Violent Confrontation at UCLA Protest Leaves Demonstrator with Serious Eye Injury
On May 2, 2024, a substantial police effort aimed at clearing a pro-Palestinian protest encampment on the UCLA campus escalated into violence. A left-wing demonstrator suffered a serious eye injury after being struck by a less-lethal projectile discharged by law enforcement. This incident unfolded following dispersal orders from the California Highway Patrol (CHP), who asserted that protesters had resorted to aggression by hurling frozen water bottles and other objects at the police.
Footage of the incident quickly spread across social media, capturing the moment an impact munition hit the protester in the face. One tweet blared, “🚨 BREAKING: A leftist has been shot in the EYE by less lethals in Los Angeles after rioters were throwing BOTTLES at LAPD following a dispersal order. If you don’t want to FAFO, don’t EMBED yourself in a riot. FAFO.” This video and others from the scene prompted scrutiny regarding law enforcement’s crowd control tactics and whether appropriate protocols were observed prior to the deployment of force.
Massive Operation Ends in Arrests, Injuries
A CHP report revealed that tensions escalated around 1 a.m. as officers attempted to clear the growing protest encampment, which was said to pose safety concerns on campus. The officers described facing “assaultive resistance” from protesters. Demonstrators allegedly launched projectiles including frozen water bottles, urine-filled bottles, wooden planks, poles, and fire extinguishers. Others reportedly used irritants against officers during the operation.
In response, CHP dispatches noted that an array of less-lethal weapons had to be deployed. Over a span of five to six hours, officers used 33 beanbag rounds and 24 direct-impact 40-millimeter rounds. Among this barrage, one round struck a masked protester in the eye, inflicting grave damage and leading to urgent medical assistance. While the injured individual’s condition remains unconfirmed, medical experts warned that such injuries could result in permanent impairment.
Arrests mounted as the operation concluded, with approximately 200 individuals taken into custody for unlawful assembly or failure to disperse. Some protesters required medical treatment for wounds caused by impact rounds, which included serious injuries such as head wounds and damaged fingers.
Experts Push Back Against Police Narrative
The CHP maintains that their officers targeted only demonstrators posing physical threats, but independent video analyses suggest otherwise. Reports from CalMatters and the Los Angeles Times indicate that officers sometimes fired projectiles indiscriminately, affecting not just violent agitators but also the crowd at large, including targeting vulnerable areas like the face and head—contravening department policy and state law.
Civil rights attorney Carol Sobel noted, “Sixty is a really large number. It’s really easy to miss targets, and instead hit bystanders, in fast-moving and confined protest crowds like the one at UCLA.” This insight emphasizes the potential consequences of overwhelming force in chaotic situations. Medical professionals, including Dr. Linden Doss and Dr. Rohini Haar, denounced the deployment of impact munitions, categorizing them as “far more damaging from a medical perspective” than acceptable for crowd management. Dr. Haar reinforced this point, stating, “At short ranges, they hit as hard as live ammunition… They really have no role in civilian policing, and I would say that’s even more important to underscore on college campuses.”
Broader Scrutiny of Less-Lethal Tactics
The shooting incident fits into a larger discussion around the appropriate use of “less-lethal” weapons by law enforcement during civil disturbances. California cities have faced scrutiny and legal action in response to how these tools are used, particularly following injuries to bystanders and journalists at protests. Earlier in the year, the Los Angeles City Council voted 8-4 to maintain LAPD’s ability to deploy 40mm foam rounds and tear gas, even amid concerns raised by some council members. Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez remarked, “These weapons have been deployed in ways that should make everyone here on this body pause.”
Supporters of these weapons, like former LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, contend that removing them from police arsenals could endanger public safety. McDonnell warned, “It puts us in a very bad position relative to city liability and relative to protecting our officers and the public that we serve.” However, the UCLA incident highlights the severe risks posed by allegedly non-lethal force in high-pressure crowd control situations. This event marks the first confirmed report filed under a 2020 California law that requires law enforcement to disclose their use of kinetic impact weapons during protests. This transparency comes after previous controversies regarding their application on peaceful demonstrators.
Escalation from Protest to Riot
Initially, the protest at UCLA began as a peaceful assembly opposing the Israeli military actions in Gaza. Participants, including UCLA students and outside activists, set up a temporary encampment. Tensions heightened when law enforcement issued dispersal orders, citing safety threats and unauthorized structures. After several warnings, officers advanced. The CHP stated that some protesters began to assault officers with dangerous projectiles, leading to a tactical police response.
This incident reflects a broader trend in Los Angeles protests: planned peaceful gatherings often devolve into violence after instigators escalate tensions. Police, adhering to established protocols, then resort to force—including less-lethal rounds—that can result in serious injuries.
Political and Legal Ramifications
The events at UCLA represent a microcosm of a national pattern scrutinizing law enforcement’s reliance on projectile weapons in crowd situations. Critics argue that less-lethal force can often be misused or disproportionately imposed, leading to grievous injuries among demonstrators. Conversely, some assert that enforcement measures, such as those executed at UCLA, are warranted responses to demonstrators who engage in violence or defy dispersal directives. The social media sentiment echoed this view: “If you don’t want to FAFO, don’t embed yourself in a riot.”
As the situation stands, it’s evident that the issue of crowd control is far from settled. With protests poised to continue on college campuses across the nation, the discussions around balancing public order with First Amendment rights—while preventing devastating injuries—are set to intensify.
"*" indicates required fields
