Can Anyone Find Evidence Of This?

[Sparko]

I'm thinking that more than one agency was present in the park, because there was definitely tear gas used.

No, I hadn't. I was going by the video I watched and the Australian report.

How can you tell the difference between a smoke canister and tear gas on tv?

They said no tear gas was used. I believe them.

[Ronson]

It makes it more difficult for the protestors to see each other, and to see the police - it creates confusion while the police reposition, or change strategy.



Could well be a psychological effect -- see smoke, assume tear gas, try to hold your breath.... I really don't know - just telling you what they're saying, and noting the officers don't seem to be wearing gas masks. BEFORE they deployed tear gas, they'd "mask up".

Makes sense.

[Ronson]

How can you tell the difference between a smoke canister and tear gas on tv?

They said no tear gas was used. I believe them.

OK, I'll stand down.

Australians were there and they claimed "tear gas", so I believed them. But as CP noted, the police did not "mask up", which they would have done if they used gas.

[DivineOb]

I really think this is a distinction without a difference. Gas was used to incapacitate, cause panic, and forcefully clear peaceful protestors well in advance of the curfew. LE forced their way onto church property to pursue peaceful protestors. This was done for a pointless photo op by a fake Christian to pander to fake Christians. Those are the facts I am aware of.

If the protestors were violent then that changes things to an extent. Is there video evidence of the protestors being violent? Surely it would exist if that were the case. The video and first hand accounts I have seen do not portray that.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I'll stand down.

Australians were there and they claimed "tear gas", so I believed them. But as CP noted, the police did not "mask up", which they would have done if they used gas.

And, then again, we're only seeing bits and pieces -- could be THAT was smoke, and ELSEWHERE was tear gas - I really don't know. But I'd pretty much bet the farm that, in the picture, that was not tear gas.

[Cow Poke]

I really think this is a distinction without a difference. Gas was used to incapacitate, cause panic, and forcefully clear peaceful protestors well in advance of the curfew. LE forced their way onto church property to pursue peaceful protestors.

WHOLE lot of speculatin' goin' on there, friend.

This was done for a pointless photo op by a fake Christian to pander to fake Christians. Those are the facts I am aware of.

I said right up front I thought it was HORRIBLE optics.

If the protestors were violent then that changes things to an extent. Is there video evidence of the protestors being violent? Surely it would exist if that were the case. The video and first hand accounts I have seen do not portray that.

I'm way more comfortable saying "I wasn't there, I don't really know". We know parts and pieces, but regardless, I still think the photo op was stupid, wrong, bad -- in no way do I think it was a good idea.

[Mountain Man]

Gas was used to incapacitate, cause panic, and forcefully clear peaceful protestors well in advance of the curfew.

Did you just totally skip over Sparko's post?

At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/par...r-gas-was-used

Unless this is some strange use of "peaceful protestor" that I was previously unaware of.

[Cow Poke]

Makes sense.

As a matter of fact, on the "masking up" - I remember from my own training, this was a very deliberate psychological act to broadcast "ok, we're serious" ---- remove helmet, hold it between your knees, slowly and deliberately get the gas mask out of the bag hanging from your belt, put the gas mask on, put your helmet back on, lower your face shield (if the mask doesn't have its own) and take that stance that says "we ready!"

But, them were the olden' days. It was kinda like cranking the shotgun once to put a round in the chamber to let somebody know you mean business.

[DivineOb]

Did you just totally skip over Sparko's post?

At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/par...r-gas-was-used

Unless this is some strange use of "peaceful protestor" that I was previously unaware of.

I did not skip over his post. I'm asking for that to be substantiated. I have zero doubt that if the protestors were being violent as described that video exists and will surface. At this point the video and testimonial evidence I've seen say the opposite, so the balance of the evidence supports the protestors being peaceful.

[DivineOb]

WHOLE lot of speculatin' goin' on there, friend.

As far as I know the only "speculation" is that the protestors were indeed peaceful. There is video evidence of most of the remainder (and testimonial evidence from clergy who were at the church).

In any case, I'm not in a rush to nail all this down. What I fear is that people get too caught up on whether what was described as "tear gas" was actually tear gas or something different and lose sight of what actually happened. I know you are firm believer that people can walk and chew gum at the same time but I have less trust in that than you :).

[DivineOb]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...bbd_story.html

According to the CDC, it was tear gas.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “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.”

And, according to the CDC, “several different compounds” fall under this definition, and are employed by security forces, including military and police, in riot control situations.

Among others, they include chloroacetophenone (CN), more commonly referred to as “mace,” or pepper sprays — in other words, the compound that was deployed in Lafayette Square — and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS), “one of the most commonly used tear gases in the world,” according to an article in the British Medical Journal.

The CDC does indeed classify it as tear gas. I have not seen specific reporting as to the fact that chloroacetophenone was what was deployed.

[Mountain Man]

I did not skip over his post. I'm asking for that to be substantiated.

That's an official statement from the United States Park Police. It's not your usual "sources say" nonsense, so that's probably what confused you.

[Cow Poke]

As far as I know the only "speculation" is that the protestors were indeed peaceful. There is video evidence of most of the remainder (and testimonial evidence from clergy who were at the church).

In any case, I'm not in a rush to nail all this down. What I fear is that people get too caught up on whether what was described as "tear gas" was actually tear gas or something different and lose sight of what actually happened. I know you are firm believer that people can walk and chew gum at the same time but I have less trust in that than you :).

My concern is that there could well be multiple events with various... it could well be that peaceful protesters were being removed, and at OTHER places that not so peaceful protesters were being dealt with, and that tear gas may have been used one place while smoke was used elsewhere --- it's really hard to look at, for example, the picture I posted where I can say with reasonable certainty that it was smoke, NOT tear gas - that doesn't mean that tear gas wasn't used elsewhere.

[oxmixmudd]

My concern is that there could well be multiple events with various... it could well be that peaceful protesters were being removed, and at OTHER places that not so peaceful protesters were being dealt with, and that tear gas may have been used one place while smoke was used elsewhere --- it's really hard to look at, for example, the picture I posted where I can say with reasonable certainty that it was smoke, NOT tear gas - that doesn't mean that tear gas wasn't used elsewhere.

It is clear the protesters on Lafayette square were removed forcefully with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs to make way for Donald Trump's photo op.

[KingsGambit]

Unlike most routine condemnations of Trump, this seems relevant:

James Mattis believes that the use of force was unconstitutional here. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...zation/612640/