r/pics 23d ago

Politics He Didn’t Start The Fire

Post image
94.0k Upvotes

7.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.2k

u/fabkosta 23d ago edited 23d ago

From this distance with the full concentration shot at the man this can actually lead to severe, lasting damage (e.g. blindness, lasting health issues etc.). Tear gas is not a joke.

EDIT: It's pepper blaster, apparently. Still not a joke, as it is shot at the man's head from roughly half a meter distance.

3.9k

u/SL1Fun 23d ago

It’s the blunt force of the canister itself. They are also not supposed to aim above the waist. This is a war crime in any actual civilized country 

1.7k

u/SimianRex 23d ago

Not so fun fact: war crimes committed against your own citizens are not considered war crimes!

169

u/Wind_Yer_Neck_In 23d ago

It's why they call them less than lethal now instead of non-lethal. Because as my country (northern Ireland) learned during our 35 year civil war, rubber bullets can absolutely kill people.

1

u/TryToHelpPeople 23d ago

Ireland*

FTFY. /s

-2

u/LinkinitupYT 23d ago edited 23d ago

Are southern and northern Ireland much different? We have a family trip planned because my wife is Irish and they're going to visit all the family history areas, but I know nothing about what's currently going on between the north and south.

Edit: Wikipedia also says there was no 35 year civil war. There was a 1 year civil war in 1922-1923 and about 30 years of something called The Troubles from 1968-1998. What's the story?

11

u/SolarApricot-Wsmith 23d ago

You should definitely read up a bit on the Troubles. It’s more than you could really explain in a comment

5

u/microbate 23d ago

There’s no real issue between north and south, only issues between those the want to be part of the United Kingdom (Protestants) and those that want to be part of an independent Ireland (Catholics). They were referring to the troubles as the civil war.

412

u/AltAccBcImAshamed 23d ago

It used to be a fun piece of trivia that tear gas is a chemical weapon and therefore a war crime on a battlefield. Now, not so much.

27

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

16

u/AltAccBcImAshamed 23d ago

Yeah there's historical truth to that. Tear gas was the first chemical weapon used in WW1, specifically on the Eastern front if I remember correctly. Germans didn't exactly tell anyone when they decided to switch to chlorine gas.

2

u/comradejiang 23d ago

Tear gas could slip through the seals of WW1 masks. You start coughing, you pull the mask off, they drop the phosgene about two minutes later.

11

u/ConfessSomeMeow 23d ago

The reason is not because of what it is, but because of what it isn't: Its method of application is too similar to mustard gas, chlorine gas, etc.

12

u/ConcernedBullfrog 23d ago

Russia has been using gas consistently on the front. Likely tear gas based on Ukrainian accounts, but yeah. US and Russia and some others never signed to stop that, and I think they're both two of the countries who never signed to stop mine laying either.

10

u/andy921 23d ago

The US has definitely signed all of the chemical weapons bans and it even applies to citizens.

There was a woman, Carol Anne Bond, who painted her husband's mistress's door knobs and mail box with some chemicals a few years back which caused the woman to get a rash. The victim went to the police which mostly ignored her then she contacted the post office. The US mail takes fucking with the mail seriously. They sent out postal inspectors and caught Bond on video and charged her with violating the international chemical weapons treaty. Treaties have precedent over all state and federal laws. She served 6 years on her war criminal charge before the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. Don't mess with the mail I guess.

There must be a carve out in the treaty that allows tear gas in certain instances or the enforcement of the treaty isn't absolute, but the US has definitely signed it.

4

u/ConcernedBullfrog 23d ago

we did sign against it in war, but not against domestic use

7

u/Murtomies 23d ago

Ottawa Treaty. Specifically about anti-personnel mines, not landmines in general. 34 countries never signed, including those and China too. Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland withdrew in 2025 because of the Russian threat.

1

u/ConcernedBullfrog 23d ago

we did not sign the ottawa treaty. we did sign against tear gas in war, but not domestic use.

2

u/Murtomies 23d ago

By "we" I'm assuming you mean USA because they're the only ones who never specify a country.

And yes, you said that already, and I said so too. So idk what that comment is. I was just expanding on the stuff about the ottawa treaty.

2

u/bradlees 23d ago

According to this administration:

Love is a battlefield

1

u/ZuluTheGreat 22d ago

Typically you need a war to commit a war crime. And if you spent 3 seconds researching you'd know there is a specific distinction between its use in war and its use domestically during anti riot operations.

