Outrage Among LAPD Officers After Judge’s Ruling
Police officers are expressing their frustration over a recent ruling by a federal judge, which they believe will hinder their ability to manage violent protests effectively in Los Angeles.
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) violated federal law by using a 40mm “less-lethal” projectile launcher during protests related to immigration raids in June 2025. This decision has raised significant concerns within law enforcement circles.
The LAPD’s police protective league, which represents around 8,700 officers, accused the judge of overlooking the actual dangers officers face daily. They released a stern statement urging the judge to witness the chaos on the streets instead of sitting in an “ivory tower.”
“We see criminals hurling rocks, frozen water bottles, and concrete chunks at our officers. They use military-style projectiles, ignite vehicles, and vandalize businesses,” they noted. “And somehow, these individuals are seen as victims.”
The 40mm launchers, which can fire rubber, foam, or plastic projectiles, were first restricted in 2020 following protests after George Floyd’s death. Regulations from a lawsuit by Black Lives Matter had previously limited their use to high-threat situations, requiring prior warnings whenever possible.
LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, who has been on the force for 40 years and was appointed by Mayor Karen Bass in late 2024, remarked that the ruling strips away an essential option for de-escalating situations. He emphasized that the launcher allows officers to maintain distance from confrontations while aiming to protect the public with minimal force.
McDonnell acknowledged that the public may not grasp the complexities behind certain police decisions. “But at our core, we’re here to protect and serve the people of Los Angeles,” he said. He reiterated the department’s commitment to upholding the law while exploring safety alternatives.
However, the police union warned that this ruling could reduce officers’ effectiveness in handling violent incidents and called on the city to challenge the decision. They argued it falsely portrays a violent mob as peaceful demonstrators.
“This judge should be ashamed for prioritizing a violent crowd over the safety of the city’s residents and law enforcement,” they stated.
The City Attorney’s Office, responsible for appealing the ruling, has not yet commented. Judge Marshall found that the city had not adequately complied with previous orders and condemned it for public contempt, thereby banning crowd control weapons immediately.
She referenced several incidents where LAPD officers had reportedly used these launchers against both protesters and journalists, including a case where a spectator was injured and required surgery, a woman shot while trying to hide, and a lawyer shot after inquiring about officer identification.
Additionally, incidents involving a man being punched during an attempted exit from a protest and a registered nurse fatality while aiding injured demonstrators were highlighted.
The ruling also permitted plaintiffs to seek attorney’s fees but didn’t establish an external monitor for LAPD compliance.
