Tear Gas Today, Legal Precedent Tomorrow
THE CLAIM: A federal judge in Oregon, Marco Hernandez, has restricted the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and other crowd control munitions by federal agents against protestors in Portland. Curious, isn't it, how a federal judge steps in only after months of widespread public outcry and hundreds of documented injuries from tactics previously deemed perfectly acceptable. THE EVIDENCE: The ruling,
issued on [September 14, 2020, though the original article is from 2020 which is not relevant to current events without new information, it shows that the context is about the 2020 Portland protests, so that date should be assumed. This ruling was an extension, not the initial ruling, but for the purpose of the exercise, and the lack of new information, the 2020 date is used as the context for
ongoing issues], specifically prohibits federal agents from using these weapons unless approved by a commanding officer and against individuals who pose a threat of bodily harm. Curious, because many would argue that any use of these weapons on unarmed protestors by federal agents in unmarked vans is, in itself, a threat of bodily harm. The initial injunction, issued in August 2020, was in favor
of Don't Shoot Portland, a local activist group. This new, stronger order came after agents apparently didn't get the memo. THE CONTRADICTIONS: Let's state the obvious: the federal government's threshold for 'threat' seems remarkably different depending on who's protesting. When farmers in France protest agricultural policies, they face rubber bullets and water cannons. When pro-democracy