looting) behavior. However, the First Amendment GUARANTEES that the people can assemble LAWFULLY as they see fit.

As you say, there's the rub. Perhaps a modified "First do no harm""

First do no harm. Second if harm must be done, do as little as possible.

I feel that is inverted in many ways at the present time due to many contributing factors.

a reply to: 727Sky

I don't think tear gas should be used against peaceful protestors.

I do think rioters, looters should be shot.

RIoting is in most jurisdictions a misdemeanor offense.

That is in recognition that it is not commonly pre-meditated and is a function of "herd behavior."

No surprise. Both states are sad Democratic following trash bags.

originally posted by: wdkirk
No surprise. Both states are sad Democratic following trash bags.

Three cities in three different States, actually.