Well, heres the proof. Its U.S code.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.
(a) Prohibited activities
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(this sounds about right, but then theres this)
(b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
!!!!!!!(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.!!!!!!!!!
2006-09-16 17:21:40 · 10 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
SO THERE IT IS. A police officer has the legal authority to pull you over and kill you with a bilogical weapon. Or if you are a striking teacher or a civil rights marcher they can KILL YOU WITH A BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL WEAPON LEGALY.
2006-09-16 17:21:57 · update #1
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001520---a000-.html
2006-09-16 17:22:20 · update #2
e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.
2006-09-16 17:23:27 · update #3
READ (E) BEFORE YOU ANSWER!!!
_illyanna,Warren H
2006-09-16 17:44:08 · update #4
That is wondeful news. It's about time they came up with something to control you libs.
2006-09-16 17:34:55 · answer #1 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually, the code section (b3) doesn't say they can. It just says that the prohibition in section (a) doesn't apply to law enforcement use.
The difference is that many other sections of the US Code, and local or state laws, can still prohibit such weapons or agents. There are over 150 other sections in the US Code, which regulate or refer to the use of biological weapons or agents.
So, 50 USC 1520a doesn't affirmatively say they CAN; that section just doesn't say they CANNOT. Other sections do.
2006-09-16 17:35:04 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Looks like the exception was made for tear gas to control crowds. That is a chemical agent and if the exception wasn't made they couldn't use it. It might have also applied to pepper spray and a bunch of other non-lethyl weapons.
So it looks like the exception was to give law enforcement tools that DIDN"T require that they kill you.
It also is about testing not the use of. I really want law enforcement to be able to test rather something might help them.
You really should read what you post.
2006-09-16 17:40:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
lol...dude...what do you think mace spray and pepper gas is?
If you do not believe it is a biological agent used in riot control to avoid civilian casualty by bullets then you need to reread that pepper spray cannister warning label.
Yes. biological agents are allowed in police actions. biological agents, not biological weapons. There is a difference in definition by legal manifestation. weapons are designated for things that can kill....agents are designated for things that can subdo. Yes they can substitute for one another on limited occation but in different preparation. If you have an officer of the law carrying a biological weapon that officer is a problem. If the officer is purposely preparing an agent of subdual in converstion to a weapon. We no longer have an officer of the law to contend with but a serial killer.
2006-09-16 17:30:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not till just now, but unforunately I am not all that suprised
my 84 year old grandma has been enlightening me to so
many goverment control issues that I get to where I
sometimes think that ignorance is bliss. There was a time
when she thought that the people could take back control
of our government,but she now has no hope, and feels
sorry for future generations.
2006-09-16 17:33:45 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in case you imagine of about it. there's a organic and organic and organic and organic agent in boot camp it really is C-5 gas and it burns and stings the eyes and make your pores and pores and skin burn and harm and eyes water and burn and makes you vomit. It kills each and every difficulty that it touches on you and in you. yet my brother went through an same aspect in boot camp with the C-5 gas and did the acceptable same aspect and he went through each and every difficulty that i in basic terms now recommended you. that could want to wish to be what the regulation inforcement is employing and diverse gases which on the on the spot at the on the spot are not lengthy time period consequences. C-5 gas isn't an prolonged time period effect.
2016-11-27 19:42:19 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually yes
2006-09-19 23:50:39 · answer #7 · answered by Moupai 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think our police officers have too much power as it is.
2006-09-16 20:24:07 · answer #8 · answered by bobby h 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well its about time
2006-09-16 17:24:33 · answer #9 · answered by mike k 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats the way they want it. our country spent years battling communistic oppression and here we are in a military state. we got nowhere except for where our government wanted us. the police can do anything to anyone with no repremand. welcome to hell.
2006-09-16 17:33:03 · answer #10 · answered by chris l 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