Los Angeles City Council Rejects Proposal to Limit Police Use of Less-Lethal Weapons
The Los Angeles City Council voted against a proposal on Tuesday that would have prohibited police from using weapons that launch hard-foam projectiles and tear gas, amid lingering concerns about their deployment at protests last summer. The proposal, which was rejected 8 to 4 with three council members absent, sought to bar the LAPD’s use of two types of military weapons – tear gas and 40-millimeter less-lethal launchers – at protests, as well as for everyday patrols and other special events.
Concerns Over Police Use of Force
Ordinance backer Hugo Soto-Martinez argued that extra restrictions were justified because Los Angeles Police Department officers seemed to be deploying the weapons in ways that violated state law, court orders, and the department’s own policies. He cited videos from the protests over the federal immigration crackdown that roiled the city last summer, which revealed “documented verified evidence of military equipment being used in ways that should make everyone on this body pause.” Soto-Martinez noted that on one day alone in early June, LAPD officers fired more than 1,000 foam projectiles, appearing to fire indiscriminately into crowds of protesters with weapons that are meant to target specific individuals.
Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez also expressed concerns about the police use of force, pressing LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell about his department’s response to the protests. McDonnell defended the use of less-lethal launchers, saying they allow officers to avoid the use of more dangerous weapons. However, Hernandez took exception to McDonnell’s characterization of the LAPD as a “model” for other departments, pointing to the massive legal payouts that the city has had to make for police excessive force and other misconduct.
Debate Over the Effectiveness of Less-Lethal Weapons
The use of police weapons designed to subdue rather than kill has been a topic of debate. Critics argue that the term “less lethal” is misleading, since such weapons have resulted in deaths and millions of dollars in legal settlements to people who sued after they were seriously injured from being hit in the head or groin. On the other hand, proponents of less-lethal weapons, such as McDonnell, argue that they are effective in de-escalating situations and preventing the use of more deadly force.
In September, a federal judge extended restrictions that prohibit federal Homeland Security agents and LAPD officers from using less-lethal weapons against peaceful protesters and journalists. The ruling highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the use of these weapons and the need for greater oversight and regulation.
For more information on this topic, visit Here
Image Source: www.latimes.com
