In a decisive move, a federal judge has halted the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of less-lethal foam bullets against protesters, igniting fresh debate over law enforcement tactics.

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued an order barring LAPD officers from deploying 40mm foam projectiles during protests. This ruling stems from a 2020 lawsuit filed by Black Lives Matter.

The decision also follows Marshall’s finding that the LAPD violated a 2021 court ruling on the same matter. Reports from ABC 7 and NBC 4 highlight specific incidents of alleged misuse, including injuries to protesters from shots to sensitive areas like the face and head.

Judge Marshall’s Findings Raise Eyebrows

The issue has sparked heated discussion over balancing public safety with the right to protest. Many question whether law enforcement’s application of these tools has crossed into excessive force, as Breitbart reports.

Judge Marshall was clear in her critique of LAPD’s actions. She stated, “LAPD officers fired at protesters who did not pose an immediate threat, failed to issue warnings before firing, and struck protesters in restricted areas of the body.”

Let’s break this down. Targeting individuals who aren’t an immediate danger risks turning a de-escalation tool into a means of intimidation.

Disturbing Incidents Highlight Misuse Concerns

The lack of warnings only fuels the perception that some officers prioritize control over communication. Hitting restricted zones of the body suggests either poor training or disregard for guidelines.

NBC 4 detailed alarming examples of alleged misuse that demand attention. One officer reportedly shot a man in the face after he raised his hands, causing a jaw injury requiring surgery.

Another incident saw a seated woman holding a sign struck in the head with a projectile. A third case involved an officer shooting a man in the groin, then targeting a lawyer in the same area for asking the officer’s name.

Defending Less-Lethal Tools, But With Caveats

These aren’t isolated errors; they suggest a pattern eroding trust in law enforcement. When tools meant to minimize harm inflict it instead, the public rightly demands answers.

Former L.A. County Sheriff Sergeant Brian Muller defended 40mm ammunition, saying, “It provides a means or mechanism that police or law enforcement can intervene at a distance and hopefully not cause death or any serious injury.” There’s validity in the idea of less-lethal options as a middle ground.

Yet good intent means little when execution fails so badly. If officers can’t use these tools without causing severe injuries, Muller’s optimism rings hollow.

Broader Implications for Protest Rights

This ruling isn’t about banning all less-lethal measures—it’s about enforcing accountability. When used correctly, these tools can avoid deadly confrontations.

The LAPD’s contempt of the 2021 ruling, as found by Judge Marshall, hints at deeper institutional defiance. If court orders are mere suggestions, what prevents further overreach?

For those valuing free expression, this ruling is a mixed outcome. It curbs heavy-handed tactics that chill dissent, but questions linger about whether law enforcement will adapt or find new ways to clamp down.