Geneva says we can't spray our enemies in combat with pepper spray

[hedgetrimmer]

Yet it is perfectly fine to spray our own citizens!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm...............

http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/history-of-the-chemical-weapons-convention/

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT495IKhIeCGNnJi6dx3XQT7-xZ2-8WV9NmvT5Z2QZ1fKpnoSlR6w
here pepper spray is ok

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRN-av0J2tYEwtCQ7caxRW9eCTg1-5hp_n2fwHo_5K4IXWyHp9qeg
here pepper spray is not ok


ok so WTF?

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Citizens are terrorists. They're far worse than enemy soldiers.

[Hutzpa]

2. Especially unarmed citizens

they carry a lot of threat.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. AAAIIIIIIEEEEE! UNARMED CITIZENS!? WHERE!?

I'm calling homeland insecurity

:scared:

[Hutzpa]

6. And I'll call the Secret Service for $9.99

:hide:

[hedgetrimmer]

Holy Shit! That's fucking alarming!!!!

[Fumesucker]

3. D'oh.. Americans aren't enemies..

So it's OK..

[hedgetrimmer]

12. You know that reminds me of the suffragist movement...

When they stood outside the Wilson white house with banners that quoted Wilson talking about the right to vote.



its an effective way to put the words of the president back in his face, maybe some silent sentries at the white house may be effective!

[Angry Dragon]

5. drones are on the horizon

[Confusious]

7. stupid

Chemical weapons covers things that cause horrible deaths, not incapacitation.

Your oversimplification does a disservice to everyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Actually it does cover both pepper spray and tear gas

and while we train personnel to deal with it... it is a no-no in a warzone against OTHER COMBATANTS.

It gets really, and i mean this, REALLY gray when it comes to controlling civil unrest.

[Confusious]

10. Really? would you happen to have a link to that?

In the Geneva conventions? Otherwise, pardon me, but I don't believe you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. You can believe me or not

but chemical agents in the convention COVER this crap. This is the 1977 protocol, which we are signatories to

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument

For the record IT COULD violate this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

No, I did not sleep through this crap.

[Confusious]

16. Says in the Wiki article at the top

Non-lethal weapons may be used by conventional military in a range of missions across the force continuum. They may also be used by military police, by United Nations forces, and by occupation forces for peacekeeping and stability operations. Non-lethal weapons may also be used to channelize a battlefield or control the movement of civilian populations or limit civilian access to restricted areas (as they were utilized by the U.S.M.C.'s 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Somalia in 1995). When used by police forces domestically, similar weapons, tactics, techniques and procedures are often called "less lethal" or "less than lethal" and are employed in riot control, prisoner control, crowd control, refugee control, and self-defense.

at the bottom, under energy weapons:

And weapons that go beyond non-lethal intentions and cause "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" could violate the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977.

Seems that pepper spray doesn't cause "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."

I may sound harse, and I wouldn't like to be pepper sprayed myself, but taking away legitimate means of crowd control means the cops will fall back to their last line of defense. The Gun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Alas did you read the 1977 convention?

And in military operations the fear is that pepper spray will lead to the deployment of things like Mustard, Gas, or worst. And by the way Mustard is quite easy to make and even weaponize these days.

As I said, the opinions are divided, but more than a few believe it is not kosher... including lawyers in Geneva.

Civilians, it enters into a nasty gray zone... while we are TECHNICALLY in a civil disturbance and SOME elements of the convention are starting to kick in, MOST are not.

[Confusious]

19. Sorry, like I said

No link, I don't believe you.

Even if the argument sounds sound enough.

I'm a skeptic.

I may sound harse, and I wouldn't like to be pepper sprayed myself, but taking away legitimate means of crowd control means the cops will fall back to their last line of defense. The Gun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. You do not want evidence

the TOP link was to the 1977 GENEVA CONVENTION protocol.

Have it your way...

It took me three seconds to find it, since I KNEW what I was looking for.

Good night.

[Confusious]

23. No it was not.

A) it's a group that wants chemical weapons banned, not the Geneva conventions themselves.
B) "pepper" "INCAPACITATING" "Propanedinitrile" only appear in the glossary, never in the actual article.
c) can't remember

I know quite a bit about WW1 and WW2, so I don't need a review. If you want to find the pages of the Geneva Conventions that actually state they are outlawed, I'll be happy to believe you.

