Reminder to folks that "less lethal" still means "lethal" even if the cops pretend it doesn't.
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
852 points (99.4% liked)
News
30380 readers
3878 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In the video from last weekend of the Australian reporter being shot in the back, you can clearly see the police officer behind her raise and aim straight at her. Clearly there's no repercussions for misusing these weapons.
Clearly there’s no repercussions for misusing these weapons.
Maybe in countries where police accountability isn't a punchline.
load more comments
(8 replies)
It is this kind of thing that made me decide to ignore my city's municipal codes regarding protest gear. It outlaws the wearing of bulletproof vests, helmets, protective visors, hearing protection, gas masks, and so on. To say the least, I cannot respect a law that is designed to permit bullies to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong.
how is it legal to stop people from wearing bulletproof vests in public!? Why aren't 2nd amendment mfs screaming about this?
"See, the second amendment specifically says you have a right to bear arms, and that means any kind of gun I want to buy should be legal."
"However, there is no amendment saying you have a right to wear armor. So being protected isn't a constitutional right".
"Oh? This supressor I want to put on my gun? That should be allowed by the second amendment. Wait, what do you mean there is no constitutional right to gun accessories?!"
It usually goes something like that. I'd like to point out here that there isn't a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.
It usually goes something like that. I’d like to point out here that there isn’t a constitutional right to wear pants or eat bacon either.
One could similarly say that the right to wield violence does not mean that you have the right for that violence to actually succeed. Some situations allow for the legal use of deadly force, but that still does not mean the explicit right to kill. If a threat is neutralized and they survive, you can't "make sure" that they don't.
Gods forbid that people should protect their faces from damage.
If you don’t bring any protective gear, you better run when things get ugly. If you plan to stay when things get ugly, you better bring the appropriate gear with you.
One of the things I've learned in life is that one should minimize reliance on behaviorial safeguards throught the use of mechanical safeguards. You shouldn't rely on people to do the right thing. As such, removing opportunities for them to fuck up is key.
The design and production of rubber bullets, as they are here, is pure negligence. That they kill 3% of their victims (per your graphic) is enough that I would wager that they would be considered a lethal weapon in other contexts.
Hundreds have been permanently blinded.
Just think about how that could even happen. You put any of us in their shoes, we would obviously aim low, to prevent permanent damage.
It's like police are overgrown toddlers, mad that they're forced to use less lethal rounds... So they take it out on civilians and aim for the face. Can you imagine being as hate-filled as these fucking orcs that you would want to blind the people you "serve" for the rest of their lives (if you don't kill them)!? Absolute monsters...
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
You shouldn’t have to wear safety rated glasses to protest, but I wouldn’t go to one without them at this point. If you normally wear glasses and they’re not rated an impact can shatter them and cause even more damage than not wearing them at all would have.
If you have glasses buy safety glasses that go over top of them. Doesn’t matter if your glasses are rated for it, use the safety glasses. Glasses are expensive and safety glasses can be bought for fairly cheap.
load more comments
(20 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
The protester was among tens of thousands of people who took to the streets for the demonstrations across Southern California and the rest of the country.
Tens of thousands? There were over FIVE MILLION protesters.
E OVER THIRTEEN MILLION protesters - thank you, Lucidlethargy
Over 12 million
Yeah the 5 Million seemed like the total number from just counting the big cities. If you actually include the thousands of small protest events all over the US, 12 Million makes a lot more sense
load more comments
(1 replies)
Estimates say there may be have been dozens or more protestors.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I hope they recover their vision. As someone who lost sight in one eye I can attest that going from binocular to monocular vision is life altering AND not considered a disability under the ~~law~~ Social Security requirements but typically is covered by ADA.
Edit: clarification.
How is losing 50% of your eyesight not a disability?
Because you still have eyesight in the other eye, so in social security's mind there's jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT) you could still perform, and if there's three jobs you could perform despite your impairment you aren't disabled. Also, if you're under 50 you almost certainly aren't disabled for some reason. It's maddening.
A lot of states don't even care if you've only got so-so vision in one eye and are completely blind in the other. No stereopsis, no problem! Here's a driver's license. Good luck.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
America
I'll adjust my comment because I realize it might be confusing. It's protected by ADA but it doesn't meet the requirements for a disability claim under Social Security:
load more comments
(5 replies)
This was so common during protests in Spain they made a movie about it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555674/
load more comments
(2 replies)
Imagine if you are a refugee and escaped from a war/tyrannical regime only to end up in the US and reading these type of things on the news...
Must be awkward... 👀
load more comments
(1 replies)
They trying to make those rubber bullets letal.
Eyewitness News Reporter Sid Garcia spoke to the protester who was shot from his hospital bed at the L.A. General Medical Center.
I was thinking at first like, how lucky to be in a hospital bed already when being shot. 🧐
load more comments
(2 replies)
Waiting for Pussolini to send the National Guard to city hall, to depose the mayor and council.
Less lethal is just maiming? That doesn’t seem much fucking better.
You are supposed to aim centre mass with less lethal. Hitting the eye means you are incompetent (unlikely), or malicious (definitely).
I was at a protest in DTLA where they were firing them. Some cops were flinching when the rounds were fired. So I'm going with both incompetent and malicious.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder if this was the guy that was injured during Hasan's stream on Saturday? There was a guy injured in the eye and the cops were definitely shooting head level.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Classic passive voice headline.
~~Protester shot in the eye with rubber bullet during 'No Kings Day' rally in downtown Los Angeles~~
Police use firearms at point blank range equipped with rubber bullets to get away with literally shooting out the eye of an American peacefully expressing their legally protected 1st Amendment right to protest during the 'No Kings Day' rally in downtown Los Angeles
TL;DR -
FTFY
chemistry stores in college sell those hard plastic glasses or goggles.
You'll need z87+ (ANSI Z87.1) impact resistant safety glasses or goggles. If the chemistry store does not have these you can find them at any big box hardware store
"Just one more peaceful protest bro. I swear bro"
States need to pass ballot initiatives that make it completely legal to shoot any police officer with a rubber bullet whenever you feel like it. It should also be legal to pump tear gas into a police station whenever you want. Police are using these things against entirely peaceful protests. The only violent people are the police. Yet they're allowed to just use these weapons against people with no consequence whatsoever. I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these weapons are that harmless that cops can just use them whenever, then we should be able to use them against cops whenever we feel like it as well. It should be entirely legal to shoot cops with rubber bullets. They should have to go everywhere in full body armor and face coverings. See a cop on the street? Shoot them with a rubber bullet. Officer pulls you over? Shoot them with a rubber bullet. Cop standing in line at a donut shop? Feel free to come up behind them and shoot them point blank in the back of the head with a rubber bullet.
If cops can use these weapon with such casual indifference, then they must be completely harmless. As such, there is no harm in allowing citizens to use rubber bullets and tear gas against officers at any time they choose. Anything that cops can do to random citizens random citizens should also be able to do to cops.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›