@1:

I guess it's time for my weekly reminder to you to go fuck yourself...

None of this should be surprising to anyone who's been paying attention: LEA's in the U.S. routine engage in practices that, were they to occur in the context of a conflict between military forces of opposing nations would be classified as war crimes; but the Geneva Protocols specifically carve out exemptions for use of these so-called "non-lethal" (more accurately described as "generally - but not exclusively - less lethal") munitions against their own citizens. Go figure.

No shit. Just add it to the long list of human rights violations the Trump administration has foisted upon this country and people attempting to immigrate and/or find asylum in this country. If another country had engaged in the crimes against the people here that Trump and his minions have, we would be engaged in World War III. But it's just the federal government and the police of the United States and white supremacist terrorists committing these crimes so no big fucking deal, right? This country is over. Trump will finish destroying it before he is removed.

@3, I'm not sure why anyone really buys this argument. Policing is different than armed conflicts, and what is acceptable in each differs. For example, the use of artillery is accepted in armed conflicts in ways that would never be seen as good policing. Police have much wider abilities to detain people, and for good reason. It's not shocking that police have greater access to crowd control weapons than armed forces. The argument is basically that the Geneva Protocols carve out an exemption for the use of these munitions in these circumstances... and then the cops use them.

@5:

The argument is: if it's morally and legally reprehensible to use something on the battlefield against enemy combatants, why isn't it morally and legally reprehensible to use the same thing on your own citizens?

@6, Tear gas was not banned because it was a weapon to horrible to use, which is what that argument would imply. Militaries were banned from using tear gas in combat because the worry was that something more toxic would be added and this would eventually escalate into full on chemical warfare, which was a pretty relevant concern in 1925 when these rules were written. There wasn't the same worry that the cops would start adding nerve gas, hence their exception. The army does use tear gas, but against their own soldiers in training rather than enemy combatants on the battle field.

The argument that something is illegal in combat and therefore should be illegal in policing simply doesn't hold up. For example, it'd be illegal for a soldier on the battlefield to dress in civilian clothes. This doesn't make it illegal or reprehensible for cops to wear plain clothes while on duty. They're two different situations with different rules, something which the people writing the Geneva Protocols recognized.