[bigDinosaur]

Obviously different laws apply to different groups. The police can also do things (arrest people) that would usually be a crime for soldiers to do. Tear gas use by police is either right or wrong, useful or not useful, justifiable or not justifiable, but it's not really related to why chemical warfare is banned in war. We also don't justify the ability and legality of police to kill based on the legality of killing enemy combatants in war, either.

[thatcat]

We can compare them and see that the police force oversteps its civilian role. Your point about the requirements to kill enemy combatants strenghtens that arguement.

[bigDinosaur]

My point is that we don't define what police do based on what soldiers do, so it's a red herring in terms of politics and legalities. We define whatever the limits on policing are separately, and tear gas is specially carved out for use by the police. My point isn't that that's right but that it's again not defined by the reasoning used to prevent escalatory chemical warfare in an actual war.