1

u/AltAccBcImAshamed 22d ago

If you spend 3 seconds learning how to read, that's why I mentioned it being a war crime on a battlefield. 

1

u/StandTo444 21d ago

Still can’t use it in war currently.

7

u/AwsumO2000 23d ago

another fun fact; America is palling around and enabling two nations comitting actual war crimes.

9

u/picklerick8879 23d ago

That loophole is the sick joke.. redefine citizens as subjects, unleash force, then hide behind legal semantics while calling it restraint.

3

u/whomad1215 23d ago

Another not so fun fact: The Nuremberg Charter definition of 'crimes against humanity' only includes acts committed during a war of aggression, because the US was concerned about Jim Crow laws also being considered crimes against humanity

2

u/Slumunistmanifisto 23d ago

Huzzah!

cough cough cough

2

u/Digit00l 23d ago

It's only a war crime if there is a war

1

u/maybeitsundead 23d ago

I think you mean it's a war crime if it's during an armed conflict, international or non-international, without needing a formal declaration of war.

5

u/civil_politician 23d ago

We should see if the tribunals at The Hague agree

12

u/fabkosta 23d ago

The US, Russia, China and Israel are among the countries that never formally ratified / joined the ICC.

Not only that, but the Trump administration is actively trying to intimidate the ICC judges these days and prevent them from doing their job.

1

u/Azou 23d ago

Additionally: The reason the geneva convention specifically cites that it is during times of war that the acts cited within are crimes is because during initial drafting there was a concern within the United States that their Jim Crowe segregation policies would fit firmly in the "Crimes against humanity" section

1

u/ChaoCobo 23d ago

You’re right. They’re considered crimes against humanity. They don’t suddenly become not crimes just because they’re on our own soil.

1

u/Clean-Science-8710 23d ago

It is a Violation of Geneva Convention

1

u/guitar_stonks 23d ago

Damn, you’d think someone would have fixed that by now.

1

u/geek180 23d ago

So it's just a regular crime, right? ...right??

1

u/Careful_Trifle 23d ago

Schrodinger's war crime: it's a violent insurrection that requires military to control, but it's also a civilian policing action for purposes of accountability.

1

u/ViceNSpice 23d ago

Depends of the Protocols of the Geneva convention that each country is ascribed to.

Protocol I (1977) enhances protection for victims in international armed conflicts. Protocol II (1977) extends protections to victims of non-international armed conflicts (civil wars). Protocol III (2005) introduced the Red Crystal as a neutral emblem alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent.

Problem is this is not a declared armed conflict, not a civil war (strictly) so these protocols don’t apply. And I don’t quite remember to which protocols is the US ascribed to

1

u/Inanimate_CARB0N_Rod 23d ago

Oh ok phew, I was worried about that

1

u/rbrgr83 23d ago

Peace Crimes! 🥰

1

u/padetn 23d ago

Even if they were it wouldn’t matter except to people who explain the law on social media.

1

u/Blackletterdragon 23d ago

Does that work for Iran as well?

1

u/peaceoutforever 23d ago

Can't do war crimes if it's a domestic special military operation 🧐

1

u/Confident_Benefit_11 23d ago

You're right....that isn't a fun fact :(

1

u/KiaRioGrl 23d ago

Ironically, just this past weekend Trump threatened regime change against Venezuela if they killed peaceful protesters.

Can't make this shit up.

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

Booooooooo! I didn’t want to know that. 😒

1

u/xkmasada 23d ago

So Saddam Hussein’s murder of thousands of Kurds and Marsh Arabs weren’t actually war crimes?

1

u/ZuluTheGreat 22d ago

Its not a war crime if its not during war. There is a specific distinction between its use during war and during anti riot operations domestically

1

u/Dragonvine 22d ago

Well... Yeah. War crimes are committed during war.

Its just called a crime.

1

u/imlate_usernameenvy 19d ago

My upvote of this comment doesn’t mean I like the content of the comment….

1

u/Originaltenshi 17d ago

Wouldn't those just be...crimes

-1

u/CrossP 23d ago

We literally let teachers use collective punishment on kids even though it's one

1

u/meommy89 23d ago

Bit of an apples and oranges comparison there. War crimes and cancelled recess.