By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Reports indicate two protesters were blinded by “less-lethal” munitions deployed by federal officers during an anti-ICE protest in Santa Ana, California. Videos show a Homeland Security agent shooting one protester in the face at close range, causing blindness in one eye, while another protester described a similar experience. These incidents have raised scrutiny of federal use-of-force policies, especially considering the shooting occurred after a protest against the shooting death of Renee Good. Local officials have described the protest as peaceful, while a criminologist noted the actions of law enforcement were inconsistent with de-escalation tactics.
Read the original article here
US federal forces blind two protesters shot in face with ‘less-lethal’ munitions. This is the tragic reality we’re facing, and it’s a stark reminder of the risks involved in standing up for what you believe in. When we hear the term “less-lethal,” it’s crucial to remember that it’s a carefully chosen euphemism, designed to downplay the very real potential for serious harm, even death. These munitions, often referred to as rubber bullets, aren’t necessarily made of rubber. They’re often rubber-coated steel, which should tell you everything you need to know about their potential to inflict lasting damage.
The deliberate nature of these attacks is chilling. The reports indicate that these “less-lethal” rounds are being fired directly at faces, particularly the eyes, leading to devastating injuries, including permanent blindness. The video footage paints a clear picture: these shots were uncalled for. This is an unprovoked attack on civilians. It’s hard not to imagine the satisfaction of the shooter knowing their actions will cause permanent injury. The idea of these munitions being used in this manner is a direct contravention of the intended use, where they are meant to be shot at the ground to bounce towards protestors, not fired directly at people.
One of the most concerning aspects of this situation is the lack of accountability. If the situation was reversed, it is highly likely that protesters who utilized these same “less-lethal” deterrents would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Consider the case of Kaden Rummler, who, after being shot in the face, now lives with a nickel-sized piece of plastic lodged in his skull and is unable to drive. Despite this, he states he would do it again, because he will not idly stand by while families are torn apart. His story is a powerful illustration of the commitment of protesters, a commitment that comes at a severe personal cost.
The pattern of violence is alarming, with federal agencies like ICE apparently taking the lead in these types of attacks. It’s almost like a form of martial law, without the formal declaration. It’s essential to recognize that this is a deliberate strategy to intimidate and suppress dissent, and it seems like the objective is to injure, not to uphold the law. The government is creating a society that does not protect its citizens.
The importance of protective gear cannot be overstated. Impact-resistant goggles and face shields are essential for anyone participating in a protest. This is a direct parallel to the tactics used in the 2019-2020 Chilean protests, where similar methods were used to injure protestors and the result was numerous cases of blinding.
The official narrative surrounding these events, often portrays protesters as a threat. The use of “less-lethal” weapons should be reserved for situations where lethal force is justified. In many instances, the official reports clash with the evidence, and this discrepancy fuels distrust and resentment. Consider the DHS spokesperson, who described the protesters as a “mob,” but this claim does not align with the videos of Rummler’s shooting. This demonstrates a disturbing pattern of misinformation and the manipulation of language. The use of phrases like “a mob” and “less-lethal” is a method used to manipulate the public’s opinion.
There is a sense that the fundamental rights of American citizens are under assault. The sentiments from the Declaration of Independence resonate deeply. The grievances listed by the Founding Fathers are echoed in the actions of the government today. These include the obstruction of justice, the establishment of standing armies, and the suppression of freedoms.
The lack of prosecutions and the tendency to look the other way when it comes to the actions of law enforcement further erode the public’s faith in the system. The message is clear: if you protest, you may be maimed or even killed. This is a dangerous path.