By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A 21-year-old protester was permanently blinded in one eye after a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer shot him in the face with a nonlethal round during a protest in Santa Ana, California. The incident, captured on video, shows the officer firing at the protester while he was attempting to intervene during an arrest. The protester suffered a fractured skull and had shrapnel embedded near his carotid artery. This incident, along with other cases of alleged excessive force by DHS officers, raises questions about the training and adherence to use-of-force policies, especially given that federal guidelines state officers should not aim impact weapons at the head.
Read the original article here
Video shows feds shooting ICE protester with less-lethal round at point-blank range, blinding him in one eye. This is the stark reality that’s unfolding, and it’s something we need to grapple with. The language surrounding this is crucial, and let’s get it straight from the start: it’s not a “non-lethal” round. It’s a “less-lethal” round. That distinction matters because “non-lethal” implies zero risk of serious harm, and as this incident proves, that’s just not the truth.
The video shows an ICE protester being hit at close range, with the devastating consequence of losing an eye. The information paints a clear picture. While the specifics of the incident and the exact context are essential, the fact that a protester has suffered such a life-altering injury demands our attention. We have to consider what these less-lethal rounds are actually capable of. They can maim. They can kill. And in this case, they’ve robbed someone of their vision.
The implications here extend far beyond this single incident. The use of less-lethal force, especially at close range, raises serious questions about the tactics and training of law enforcement. If these rounds can cause permanent blindness when used in this manner, then their deployment needs to be carefully examined. How can you be sure, in a crowd situation, of hitting something other than an eye? The very design and intended use of these rounds must be reconsidered.
There’s also the bigger picture to consider: how is free speech, the right to protest, and the exercise of these basic freedoms, being handled? When we see incidents like this, it creates a chilling effect. It makes people think twice before exercising their rights, fearing the potential cost of expressing their views. It’s hard to ignore that some see targeting the eyes as a means of controlling and suppressing dissent.
The point blank aspect of the shooting really brings the issue into focus. At that range, the force of the impact would be at its maximum. The damage that can be done is significantly greater than at a distance. If an officer gets close enough to shoot, how is that a method of keeping people safe? This also calls into question the training and intent of the officer involved. Was the officer aiming at the head? Was it accidental? The answers matter.
Then there is the fallout. What happens now? What legal recourse is available? It’s often difficult to sue an individual agent, and instead, lawsuits are often brought against the government or the agency itself. A protester who has lost an eye can expect a long, difficult battle ahead, and the cost will fall on the taxpayers.
The incident also draws parallels to similar situations. Stories of other instances of officers using these types of rounds against protesters, and the long-term impact on the victims’ lives is chilling. There are cases of people being hit in the head, suffering severe brain damage, and even death. It’s a sobering reminder that “less-lethal” doesn’t mean “harmless”.
The public’s view of law enforcement will also probably be impacted. There is a general feeling that something is wrong. Many people are angry about the government’s actions, and the use of these rounds just adds fuel to the fire. There’s a feeling of betrayal and the expectation is that there should be accountability.
The reaction to the incident from some quarters might be to dismiss or downplay it, perhaps by focusing on the actions of the protester or by justifying the use of force. However, the severity of the injury, and the potential for a lifetime of suffering that the protester will endure, cannot be ignored. The fact that the injury is permanent and the injury was inflicted in the name of the law should raise concerns.
This situation isn’t just about optics. This is about real people, real injuries, and the real consequences of law enforcement tactics. It’s a call for change. It’s a need for a deep investigation into the use of less-lethal weapons and a reassessment of the ways we police protests.