You have less than no idea of what you’re talking about. Does it tickle a lot when you pull that much nonsense straight out of your cloaca? Is it on a roll up there or just all wadded up in a bunch?
The strange thing is the jackboots aren’t arresting the looters, they’re brutalizing the protestors. In case you didn’t notice, those are two different groups.
No, that is not my question. My question is very simple:
Why is it legal to use on unarmed civilians a substance that is banned in warfare?
If it’s too horrible for war it should be too horrible for peacetime, civilians, and the unarmed.
Gaseous riot control agents ARE toxic chemicals. That is how they work. If they were unpleasent and irritating there would be no point.
The fact they are not immediately and not as reliably fatal as, say chlorine or mustard gas or sarin is a matter of degree, not a substantial difference.
We live in a world where it is illegal to use mace or pepper spray on the battle field but totally OK to use on unarmed civilian protesters. That’s just wrong.
So the kinds of arrests we’re seeing strike you as wrong. But not so wrong that they you can’t look the other way when it’s happening indiscriminately to protesters on the left.
Yes.
And those substances are also banned in some jurisdictions and illegal to carry or use in those places.
^ This. Using them without justification (basically, self-defense when you feel physically threatened) leave the owner open to legal action, both criminal (it would be a form of assault) and civil. I’ll also point out that the quantities permitted to civilians are far, far smaller than the big cans of that shit being used in Portland. I’ve seen fire extinguishers smaller than those canisters.
The camoshirts don’t give a damn about the looters and crime, they are there to suppress political dissent and freedom of speech. Anyone who doesn’t agree with The Leader is the enemy and is to be beaten into submission and silenced. Or gassed into submission and silence. Or simply kidnapped and crammed into an unmarked van so they can’t be seen or heard.
…which particular protest are you talking about? The ones in Portland? How are they " dishonest?" And why do you think they are “hypocritical?”
When I think “violent” and “protests” I think of this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Here is a thread with over 800 documented incidents involving police violence against protestors. All on video. The violence over the last 60 days is almost entirely synonymous with the actions of the police and the federal agencies. In comparison the DHS justification for their continued presence on the streets in response to the protests is pathetic. Graffiti. Animal seed.
If the “radical left” actually “made up too much” of the “mass media” then the protests wouldn’t have dropped off the radar weeks ago. The mass media are much too easily distracted to be part of the “radical left.”
It can go pretty far.
If you factor in that the people in question have been trained in the use of violence and are surrounded by people who are also following orders, it is pretty easy to convince yourself that you must be doing the right thing. After all if this was really bad everyone else would be quitting, why should I be the first one.
No.
Better would be an actual answer to what I’ve been asking you. But it’s pretty clear by now that I’m not going to get one.
You seemed to have missed this point:
It wasn’t banned from warfare because it’s too horrible.
It was banned from warfare because observers can’t tell if a gas is a “toxic chemical”, or if it’s a “riot control agent” and it leaves open the door for states to claim that the “toxic chemical” they just released was really just a “riot control agent”.
That is why the Chemical Weapon Convention of 1993 left it as ok to use on humans for riot control purposes.
Here is the link:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter24_rule75
AFAIK< no one is being “disappeared.” The reports are of people being grabbed, questioned and released.
No one knows where they’re taken or who took them. It’s being demonstrated that anyone can be disappeared.
Definitions:
Only on TV do they Mirandize people as they are being arrested. Until you are questioned, no need to Mirandize, and if they dont, then whatever you say is not evidence. She even said she refused to answer, citing her 5th ad.
If she did assault a Federal agent, that is entirely appropriate. She was released the next day.
My bold.
You have confirmed what I said about mob mentality (by which I mean protective coloration in a group), but referring to what I bolded, is it really pretty easy to convince yourself that this is okay? Obviously, some are convinced. Some are always convinced. But these people (the ones in camo) aren’t highly trained Army Rangers or something. They’re not an elite hit squad of some kind that’s schooled in 40 ways to kill a person with their bare hands. MOST OF THEM are ordinary guys, as I described above. I could not be convinced to bludgeon ordinary citizens, and I’m guessing many here could not either.
My question is NOT “what makes them go along with the crowd of thugs” – I get that. My question is what makes individual people realize that what they’re doing is wrong and to stop?
First of all, I’m responding to a particular post by a particular poster; and the issue isn’t whether people have actually been disappeared in Portland, but whether that poster supports doing so.
Second of all, as far as I know you’re right, and I hope you’re right. But the reports are of people being forced into unmarked vehicles by armed forces with no identification, and then being driven off to locations which aren’t disclosed at the time. If one or more of the people so treated weren’t released, how would we know?
Sure, absolutely it is scary and intimidating, but everyone has been released within a day so far as i know.
You must have missed the part about demonstrating it can be done.
True, very scary. Of course they have cell phones with tracking devices, people see then taken off etc. One women was able to text messages. No one has been reported missing, afaik.
It is something that could very well be abused- it doesnt seem to be SO FAR.
The Oregon AG, the ACLU and others have filed suit- let us hope that works before it gets out of hand- as it certainly could.
I think Barr has ordered the agents to do nothing that is a blatant violation or abuse- just things that are slightly “over the line”.
And how many times is acceptable that the line moved “just a little bit farther”?