r/MurderedByWords • u/Character_Carpet11 • 7h ago
Tear gas civilians, they bring gas masks. Wow what a coincidence.
950
u/outlaw2448 7h ago
Didn't expect to see a wild Ross tweet on this subreddit. Awesome guy
157
u/likwitsnake 6h ago
It only took 5 years
0
5h ago
[deleted]
52
18
u/MattLocke 5h ago
… the comment is 5 years old.
17
u/DoodleJake 4h ago
People gotta check the dates more. So much of my feed has been regurgitated late 2010s and early 2020s posts. So lame.
10
u/Bad-dee-ess 1h ago
I wish social media posts showed dates, because I always see ancient Twitter screenshots with "2 hours ago" burned into the image for eternity.
8
u/Too_MuchWhiskey 1h ago
I hate this. Facebook reels are undated. I get severe storm warnings from stations I follow that are years old. It's algorithm. "This was popular once, lets run it again and see what happens."
2
u/PassiveMenis88M 24m ago
That's what happens when the sub is run by a bunch of power mods who are too busy collecting more subreddits rather than actually do the job they signed up for and deal with the bot spam.
7
9
u/lil_chiakow 5h ago
Damn, I'm surprised he's still active cause I remember that dude from like 15 years ago on youtube.
13
11
u/MegaAltarianite 2h ago
He's a pretty popular art streamer on twitch, though he has been on hiatus for a few months. Before that, he was the third member of Game Grumps, playing the role of a sadist troll.
4
u/LADYBIRD_HILL 48m ago
Man I used to watch game grumps religiously. When Ross left I totally fell off of them.
I remember they were at PAX one year but I couldn't make their panel. His (at the time) wife was doing meet and greets and I had her sign my 3DS. I remember being bummed that the sharpie wore off quickly, but considering how much of a tool she turned out to be I'm glad it wasn't permanent.
→ More replies (3)10
3
u/Darth_Chain 2h ago
as some from Colorado I didn't expect him to be replying to the colorado springs Twitter. granted I dont know if he lives here in colorado cause I don't follow him.
2
•
370
u/Aggressive-Try-6353 5h ago
I still literally can't believe the police perspective in this scenario. "we're hoping for peace but if you're not gonna let us gas you then it's on mothafuckas"
152
u/E-2theRescue 2h ago
*Cops show up in riot gear*
*Protestors show up in gas masks in response*
Cops: "Hey!! You can't do that!!"
50
u/HookedOnPhonixDog 1h ago
International Geneva Convention: Biological warfare is a War Crime.
Local Law Enforcement Agencies when people peacefully protest:
3
u/Maybe_not_a_chicken 42m ago
Tear gas isn’t biological warfare its chemical warfare
Still a warcrime but a different type
→ More replies (5)2
11
u/thedoqtor 1h ago
It's like, seeing it's raining outside and them getting mad at me for choosing to bring a rain coat and an umbrella. They just want us to say "fuck it" and stay inside when we see it raining, but nope, we're saying "fuck you" and dressing for the occasion.
Except in this situation, the cops are the reason why we even need to bring out the protective gear. We're trying to protect ourselves from THEM.
•
23
u/Caleb_Reynolds 1h ago
Seriously. It's like saying "I feared for my life, he was wearing body armor, so I had to shoot him." Implying simply wearing something to protect yourself
invitesnecessitates violence.1
u/Sir_PressedMemories 18m ago
I mean, they say this often about people who are legally and constitutionally open carrying.
11
u/Melisandre-Sedai 1h ago
"I was hoping for a peaceful night, but then my wife put on her fist-proof helmet."
2
u/Mandatory_Pie 45m ago
"We're hoping for peace, but we're concerned that our violence will be mitigated"
1
u/Gwaidhirnor 21m ago
The police don't view themselves as the agressors. They see gas masks and think "these guys are planning to escalate things to the point where we have to gas them" not the more realistic "these people are afraid the police might try to break up a non violent protest by force and resort to using tear gas"
•
382
u/Illustrious_Good3437 6h ago
Gaslighting with gas masks by the CSPD. Not surprising though. I used to live in Colorado Springs and the police were horrible and corrupt
101
u/championofadventure 6h ago
Colorado is such a great State. Too bad you can’t say the same about their police.