P.S. Actual Geneva Conventions, not some article that says "Geneva Conventions"

This is an actual link to to the 1977 treaty:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. WHAT I GAVE YOU NOT THE OP

Have a good day

Let me add free clue

ICRC in the link INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS COMMITTEE

[hedgetrimmer]

25. your link doesn't work

[Confusious]

26. Works for me. nt

[hedgetrimmer]

37. not for me, spins on eternity... its still spinning! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Try a fresh link

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument

And yes it works for me too

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You mean what I GAVE YOU

and no, it is not a TREATY, now I am going to get in trouble. The 1949 Convention has the status of treaty. It is a PROTOCOL added to the Treaty and SIGNATORY states have a right to accept it or not. THe US has.

Damn I did not sleep through this crap...

[Confusious]

29. yea, sorry

Getting a little confused reading about 3 different things trying to find it since you're not really helping, just yelling and telling me to take your word for it.

Sorry, I'm googling it, I see a lot of people saying it's so, I just don't see an authority saying it is so.

And just because people say it is so, doesn't mean it is. I mean, if a majority of people believing something makes it correct, then justin beieber is a good singer.

I take issue with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Wait, you wanted a direct link to the Convention

I added a link to that wiki article since it raises the issues that the ACLU in SoCal have raised in actual like court.

I am trying to help, but treaty law can and IS, on purpose, DENSE.

[Confusious]

31. I'll look at that

Like i said, the one thing that I worry about. Pepper spray may be bad, but if you take that away from the police, they'll end up using something worse, their guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. There is a reason why it is clear as mud

and that is the reason I suspect

[Recovered Repug]

33. Article 1.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention states:

Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.


http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-i-general-obligations/

[Confusious]

34. Thanks

But it seems to me that they specifically state that they are "riot control agents."

which is to say, that they are for the usage specified, not warfare. As stated below, they don't want things to get out of hand with chemical agents.

[hedgetrimmer]

35. Thank You - of course this will not be the 'Geneva' convention

but, this is an extension of the convention which goes back to the geneva protocol...

its all there, its as thick as mud and getting through it sucks... but 'peace' keepers have no right to spray peaceful citizens... this is an outrage and it is ridiculous that it is being argued against by obtuseness...

there is a whole heap of discussion that can be persued in context to 'riot' control and enemy combatants but this is like a taffy pull...

essentially, Thank You for the link...

[Confusious]

41. Sorry I'm being so 'obtuse'

Had two tests and a paper to turn in, then slept 12 hours. Been a long week.

As stated below, the reason it's banned is because chemical warfare could get out of hand quickly.

and the treaty also states "Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare."

it says "riot control agents" not "any chemical." Using those words, it recognizes legitimate uses.

Now, if you wanted to express outrage, which you have, that some cops are spraying people who are following police orders, I'm with you.

Using the "it's banned under the Geneva conventions" is not a good argument.

Taking away a means of riot control means the cops fall back on their last line, their guns. I don't want to see that.

[hedgetrimmer]

42. When people are sitting on the ground, how is that control?

Your argument is insignificant to me, every point in the multifaceted aspects brought forth to you in this discourse are all related to the Geneva conventions... I'll give you the 'Geneva' not in there crap argument, but All points trace back to post WWI and the convention to ban chemical weapons. The argument I used was its not okay to use in war but its okay to use against citizens and that is what it says.

As far as guns go, I find your closing sentence an oxymoron... The pepper spray is not a form of "riot control" it is a form of terrorism, state sanctioned that is... a 'cop' or police officer is there to protect and to serve... who is being protected and who is being served?

As for me, its been a long week too... end of semester work your ass off - ain't fun ... but then if we are at a point where we can say we agree that pepperspray on some people peacefully demonstrating by a multi-city concerted effort to stop the protesters is unjust then lets shake and have a beer while we hagle over a better argument.

[ohheckyeah]

9. You didn't bother to read it,did you? n/t

[Confusious]

15. No, not really

A) Looks like a page that wants chemical weapons banned, not the Geneva conventions themselves.
B) "pepper" "INCAPACITATING" "Propanedinitrile" only appear in the glossary, never in the actual article.
c) can't remember

I know quite a bit about WW1 and WW2, so I don't need a review. If you want to find the pages of the Geneva Conventions that actually state they are outlawed, I'll be happy to believe you.

