ICE’s “less lethal” crowd-control weapons can still be deadly

The wave of violence by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection has brought law enforcement’s use of force coming under renewed scrutiny — though even so-called “less lethal” weapons are drawing criticism because these weapons, especially when misused by law enforcement, still seriously injure and sometimes kill those on the receiving end.

Earlier this month, Kaden Rummler, a 21-year-old in Santa Ana, California, was shot in the face by a federal agent with a less lethal round while demonstrating against the killing of Renee Good, a Minneapolis resident who was killed by Jonathan Ross, a veteran ICE officer.

In a video of the California shooting, the officer in question appears to point his weapon directly at Rummler’s face, fracturing his skull and leaving shrapnel in his face, ultimately rendering him blind for life in one eye and with serious injuries.

In another widely circulated video from Minneapolis, a woman is seen running away from another scene involving a federal officer before falling to the ground writhing in pain, after being shot with another less lethal weapon.

There are just a few examples of when the damage caused by less lethal munitions, wielded by law enforcement around the country, was caught on camera. While the numerous killings by federal immigration enforcement officers have been the focus of the backlash against the administration, these less lethal weapons are drawing increased scrutiny.

Less lethal weapons refer to a broad category used to describe what are often characterized as intermediate force options deployed by law enforcement. This includes, but is not limited to, weapons like stun guns, pepper spray and a variety of concussive projectiles that proponents and manufacturers suggest provide an option for law enforcement that stops short of the lethal force of live ammunition.

It also includes other crowd dispersal weapons like flashbang grenades and tear gas, the latter of which is banned in war among signatories of the Geneva Convention, but still commonly used by domestic law enforcement in many countries, including the U.S.

Critics say the problem is that many of these weapons still have the potential to kill or maim the people they are deployed against, even in the best of circumstances. And often these weapons are not deployed as they are intended to be, resulting in more serious injury or death.

Carol Sobel, a Santa Monica-based civil rights attorney who works on cases related to police violence and less lethal weapons, was herself shot in the head by police during the 2000 Democratic National Convention. She was one of several people shot by the Los Angeles Police Department that day, suffering two black eyes, multiple concussions (one from a baton and one from a firearm) and a fractured nasal cavity. She considers herself lucky, however, because other protesters suffered worse injuries at the hands of police that day.

“I was lucky in a way,” Sobel told Salon, explaining that when she got hit, “it was the first time that the LAPD had used less lethal munitions as a crowd control technique at a major event like this, and there were two of us who were shot in the face, and the other woman lost an eye.”

However, not much seems to have changed since 2000. Sobel shared a story from the recent “No Kings” protests that swept the country last year, where an officer shot a demonstrator near one of her colleagues, another attorney, with a less lethal round. When her colleague asked for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer responded with violence.

“When our lawyer asked for the officer’s identification, because he had covered up his badge number and his name identification on his helmet and on his uniform, the officer shot our lawyer in the groin,” Sobel said. “Every time we think we’ve made progress, we see them try something new.”

Less lethal weapons have a deadly history. Pepper spray, a common chemical agent deployed by police, has been linked to dozens of deaths. Stun guns, often referred to by the trademarked term “Taser,” have been linked to over a thousand deaths in the United States. Concussion weapons, like the ones that injured Rummler and Sobel, have also been the focus of many critics, who argue that these weapons are routinely misused by law enforcement.

This class of less lethal weapons encompasses a range of instruments that are fired from a gun or a launcher, with the idea being that they provide law enforcement a ranged option for targeting individuals, typically in a crowd control scenario. These weapons include bean bag rounds, baton rounds (often called “rubber bullets”) and sponge grenades, among others.

The problems with these weapons are multifold. For one, these weapons are less accurate than conventional bullets, which can lead to officers missing their target, even in cases where they are being deployed in line with best practices, which vary from weapon to weapon.

Already, the inaccuracy presents a problem, as use of force experts say that these weapons, when used properly, are meant to target specific individuals who pose a threat to law enforcement or other members of the crowd in a crowd control situation. The relative inaccuracy of these weapons, however, works against that purpose.

Another major issue, according to critics, is that law enforcement doesn’t always follow best practices to begin with.

In Hummler’s case, the officer is seen in the video shooting him from just a few feet away and seemingly aiming directly at his face. In general, officers are trained to aim their less lethal weapons at the lower body to minimize the risk of serious injury.

In Los Angeles, for example, police are expected to aim for the belt lines or the navel area and are prohibited from aiming at the head, neck, spine, chest, groin and kidney, due to risk of serious injuries. Issues with the improper use of less-lethal concussion weapons have been so persistent that a court recently ordered the LAPD to stop using 40mm weapons in crowd control situations altogether.

CBP’s own use of force standards also say that officers “shall not intentionally target” the head, neck, groin or spine of people they are using less lethal weapons (such as compressed air launchers or specialty munitions) against.

Dr. Michele Heisler, the medical director at Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that employs doctors to document humanitarian violations, told Salon that even when used according to guidelines, less lethal weapons will still result in injury.

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

“In Minneapolis and elsewhere, what we’re seeing is use [of weapons] absolutely against all use-of-force guidelines. All these can be lethal and very dangerous when used at close range,” Heisler said. “Increasingly, there’s a consensus that kinetic impact projectiles, which there are many different forms of, that these can never really be used safely to disperse crowds.”

In light of the many issues with concussive weapons, lawmakers in some states have shown a willingness to restrict the sorts of scenarios in which it is permissible for police to deploy certain less lethal weapons. There are also proposed regulations that would ban the most problematic less-lethal weapons, many of which stem from the 2020 protests against police violence.

In California specifically, state lawmakers passed regulations imposing requirements on police and banning certain practices, giving those targeted in inappropriate scenarios potential legal recourse.

For example, California police are now legally required to attempt de-escalation before resorting to less lethal weapons and are forbidden from firing indiscriminately into crowds. They are also prohibited from targeting certain areas of the body or from using these weapons in response to a verbal threat or to ensure compliance with instructions from officers. While advocates like Sobel support such regulations, they also warn that to be effective, they need buy-in from members of law enforcement.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Salon.

The post ICE’s “less lethal” crowd-control weapons can still be deadly appeared first on Salon.com.