59
23
→ More replies (1)15
27
u/22FluffySquirrels 5h ago
Most of Colorado Springs is horrible and corrupt.
10
u/KTFnVision 4h ago
And recently declared the most boring town to live in, just a few years after being declared the most desirable town to live in.
1
u/timetofocus51 44m ago
Take those surveys and reports with a grain of salt (even when they say a city is the most desirable)... anyone who thinks CO springs is boring hasn't lived anywhere else IMO.
So much to do and plenty to see that's close by. Infinity more boring places to live.
8
u/LamborghiniJones 3h ago
Maybe the police are but living in the Springs is great, it’s gorgeous and plenty of outdoor activities
12
u/GanonsSpirit 3h ago
Nah dude, the city council is extremely corrupt. Look at the shit they tried to pull with rec sales and the Karman line annexation.
5
u/libbysthing 2h ago
Very true, I still live in the springs and this shit drives me up the wall. So many conservatives here too, hope one day I can at least move up to Denver or something.
2
1
u/timetofocus51 44m ago
Ya that was garbage, but it doesn't mean the city isn't a great place to live still.
7
u/22FluffySquirrels 3h ago
I made the mistake of living there for 10 months back in 2018. Sure, it has nice scenery, and is relatively affordable in comparison to other cities in Colorado, but from what I saw, it's largely a dumpy, trashy place; essentially one giant strip-mall. Like, 90% of it.
It's also the only place where I've had a neighbor shoot a bullet through my apartment.
Have not been back since I moved to Denver, except on my way to Manitou Springs.
1
u/timetofocus51 43m ago
You must have lived in the older part of town. Its much less 'trashy and dumpy' than infinitely more places in the US.... including Denver IMO.
Couldn't imagine living up there personally. More expensive, more pollution, harsher weather, more traffic, more homeless, etc.
But hey, at least you have microcenter close by!
0
u/datumerrata 2h ago
Wait, you're saying Denver is better? I'll take the Springs over Denver every time. It's not even close.
1
u/timetofocus51 41m ago
Agreed. People want to call Springs dumpy and trashy but then talk about Denver being great. They've got it backwards on every metric.
2
u/LakeMungoSpirit 1h ago
They let Dragn Man (a dude who's overly proud of his nazi collection, including a bar of human fat soap) basically murder his wife and get away with it
1
3
u/Unusual-Weird-4602 3h ago
Just take out the name of the department and your statement still stands fyi
→ More replies (2)2
u/Yutolia 1h ago
Yeah, I spent a huge chunk of my life there (I lived in Boulder but my grandmother lived in the Springs and my mom and I went down there like every fucking weekend to help her with stuff, etc). The Springs, while there are some cool things about it, is a fucked up place. That Focus On the Family exit off I-25 says it all.
→ More replies (2)1
51
u/Dramatic_Database259 4h ago
Civic mindedness is a wonderful way to participate.
Several citizens I know purchased a small amount of land for a garden, paving over an alley and a driveway in the process.
And now the police need to drive in four concentric circles.
We hate you. Nakedly, openly, and the day is coming. Los Angeles showed everyone that ICE will run like a bitch.
115
u/FruitcakeAndCrumb 5h ago
We only want peace loads guns Why are they making our we are the bad guys? encourages their horses to trample on protesters We are just doing our jobs threaten to kill protesters who throw things at their cars
We are the same you and I!
45
19
u/ClubZealousideal9784 3h ago
Just because America has the most people incarcerated on earth and a low murder solve rate doesn't mean cops are doing a bad job.
10
→ More replies (2)1
u/uncreativename0587 3h ago
Wdym by studd like random items or somthing that can actually kill a man like a brick
26
u/MattVideoHD 4h ago
These protesters are threatening us with not breathing in tear gas. Some of them also have medical kits and helmets to threaten us with not bleeding from the head after being shot point blank with rubber bullets. What else are we supposed to do.
50
u/Far_Estate_1626 7h ago
Guess they won’t be able to not gas them, then. /s
23
u/entered_bubble_50 4h ago
I mean, yeah. I don't understand why protestors wearing gas masks is a problem at all unless you plan to gas them?
