By John Q. Hosedrinker 
British news photographer Nick Stern, based in Los Angeles, requires emergency surgery after being injured during a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Paramount. Stern sustained a significant leg wound, believed to be caused by a non-lethal round fired by law enforcement during the demonstration, which involved approximately 350-400 protesters and a large police response. The Sheriff’s department stated the protest turned violent, prompting the use of tear gas and other munitions in crowd control. Stern’s injury, initially feared to be from a live round due to the severity of the wound, is now confirmed to be from a non-lethal projectile.
Read the original article here
A British photojournalist, Nick Stern, was injured during recent Los Angeles protests after being struck by what were described as “non-lethal” rounds. The term itself, however, is being widely challenged. Many argue that “less-lethal” or even simply acknowledging the severity of the injury—which required a tourniquet and emergency room treatment—is more accurate. Stern himself stated the pain was so intense he initially believed he’d been hit by live rounds, a sentiment echoed by numerous commentators who highlighted the significant tissue damage. The incident raises serious questions about the use of force against journalists covering protests, especially given the apparent lack of serious consequences for the officers involved.
The severity of Stern’s injuries underscores the misleading nature of the term “non-lethal.” While these rounds are designed not to kill, the reality is that they can cause significant pain, lasting physical harm, and even long-term damage, as evidenced by accounts of protestors suffering permanent brain injuries from similar incidents in the past. One account mentioned a veteran injured during the Occupy Oakland protests in 2011 who sustained permanent brain damage from a “non-lethal” round. This points to a need for a more honest and transparent assessment of the potential harm caused by these projectiles.
The repeated targeting of clearly identified members of the press raises concerns about the intent behind the use of these rounds. Some suggest this isn’t accidental and instead point to a deliberate effort to suppress reporting on these protests. The fact that this continues to occur, reminiscent of similar incidents during past administrations, fuels speculation of a deliberate effort to stifle free press and protest. This recalls similar events involving journalists during previous administrations, raising questions about systemic issues within law enforcement’s approach to covering protests.
The incident has sparked a wider conversation about the right to protest and the role of the media in documenting these events. The debate hinges on striking a balance between upholding the right to peaceful assembly and maintaining order. However, the use of potentially harmful force against journalists covering these protests creates a chilling effect on freedom of the press and the ability to hold those in power accountable. The question of whether the use of force in this instance was justified or constituted an assault remains central to this debate.
The event’s significance is further magnified by the political climate and the historical context of similar incidents. Some commentators drew parallels to events in Hong Kong in 2019 and expressed concern about a potential escalation of state-sponsored violence against protesters and journalists. Concerns were raised about the potential for the incident to become a watershed moment, escalating the tension between protestors and law enforcement. The comments also referenced other high-profile events, suggesting this isn’t an isolated incident and reflects a wider pattern of behavior.
The language used to describe the incident has also come under scrutiny. The repeated use of the passive voice and the downplaying of the severity of the injuries were criticized as an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation. Critics have called for a more active voice to accurately portray the event – “Police shot British photojournalist during LA protests,” for instance, is considered more accurate and impactful than the more ambiguous phrasing initially used. However, some argued that replacing “non-lethal” with “live ammunition” was equally inaccurate and potentially misleading.
The incident prompted various reactions, ranging from outrage and calls for accountability to more measured responses advocating for dialogue and understanding. However, a common thread running through many comments is a sense of disillusionment and cynicism regarding the government’s response to the incident and the ongoing state of political affairs. This undercurrent of pessimism highlights a broader societal anxiety and mistrust in the established power structures.
In conclusion, the case of the British photojournalist injured during the Los Angeles protests serves as a stark reminder of the inherent risks faced by journalists covering politically charged events. It underscores the need for a more honest conversation about the effects of “less-lethal” weapons and for law enforcement agencies to reassess their tactics when dealing with protestors and the media. The incident also highlights the importance of protecting the right to protest and ensuring accountability for those who use excessive force. The ongoing debate surrounding the event underscores the complex interplay between free speech, law enforcement, and the right to peaceful assembly.