In response to the protests that shut down I-76 and I-95 in 2020, the use of tear gas and rubber bullets have now become a national issue because of the #protestors. The Philadelphia City Council made it their mission to stop police from using chemical weapons non-deadly projectiles on protestors in the event of civil unrest. This concern by city managers and several other officials led to them passing a bill that proposed a total ban on using these tactics due to the cause of public discomfort and health hazards.

But why is everyone so engrossed in denying the police the tools they need to bring a rowdy crowd under control? Should the police be prosecuted for using these chemical weapons? Of course not. The riot or so-called "protest" that later developed into looting and civil unrest was worth every canister of tear gas. There are reasons as to why the police should not be stripped of their nonlethal weapons. Protests can develop into violence and mass vandalism and the police are tasked with stopping it. Protestors can also be looters, causing harm to the community and its public as well as private properties. Tear gas is an effective tool for the police to use as it helps in controlling a mad crowd. “Tear gas is one of the best ways to use nonlethal force to disperse a crowd,” said Republican Graham Filler, whose job history includes working as a state assistant attorney general for years. “If we continue to hamstring police, I just really worry that we go too far,” he concluded.

Many of the protestors came to the streets with the intention of making a demonstration on the unfortunate death of George Floyd. Unfortunately, a large number of them crossed the line between protesting and rioting when they began looting, causing havoc to the stores and vehicles they set ablaze. Peaceful demonstrations are not supposed to look like that. The protest in question was “a night of destruction with store windows smashed near City Hall, and merchandise taken from stores.” Of course, not all the protestors were to blame, but some chose to show their disgust towards the police in that way. Footage of the protests showed the "peaceful" protesters vandalizing stores, looting items, and attempting to break down ATMs. There are even charges against a woman who ran over a police officer in Old City and another woman who allegedly set fire to two police cars at City Hall. 

The police had to do something decisively and quickly. They weren't about to shoot at the protestors, so they used tear gas instead. What were they supposed to do? Join hands and ask the protestors to leave? It doesn’t work that way. If swift action was not taken, the rioting could have escalated even further. The police had no other choice but to stop the growing crowd of protestors. Is there an alternative that the city has up its sleeve that is more effective and crowd-friendly? Or is the City Council willing to guarantee that such situations will never transpire in the future?

Helen Gym, the Philadelphia City Councilwoman said the kind of force the police used “had not been deployed on such a scale in our city in decades.” But can the Council suggest an alternative to the tear gas or rubber bullets for such chaos? Calming music to tranquilize the crowd, or perhaps physical force and real bullets? No.

“What if we didn’t have gas? What would our alternative be?” questioned Jim Ferraris, president of the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police. “Our alternative is physical force.” The police need to think of their safety too. Who is going to protect them while braving the protest of a violent and aggressive crowd? That responsibility cannot be carried by citizens. 

There’s no guarantee that there won’t continue to be protests with the potential to contaminate the peace of the city. The opposition to the use of tear gas and other nonlethal policing methods is focused on the aftermath instead of the possible effects of not using these methods of control. The alternatives are far more dangerous, potentially lethal physical force or no force at all... which would result in more damage, pain, and anarchy.