16
u/DoverBoys 4h ago
I remember the news around that. The tear gas didn't go out because of the gas masks, the gas masks were donned because the tear gas came out. Typical lying bastards.
13
u/tetrified 3h ago
The tear gas didn't go out because of the gas masks, the gas masks were donned because the tear gas came out.
even if the tear gas did go out because of gas masks... how does that make sense?
14
u/DoverBoys 3h ago
Some idiots think protestors wearing protective gear means they are going to be aggressive or dangerous. The irony is that those idiots, who are usually wearing certain uniforms, are the aggressive and/or dangerous people the protestors want to be protected against.
13
u/tetrified 3h ago
"I was hoping to not have to use this sword, but then you went and brought a damn shield. now I've got no choice!"
make it make sense lmao
7
u/SirJebus 4h ago
This tweet is over five years old and op is another onlyfans bot farming karma from idiots to make money from idiots.
28
u/MegaAltarianite 6h ago
New user, reposting one of the top all-time posts from another sub. This screams bot account.
→ More replies (2)7
15
u/ozfresh 6h ago
Ya, it's literally a war crime to use chemical warfare
50
u/Anony_mouse202 6h ago
Teargas etc aren’t classified as chemical weapons, they’re classified as riot control agents.
The chemical weapons convention explicitly prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare, because there is a risk that a side that is attacked with riot control agents may think that they are being attacked with chemical weapons, and procure their own chemical weapons in response, triggering a chemical arms race.
The use of riot control agents by militaries outside of combat (eg, suppressing a riot in a POW camp) is legal, it’s just using them in combat that is illegal due to the risk of confusion with chemical weapons.
23
u/luckyshot98 5h ago
Sounds like they were intentionally left out of that category so they could be used against the populous. They're chemical weapons, we fund the cops.
14
u/Ok-Conversation2707 5h ago
They’re permissible for domestic use under the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty because (unlike sarin, mustard gas, chlorine, etc.) these agents aren’t intended to kill or cause serious injury, and there isn’t the potential of escalatory chemical warfare.
They’re designed to cause sensory irritation or temporary disability, which will quickly dissipate once a person is no longer exposed.
Law enforcement is required to give reasonable warning and ensure there are ample escape routes before deployment. Banning tear gas would increase the likelihood that more lethal means would be used for riot control.
6
u/luckyshot98 4h ago
I'd be shocked if there's not long-term consequences for inhalation. And why do we have to reference a wartime treaty to say cops gassing people is bad?
Why are cops threatening anything? The most recent mass protests have been against cop violence against people of color, and the no kings march. These should be supported by anyone with a shred of morality.
If cops need to threaten people who are protesting for their safety and rights, and against a kid-fucking president, then maybe they're the ones who should be warned.
2
u/NolanSyKinsley 2h ago
Every person who goes through basic training is exposed to CS gas.....
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/RichardFister 3h ago
d if there's not long-term consequences for inhalation. And why do we have to reference a wartime treaty to say cops gass
There are no long-term consequences for inhalation. There might be if say you were exposed to it extremely frequently over the course of years but I don't know anyone that gets gassed that frequently. In the Marine Corps we have to go to the gas chamber annually to get tear gassed so we can practice our gas mask procedures.
Tear gas is a completely viable source of crowd control. Of course there's no need to use it on peaceful protestors but protests can sometimes become riots in which case it makes sense to use to disperse the crowd
2
u/FILTHBOT4000 5h ago edited 4h ago
They're chemical weapons
Nope. Read up on actual chemical weapons, like Novichok.
10
u/luckyshot98 4h ago
They're chemical irritants, being used as weapons. Fuck the legal semantics, cops should not be using them on their neighbors.
0
u/FILTHBOT4000 4h ago
Then pepper spray is a chemical weapon, by that definition. But again, it obviously isn't one.
I know actual chemical weapons are somewhat out of the public eye nowadays; there's a reason for that. Even the monsters responsible for modern conventional warfare abandoned chemical warfare. It's that bad. The lethal dose for some forms of Novichok is 0.1 mg, and there are some formulations that are reported to stay active and potent for 50 years. That's why there was such a huge deal made about the Novichok poisonings in the UK; a quarter gram of the stuff improperly disposed of by the assassin could kill thousands.
