Someone educate me on this...
 

Instead of having all that police force and using batons to clear ppl out. Why not just gas to clear the area and force them the hell out.

Just say, hey at 1:00 am we are going to start to gas this area.

Then do it slowly and give people time to get the hell out as the gas is released.

tear gas has been used, as well as flash bombs, rubber bullets, batons, pepper spray, sonic weapons. if you are getting you news from the usual propaganda outlets you wont see this of course.

i like gas...

Just gas the ENTIRE area, wouldn't that cause them to leave?

Like they did in Oakland? Why should they need to gas people who's peacefully protesting?

There are a couple of reasons. One is that many protesters will want to call the police's bluff so they will not leave even when told gas will be used. Then if they use the gas all hell can break loose. People panic and start running every which way and people could get trampled. Not to mention innocent people could end up getting gassed. The stuff is a mess. Clearing out protesters is almost a no win deal for the cops. No matter how they do it someone will be angry so they often try to do it in the way that they feel can best allow them to keep control of the situation.

That isn't the question is it? When they WANT To move them, why is gas not used more often?

Violation of Constitutional Rights... that's your answer.

Water cannon.

.

I would create a gas bomb and put it in the middle of the park. The bomb starts off slowly and you can't pick it up and move it. Or you could have cops protect it in masks as it starts to deliver the gas. Start off slow and then work to get the ENTIRE area gassed and then remove all that shit left behind.

This of course after MANY warnings.

looks great when the lead story on the news of every news station outside the US is the state gassing it's own people. don't know if you are trolling or idiot. based on your past posts idiot.

Saddam Hussein gassed Halabja in 1988. Some people got a bit moany about it.

Right, I'm an idiot. The purpose of the gas is to get them to LEAVE the area without the use of riot police and physical contact.

I personally have no problem with those people being gassed if they are told to leave and they stay there.

A gas that doesn't cause death, just makes them leave. :winkwink:

first step is admitting it.

100% agreed.

Will you also start cloud seeding and controlling the weather/wind?

Then you have the issue of walking that thing into the middle of the park where all the protesters are and that could become crazy. The big problem with gas is the wind and the look of it. The wind can blow it in a bunch of directions and get innocent people who then may opt to sue the city. Also, when people turn on the TV and see gas being deployed in the streets, it gives many a very uneasy feeling. One of my friends who is a cop says that they are always reminded that they need to win the hearts and minds of the public. A lot of people get very bad feelings towards the cops when they see them gassing fellow citizens.

You do it at night, you do it when there is no wind. So the answer we are getting at is...

"it doesn't look good on the news?"

what happened to that whole "freedom of speech" thing

patriot act

I'm not taking a stance on either position. My question is how to get ppl to disburse for whatever reason.

Tell them a shop about half a mile away is giving away free stuff.

1. Do it at night or do it during day, everyone has a camera and it will be on the news.

2. So you will have your police force sitting around watching the news and waiting for a day with no wind? Here in the Northwest that would mean you would need to wait until June.

All I am saying that whenever the cops break out the tear gas it almost always turns into a cluster fuck that ends up making the cops look bad.

1. I don't give a shit about the news. You said earlier that bystanders would get caught up in the gas. This ensures they are in their homes.

2. As in this case, an extra day or two doesn't hurt anything. Wait till ideal weather conditions. We did at Normandy.

Things like this are all about public perception. You can't just say you don't give a shit about the news when the news is the one telling the public what is going on. If you are the Mayor of a city and you tell the police to remove some protesters and the police use gas which gets people running, causes chaos and starts a riot the news is going to blame you.

I could see it first hand a few nights ago when the police evicted the Occupy Portland people. At first it was a standoff and nothing was happening. Then it started to look like the police were going to forcefully remove the protesters. The news that was covering it live kept talking about all the people who were close by and watching and they were talking about police trying to be careful to not spark unneeded violence because the protest had been peaceful. You could tell just by how they were talking that there were chomping at the bit to criticize the city and police for how they handled things. In the end the police just waited them out. They let people get tired and go home and then eventually they arrested a few and let the rest move to a different location and the news was very complimentary towards them and praised them.

Here is the the interesting thing. For the first two hours of the standoff about every 5 minutes the police made an announcement over a loudspeaker that if the crowd didn't disperse the police would arrest them and use force if needed including chemical agents. the news said they were required by law to give that warning and nobody left. Had they actually started firing tear gas and it caused chaos and some poor kid or innocent person got trampled or hurt how much shitty press would the police and the city get for that? A ton! Not to mention the potential lawsuits.

In the end what do they gain from using gas? They showed some protesters who is boss? And what does that gain them? the risk VS reward is too big.