In a charged political atmosphere, Los Angeles witnessed significant protests over recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The demonstrations saw police and National Guard arresting at least 56 individuals on June 6, 2025. These protests came in response to an alarming rise in ICE arrests, exceeding 2,000 per day in the early June period, a substantial jump from an average of 660 during the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term.
California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed concern over the National Guard’s deployment to handle local demonstrators, accusing the Trump administration of exacerbating a crisis. Civil rights groups, including Amnesty International, condemned the deployment of armed troops, suggesting that their presence was aimed at quelling dissent rather than protecting citizens.
As the protests unfolded, demonstrators faced off against law enforcement equipped with “nonlethal” weapons, including projectile launchers capable of firing tear gas and rubber bullets. The devices used by authorities, such as the PGL-65 or 37mm and 40mm Sage Deuce Projectile Launchers, can reach nearly 500 feet and are intended to disperse crowds. However, media reports indicated that Los Angeles law enforcement had resorted to using stun guns and tear gas against protesters.
Notably, Canada has prohibited the use of such nonlethal weapons for crowd control, highlighting concerns over their potential for serious injury. The regulations in Canada specifically ban firearms with a bore diameter of 20 mm or more, including those used by the Los Angeles police. Despite the term “less lethal” associated with these weapons, human rights organizations warn of the severe injuries they can inflict.
Under international humanitarian law, guidelines discourage the use of kinetic projectiles aimed at the face and emphasize the need for their use in a proportional manner. Violations can lead to severe injuries, including skull fractures, brain damage, and even death. The regulations advocate testing and supervising projectile impacts to minimize the risk of injury.
Many countries maintain ambiguity regarding the specific models of the nonlethal weapons they employ, making accountability challenging. This lack of transparency contrasts with Canada’s practice of disclosing specific weapon models used. In regions such as Mexico, similar records do not exist, leading to misuse and abusive practices against peaceful demonstrators.
Amnesty International and other observers have documented the potential for severe injuries, emphasizing the urgent need to reevaluate the use of these supposedly nonlethal weapons against civilians. Reports from various protests, including those in Chile, have highlighted concerning trends of eye injuries and other traumas associated with rubber bullet use.
The situation in Los Angeles serves as a stark reminder of the implications of using military-grade crowd control measures in civilian protests, raising critical questions about the balance between maintaining order and respecting human rights.