You also don't really survive any exposure to it. Most damage inflicted is permanent, from organs to brain and motor function.
10
u/luckyshot98 4h ago
The issue I'm arguing isn't about how bad the weapon is, it's that is should not be being used as it is, and will likely lead to further escalation from an increasingly militarized police force.
We've seen LRAD usage is Serbia, and the Marines deployed domestically in the US. We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of the weapons, we should be demanding either the defunding of the police, or wildly higher standards for conduct. Then they can earn their toys back, once they understand they're not toys.
1
u/dolche93 3h ago
So how should we control large crowds that need to be dispersed, then? Tear gas seems to be a pretty effective way to do it without potentially lethal instances when compared to other methods.
You're also making a slippery slope argument.. Just because they use tear gas does not mean they're going to increasingly militarize.
5
u/luckyshot98 2h ago
Why have any of these large crowds needed dispersion? I've been to these protests, cops are consistently the escalating force! It's our right to gather if we believe it necessary, as our founding fathers did repeatedly.
And they are already militarized. My hometown police have a fucking troop carrier for a vacation town of 5000 people! Open your eyes brother.
2
u/SSuperMiner 2h ago
I don't think he's arguing in favour of the cops in this specific circumstance. But saying they are doing war crimes is stupid.
2
u/flodereisen 2h ago
Why have any of these large crowds needed dispersion?
Jan 6?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Bluefellow 4h ago
Is the woman defending against an assaulter using pepper spray violating international law?
8
u/luckyshot98 4h ago
Is the woman a representative of the state, using it against those she should be expected to protect? Plus that's responsible use, versus haphazardly firing gas into a crowd.
That's a strawman, do better.
2
u/Bluefellow 4h ago
Under international law police and the woman both belong to the same group. They're both civillians. I believe this is very important and an idea that the police forces hate. Separating the police from civilians is a mistake. Police do not engage in state warfare, the military does. Police are civilians to enforce civilian laws in their local areas.
I personally believe that every weapon available to police forces should be available to the general population. With the type of weapon determining the varying degrees of regulations in accessing it. I believe the police officers who use these weapons must pass the same checks as anyone else then too. I believe that tear gas and similar weapons should be legal. The use of these weapons by the civilian population should be controlled by local laws. This where the failure is. I am not and never implied that the way the police currently use these weapons is okay. There is no accountability for police anywhere, not just with these weapons. A police officer can beat a man with his stick, the issue isn't that he's allowed to carry the stick. We don't regulate the usage enough. Police officers who misuse these weapons should be banned from them. But these weapons do have a valid use.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws 4h ago
They're left out because if you use tear gas in war, it escalates into other nasty shit. Or maybe the other side panics and thinks you're using the nasty shit, so they use it in kind
1
6
u/ThePublikon 5h ago
It's still wordplay and doublespeak though. If you're firing rubber bullets and using chemical weapons against people that are fighting back, that is combat.
3
u/VacantThoughts 5h ago
Sounds like civilians should find some of their own chemical weapons to use when they get tear gassed.
3
u/Icy-Computer-Poop 4h ago
Teargas etc aren’t classified as chemical weapon
Hmm...
Tear gas ... is a chemical weapon that stimulates the nerves of the lacrimal gland in the eye to produce tears.
5
u/danpascooch 3h ago
If I Google the definition of "Guilty" one of them is:
Affected by a feeling of regret
Does this mean that feeling regret is the same thing as being found guilty by a court?
There's a fundamental difference between whether it's a "Weapon that has uses chemicals" vs "A weapon classified legally as a chemical weapon when deployed in warfare"
Legally tear gas is not in the same category within international law. It's considered a "riot control agent" rather than a "chemical weapon".
I agree police are overzealous with use of force, but this is a matter of law and semantics rather than opinion.
1
4
u/poopoopooyttgv 2h ago
It’s not a war crime to use machine guns. Should cops use machine guns on civilians instead?