P.S. Actual Geneva Conventions, not some article that says "Geneva Conventions"

[hedgetrimmer]

18. Why did you not read the first link? That inaction makes you look so stupid!

nt

[Confusious]

22. I didn't read it because...

A) Looks like a page that wants chemical weapons banned, not the Geneva conventions themselves.
B) "pepper" "INCAPACITATING" "Propanedinitrile" only appear in the glossary, never in the actual article.
c) can't remember

I know quite a bit about WW1 and WW2, so I don't need a review. If you want to find the pages of the Geneva Conventions that actually state they are outlawed, I'll be happy to believe you.

P.S. Actual Geneva Conventions, not some article that says "Geneva Conventions"

[Recovered Repug]

11. The theory behind banning pepper spray during war

is to prevent possible escalation of chemical weapons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. EXACTLY

[WillyT]

21. Yeah... Well... Thank Goodness #OWS Is Peaceful...

Because escalation would be bad thing.

But at some point...

:shrug:

Please don't let it get there.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. There's a couple of things in Geneva that don't apply to cops or civilians.

Off the top of my head, hollowpoint bullets (expanding bullets) are one.
Militaries must solid FMJ or ball ammunition... they cannot use modified or hollowpoint bullets.
Cops and civilians can (and should).

[hedgetrimmer]

36. OK, but heres the question:

Why (and should) they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Hollow points expand on impact

doing more damage and adding to the stopping power. Why PDs that argue for their use argue for it.

And IMHO, no they should not, since they cause horrific damage and increase pain. Why they are not allowed by militaries... not that militaries don't get around it, partially, with bullets that tumble more and create greater damage through cavitation (ak-47)

Why oh why do you ask these things I try to put out of my mind?

[hedgetrimmer]

43. I know what hollow points are and what they do

I wanted to understand what was meant by (and should)...

I know electronic messeging can be misinterpreted as far as intention, inflection and tone... so I hope you don't read me as confrontational here... looked at your link - your cool ... liked your dialogue and appreciated your persistence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. NO it is not you

it is that I had to each these courses to EMTs for a National Red Cross Society... so this at times gives me flashbacks...

Especially when losing neutrality (it is that easy) happens after spending an hour on the subject.

:-)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. Saftey.

Reality:

A majority of civilian and police firearms use is in self defense or defense of others.
A well designed hollowpoint bullet expands dumping more energy into the target.
A bullet fired by a civilian or police officer is most likely going to be in a populated, residential, or urban area
FMJ bullets that do not have enough velocity to fragment often easily overpenetrate.

Thus we can conclude:

Expansion (usually) prevents the bullet from overpenetrating and continuing *through* the target.
So using a hollowpoint bullet lowers the chance of unintentionally killing innocent people.
Also, when firing a gun in a defensive situation, it is usually imperitive to *immediately* stop the threat.
Hollowpoint bullets, by design, deliver more energy to the target and will stop the threat faster.

Hollowpoint bullets increase the safety of the shooter and bystanders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Actually some departments do not use hollow

and by policy use FMJ...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. By choice... but it is not required by the geneva convention.

[TBF]

47. K&R nt

[snot]

48. I'd just like to add . . .

I applaud all efforts to add helpful info, but I too found this post frustrating.

The text at the original link referred to contains 11,188 words, w/ no readily discernible path to the conclusion asserted in the OP. The site wasn't even titled Geneva Convention, or anything like it.

The additional link provided added 21,850 words, also without a clear path to the conclusion asserted.

Am I going to read all that? Hell no. Am I going to take it on faith that it supports the conclusion in the OP? Hell no.

This language is difficult; and most of us aren't international lawyers. The person who made the OP has presumably already done the work of figuring out how it is that the docs cited support his/her conclusion. Is it realistic, let alone considerate, to make all the rest of us each sift through this stuff, trying to figure out how the original poster got to his/her conclusion, when that person could much more easily just provide quotes of the relevant portions? What if the OP is incorrect – how many hours are we supposed to spend scrutinizing these docs before we give up?

Again, I applaud the good intentions of the original poster; but i.m.h.o., that person is in the best position to explain this stuff, and given the nature of the material, I don't think it's fair to excoriate those who ask him/her for help.

If the original poster doesn't really know what s/he's talking about, fine to do the post anyway, but just acknowledge that they got the info from an intermediate source and aren't personally equipped to explain it. And in that case, provide the intermediate source.