US Park Police denies using tear gas on peaceful protesters | Hacker News Reader

US Park Police denies using tear gas on peaceful protesters

vox.com

63 pointshhs20 comments

Pretty consistent with what we know of Park Police in and around DC. The shooting of Bijan Ghaisar, in this case, went unpunished by the feds:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-park-p...

Though props to Fairfax for seeking indictments and for releasing the footage in the face of Park Police silence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/12/18/fairfax-...

Why did Bijan keep driving away from the officers? The officers definitely should have to wear body cams

Very weird case

My understanding is that Bijan was a flighty and somewhat anxious person (we shared mutual friends). I don't think that justifies unloading a magazine into him while he's in his car.

Which is why Fairfax appears to be pushing for indictments. Regardless of whether Bijan was guilty of anything, we'll never know because he was robbed of both his right to due process as well as his life.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

They want to say it was just smoke grenades and pepper balls... Which the CDC defines as "tear gas".

Where does the CDC define pepper balls as "tear gas"? It defines them as "riot control agents" in this document https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/factsheet.asp saying that these are "sometimes referred to as “tear gas”"

The CDC defines chloroacetophenone (CN) as tear gas https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750...

Pepper balls contain oleoresin capsicum (OC) which is different in terms of its chemical composition but produces similar symptoms.

Depending on your definition, it may or may not be the same thing because "tear gas" is an unscientific term.

Yes I referring to the CDC [0] page that says:

> Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as “tear gas”) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.

I think we all agree that "gas/chemicals that cause tears" is "tear gas". Anyone saying that tear gas was not used is splitting hairs and their motivations should be questioned. This is not the time to be "technically correct" when police are using things like this on peaceful protesters.

[0] https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/factsheet.asp

I think the relevant question is, when arguing semantics with the US Executive Branch, is the statement more or less precisely accurate than the common use of language by the Executive Branch's leader and commander-in-chief?

By that standard, it's tear gas.

The police seemingly operate with impunity. If you accuse them, they will deny wrongdoing. Trying to gaslight people about their tactics seems like par for the course.

The question is: who will police the police? They can't be trusted to police themselves as we're seeing.

This argument is a purposeful distraction by the administration's supporters. The focus should be on the fact that a protest was cleared so the president could do a silly photo op. A blasphemous photo op.

This "tear gas" argument is a red herring meant to distract from the real issue. And the media is falling for it.

You're slipping into the "4D chess" trap a bit. The "not tear gas" is merely banal grasping at straws to find any way they can to defend their behavior. Thoughtful observers will see that the defense incriminates more than it exonerates

I think we're saying the same thing. Vox ruminating on the finer points of canister markings distracts from the true issue here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com