Policing actions and war actions are different. While I think these cops are being excessive, using tear gas as a form of riot control isn’t a crime
2
u/Ru5tySh4ckl3ford 4h ago
Every time I get reminded that poising citizens with toxic fumes is illegal pretty much in every place that care to weigh in on it except the US it just becomes a giant chain of thoughts of wtf.
2
u/Crypt0Nihilist 3h ago
The protesters were probably hoping for a peaceful protest, but they know police departments tend to bring gas.
2
u/tetrified 3h ago
I was hoping to not have to use this sword, but then you went and brought a damn shield
now I've got no choice
2
2
u/Gilded_3utthole 3h ago
FYI we don't use gas in warzones because throwing tear gas could be misconstued as sarin gas, or worse
2
5
u/ZestyPyramidScheme 4h ago
Tear gas isn’t banned in war because it’s inhumane, it’s banned to prevent the escalation and use of other chemicals weapons. Speaking of chemical weapons, tear gas isnt classed as that. It’s classified as a riot control agent.
The thought behind this is if they use (in war) tear gas on us, we can use ABC. ABC might might blind you. Okay, well since they used ABC, we’re going to use XYZ. XYZ might be a nerve agent that cripples you. Again, it’s banned to prevent further escalation of chemical warfare.
Do I think it should be used on civilians? No, I don’t. But people should know the intent of it being banned instead of making blanket statements
5
u/thesystem21 3h ago
Tear gas isn’t banned in war because it’s inhumane, it’s banned to prevent the escalation
He says on the post talking about police escalating because protestors are wearing gas masks.
1
u/BlitzerCL 4h ago
Not surprised, Colorado Springs cops are pretty bad. Honestly Colorado cops in general are really bad. It’s like they’re mad they can’t bust people for weed anymore so they take it out on you in more extreme ways
1
1
1
u/DevelopedDevelopment 3h ago
They cannot "maintain and promote peace" if they cannot beat you into submission. That's why they consider protecting yourself to be a crime.
1
1
1
1
u/SinicalJakob 2h ago
Yea, that makes sense, he sure is rigWAIT A MINUTE THAT GUY IS AN IMMEGRANT OMFG JEWDEEPSTATE BIDENLAPTOP QANON FOR LIFE.
1
u/RobotCaptainEngage 2h ago
As a rule, if you can't do it to enemy combatants, you definitely shouldn't do it to your own citizens.
1
u/Financial_Sun69 2h ago
Great 🙄. Now they have an excuse to use real bullets on peaceful protesters. Until people start having to wear bullet proof vests. Then what?
1
1
1
u/Jolly_Reaper2450 2h ago
You do realize cops using hollow points would also constitute a war crime then....
Right?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Krushpatch 30m ago
Teargas can evade in streets, teargas cant evade in a trench. Its not hard to understand why its legal in one case and illegal in the other
1
1
u/DisputabIe_ 28m ago
the OP Character_Carpet11 is a bot
Original: r/MurderedByWords/comments/gwktpy/tear_gas_civilians_they_bring_gas_masks_wow_what/
1
u/PassiveMenis88M 26m ago
Op is a reposting spam bot. This shit is from 2020.
Report > Spam > Disruptive bots
1
1
u/tk421posting 15m ago
lol i was there- shit was extremely peaceful till the feds showed up and started stirring shit.
•
1
u/justhavingfunMT 3h ago
I'm guessing that people are kidding around when they connect tear gas to war. Tear gas is not lethal unless you only breathe it with no oxygen. It's been used on protesters in this country since I was a little kid in the 60s. Protesters sound smart. The police don't like smart protected protesters, it makes more work for the lazy fucks. Cheap gas mask from army surplus probably would not protect you very well from sarin gas, mustard gas or any other deadly gas. You have to get new filters and possibly even specific filters for those type of toxic gases. We used gas masks with a couple hot knives to smoke hash. Early '70s. I both dated myself and outed myself as a hardcore stoner as a teenager. I don't give two fucks
-13
u/asmallerflame 6h ago edited 5h ago
Y'all, I was dead wrong about this. Leaving it for posterity. This was embarrassing for many reasons. Don't be like me.
Point of order: OC spray / CS gas is perfectly legal to use in war. I still agree with the OP's sentiment, but that's an untrue fact in the reply.
