Read two views and vote in our online poll.
YES
Ben Ewen-Campen
Somerville Ward 3 city councilor
This past spring, law enforcement officers fired tear gas at Black Lives Matters protesters in more than 100 cities across the country, including in Massachusetts. Images of people fleeing clouds of tear gas on American streets have become so common that we risk becoming numb to just how dangerous this practice is — both for public health and for civil rights.
Tear gas is prohibited in war, yet it remains legal for domestic use against civilians. Since at least the 1930s law enforcement has fired tear gas on civil rights protesters, organized workers, and migrants at the border, but the issue has taken on even greater urgency this year as what may be the largest protest movement in American history has collided with a devastating and highly contagious respiratory pandemic.
Tear gas is not safe, and the health risks are gravely amplified amid COVID-19. It is intended to cause acute pain to the eyes, nose, mouth, and lungs, yet it can also cause lasting damage to the respiratory system, leaving victims more susceptible to respiratory infection. Medical studies of soldiers intentionally exposed during training found that otherwise healthy soldiers wound up with significantly increased risk for acute respiratory illnesses. The effects can be graver for people with preexisting conditions, children, and infants. Tear gas is indiscriminate. It affects bystanders and seeps into nearby homes and buildings. Recently, 1,300 medical professionals signed an open letter calling for a ban on the use of tear gas.
Concerns about police use of tear gas has prompted some US cities to consider prohibiting it, with several adopting temporary bans. In Massachusetts, despite strong efforts from state Representatives Liz Miranda, Mike Connolly, and others, action on a statewide ban has stalled. Without state leadership, cities and towns must step up, as we have done on issues such as facial recognition, surveillance technology, and other critical police oversight issues. City councilors in Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston have filed legislation to either ban or greatly constrain the use of tear gas. Longstanding international agreements have concluded that tear gas should not be used at war. We believe it shouldn’t be used at home, either.
NO
Mark Dubois
Chief, Braintree Police Department
Chemical irritants, commonly referred to as tear gas or pepper spray, serve as effective tools for law enforcement and should not be banned by cities and towns.
Tear gas has become a generic term for these agents, but I believe there are important distinctions to be made between tear gas and pepper spray. Tear gas is an extremely effective chemical agent used sparingly by law enforcement. Pepper spray is an oily resin derived from a plant genus that includes chili peppers. Pepper spray is widely available to the general public for personal defense while tear gas is limited to law enforcement use. A ban on either, or both, of these agents would limit law enforcement’s options when responding to a variety of situations and result, ironically, in an increase in danger for both the public and the officers involved.
Most or all the Commonwealth’s law enforcement officers carry pepper spray. If de-escalation techniques fail and officers have to use force, pepper spray is on the lower end of an officer’s less-lethal force options because the effects are temporary and the potential injury rate is low. Without the ability to use pepper spray, an officer’s alternatives for less-lethal force are limited to such alternatives as tasers and batons. The resulting harms from limiting these options are foreseeable: higher injury rates for officers and for those upon whom force is used.
Law enforcement’s use of tear gas is almost exclusive to the Commonwealth’s SWAT teams as part of their inventory of less-lethal force options. These agents are used to address specific critical incidents including barricaded suspects, hostage situations, and riot control. Without the less-lethal option of tear gas, SWAT teams would have to employ higher levels of force to effectively respond to a critical incident. Again, the resulting harms are foreseeable and include greater risk of harm to officers and bystanders.
Cities and towns should not ban chemical irritants as they have an appropriate and necessary place in law enforcement. Instead, we should focus on developing and implementing proper training and procedures on the use of these irritants. More options, rather than fewer, ensure the best possible outcome for everyone involved.
As told to Globe correspondent John Laidler. To suggest a topic, please contact laidler@globe.com.
"gas" - Google News
November 29, 2020 at 06:51AM
https://ift.tt/2VdvfKZ
Should Massachusetts cities and towns ban the use of tear gas by their police departments? - The Boston Globe
"gas" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2LxAFvS
https://ift.tt/3fcD5NP
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Should Massachusetts cities and towns ban the use of tear gas by their police departments? - The Boston Globe"
Post a Comment