By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Los Angeles jury awarded Cellin Gluck, a filmmaker, at least $2.2 million after he was shot in the face with a less-lethal munition by a Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy during a 2020 protest against police brutality. The jury found Los Angeles County liable for Gluck’s injuries and awarded him $3.5 million in damages, along with an additional $300,000 for his daughter’s emotional distress. Although the county intends to explore its options, including an appeal, it stated the awards will be reduced due to the protesters’ partial fault. Gluck’s attorney noted the verdict offers a measure of justice, yet the amount does not adequately compensate Gluck for his injuries and the lasting consequences of the incident.
Read the original article here
Jury awards more than $2 million to a protester who was shot in the face with a less-lethal projectile, and that’s where we start. The details are stark, a deputy’s action during a 2020 protest against police brutality in Los Angeles resulted in significant injuries. The jury’s decision underscores the potential for serious harm even from weapons that are marketed as “less-lethal.” However, let’s also note that the award will be reduced by 35% because the jury also found the injured protester and others at the scene were partly at fault. It’s a complex situation.
This case highlights the very real dangers associated with these so-called “less-lethal” rounds, which can absolutely cause serious injury and even death. We know that they are not always used responsibly, and there’s a concern that the tactics employed don’t always align with their intended purpose. The injuries inflicted are not always immediate. As we are seeing in this case, and as some have noted about brain injuries, the effects can be delayed and have long-term consequences.
The question of accountability is a significant one, isn’t it? There’s a deep-seated frustration that the cost of these incidents often falls on the public, through taxpayer-funded settlements. The idea of holding individual officers financially accountable, perhaps through liability insurance or through direct withdrawals from their pension funds, is one that keeps coming up. It’s seen as a potential way to change behavior and promote more responsible use of force.
It’s easy to understand that some believe that the current system protects officers. This shield is often bolstered by powerful police unions and the legal principle of qualified immunity, making it difficult to hold individual officers accountable for their actions. This protection creates a sense of impunity, a feeling that the consequences for using force, even when it results in significant harm, are minimal.
Let’s not overlook the issue of how these less-lethal weapons are actually deployed. Many videos show them being aimed directly at the head and upper body, contrary to recommendations. The proper usage is often ignored, and journalists, who are trying to report, are sometimes targeted, too. The potential for severe injury or death is evident, and the consequences can be devastating.
It’s also interesting that many point out the relationship between police departments and local politics. The police have an outsized influence, and some believe that local politicians are hesitant to challenge them because they hold a great deal of power in many communities. It’s a cycle. More money, even in areas with low crime rates. Some people want to see that financial responsibility held by the individual officers. They suggest various systems, such as individual liability insurance, where officers would bear the financial burden of their actions.
Another thought that keeps appearing is the impact on the bigger picture. It seems a lot of us share the feeling that the current funding models for police departments are sometimes disproportionate to actual crime levels, and the concept of civilian oversight of police behavior often isn’t permitted. This leads to a lot of frustration, as you can imagine.
And, regarding the police unions that are sometimes perceived as enforcers of the current system, these unions are the cause of further frustration. Many see them as more powerful than they should be. They are, to some, more like organized crime with legal backing.
In summary, this $2 million-plus award to the protester is just one data point in a larger conversation. The issue of police use of force, accountability, and financial responsibility is not new, but it’s one that demands ongoing examination and a willingness to consider new approaches. The hope is that this case, and others like it, can push us toward greater transparency, responsibility, and a more just application of force.