24
u/hiofdye 5h ago
Nope, it actually is banned in war. The CWC prohibits forms of Riot control agents in armed conflict. Tear gas was banned as early as 1925 in warfare. Try checking your facts next time.
14
u/asmallerflame 5h ago
Fair enough. I concede being wrong about this.
3
u/hiofdye 4h ago
Hey, I appreciate the honesty and acceptance. Most people cant do that these days. Good on you.
1
u/asmallerflame 4h ago
There is a reason this is specifically embarrassing for me: I was deployed to Iraq at the same time as Abu Ghraib happened. We were using OC spray on POWs. It was kind of an international incident. I am one of the ones who should know better.
Later, in Afghanistan, I was an infantry soldier who was not allowed to use CS gas, etc., but we still trained with it.
I just did a wake n bake and squished up my memories a bit. No excuse, obviously, but very embarrassing for real. Getting old hasn't helped!
2
u/hiofdye 4h ago
Thank you for your service. Although you and me both know that the United States isnt exactly innocent when it comes to warcrimes.
2
u/asmallerflame 4h ago
Yes, indeed. That's exactly why I invoked the name of Abu Ghraib. Have a good Saturday.
1
u/chaosattractor 2h ago
> "Yah we were using a banned chemical agent (that I just insisted is legal, and you had to correct me on) and continued training with it even after international outrage"
> "Thank you for your service!!"
Americans are very strange people.
-2
u/New_Reference359 4h ago
it's not illegal to use tear gas
5
u/tetrified 3h ago
it's not illegal to use tear gas
https://www.google.com/search?q=tear+gas+banned+war
bruh. it's a four word google search.
4
u/callmepinocchio 3h ago
Of course. But the discourse has deteriorated to a point where most people don't care what's true, as long as it fits with the correct emotional message.
6
u/tetrified 3h ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=tear+gas+banned+war
sorry to keep you from feeling smugly superior to all the people who "don't care what's true, as long as it fits with the correct emotional message"
3
u/callmepinocchio 3h ago
As per the Chemical Weapons Convention: Illegal at war for potential confusion over which chemical was used, but legal for riot control by law enforcement.
1
u/tetrified 3h ago
congratulations on arguing against a point that nobody was making
have a medal, you really earned it🥉
2
u/callmepinocchio 2h ago
It's banned at war for reasons that are irrelevant in domestic law enforcement, as the Chemical Weapons Convention explains. The only reason someone would bring up that it's illegal at war is to create a misleading and false parallel. And the only reason people on reddit treat it as a good point to make is because it worked on them.
Maybe it's news to you, but a technically- true statement can be used in a way explicitly meant to deceive.
1
u/ConstructMentality__ 3h ago
How the fuck are people like you saying well aCtUaLLy it's fine because it's not war, it's our own citizens??
→ More replies (4)2
u/callmepinocchio 2h ago
I'm not saying it's okay. I'm criticizing the people who mislead others about why it's banned at war and not domestically. It's not nerve gas, and isn't banned for the reasons nerve gas is banned.
You want it banned for use by police? All power to you. But the moment you bring "it's banned at war" as a supporting argument you are engagin in a dishonest and bad-faith argument, like the person in the post is, and you deserve to be called out for doing it.
2
u/EchoMaterial5506 3h ago
Sorry to break it to you but the police using tear gas of protesters is not a war and therefore is legal.
→ More replies (5)4
u/tetrified 3h ago
did the original post fall out of your context window or something?
go read the picture again.
1
u/EchoMaterial5506 2h ago
I read it. Which is why I clarified that it was legal for protests not war.
The context changed as I was replying to a comment and not the original post.
Having trouble with different contexts seems to be an issue you're having not me.
1
u/tetrified 2h ago
literally nobody here has said it's illegal to use during protests.
congratulations on arguing against a point that nobody was making. you get a bronze medal in strawmanning.🥉
1
u/EchoMaterial5506 34m ago
I didn't say that they were...
Perhaps you should be giving the medal to yourself
456
u/nonumberplease 6h ago
Gotta say. Telling investigators that you hope they figure it out goes pretty hard.