By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A new report by Physicians for Human Rights and the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley has documented 412 incidents of the misuse of crowd control weapons during anti-immigration demonstrations from June 2025 to May 2026. These incidents, which include the use of teargas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets, resulted in 203 confirmed injuries such as blindness and traumatic brain injuries, with the actual number of harmed individuals likely being much higher. Federal immigration officials were responsible for over half of these misuse cases, often coinciding with heightened enforcement operations. The report highlights a troubling pattern of excessive force that mirrors responses seen during previous mass protests.
Read the original article here
A recent report has brought to light some deeply concerning incidents regarding the use of crowd control weapons during protests against ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) actions. This report details a significant number of injuries, including devastating outcomes like permanent blindness and traumatic brain injuries, directly linked to what is being termed the “misuse” of these weapons. The documentation points to a disturbing pattern of harm inflicted on individuals, raising serious questions about the conduct of federal immigration personnel.
The findings are based on extensive research that tracked numerous instances where crowd control munitions, often referred to as “less-lethal weapons,” were employed in ways that appear to deviate from established guidelines and ethical considerations. The research meticulously defined “misuse” through several critical lenses. One key aspect involved identifying whether individuals in protected categories, such as journalists and healthcare workers, were deliberately targeted. Furthermore, the report examined the impact on vulnerable populations, including the elderly and children, highlighting instances where these groups were disproportionately affected. A crucial element of the definition also included instances where the weapons were employed improperly, such as at dangerously close ranges, aimed at sensitive areas like the head, or used in contravention of the manufacturers’ own safety recommendations.
These documented injuries are not isolated events but part of a larger pattern that has left victims with life-altering consequences. The report cataloged 203 injuries stemming from these alleged weapon misuses, with the severity ranging from blindness and traumatic brain injuries to lacerations, fractures, and contusions. The sheer number of affected individuals underscores the scale of the problem and the widespread impact on communities.
The nature of the injuries, particularly blindings and traumatic brain injuries, suggests a deliberate or grossly negligent application of force. The idea that “non-lethal” weapons can be so devastating when misused is a stark reminder of their inherent danger. The report implies that these incidents were not merely accidental or unavoidable consequences of protest management, but rather the result of actions that crossed critical boundaries of acceptable use of force.
The report, which was compiled by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley (HRC), meticulously documented 412 verified incidents of alleged “misuse” of these less-lethal weapons between June 2025 and May 2026. This extensive data set provides a robust foundation for the concerns raised about the practices employed by federal immigration personnel.
The definition of “misuse” employed in the report is critical to understanding the scope of the problem. It’s not just about accidental discharges or unintended consequences; it’s about patterns of behavior that indicate a disregard for safety and human rights. The targeting of journalists and healthcare workers, for instance, suggests an attempt to suppress legitimate observation and aid during protests. The impact on vulnerable groups like children and the elderly highlights a disturbing lack of restraint.
The examples cited, such as an ICE agent reportedly shooting a pastor in the head with a pepper gun, paint a grim picture of the actions that have been observed. These are not the tactics one expects from law enforcement in a democratic society. The characterization of such actions as “Gestapo tactics” reflects a deep sense of outrage and betrayal of public trust. The sentiment that those responsible for inflicting such harm have escaped accountability, returning to their lives as if nothing happened, fuels the call for arrests and prosecution.
Moreover, the report’s findings resonate with broader concerns about the use of force during protests. In cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul, federal officers reportedly deployed chemical irritants frequently, even during peaceful demonstrations and targeted actions. The use of these weapons in extremely cold weather, rendering affected homes difficult to ventilate, adds another layer of suffering and demonstrates a lack of consideration for the well-being of residents. The observation that video recordings often show these attacks as largely unprovoked further intensifies the concern.
The images of masked and armored agents confronting communities, particularly traumatizing children, are deeply unsettling. The long-term physical harm that is now coming to light, as detailed in the report, reinforces the urgent need for accountability. The label of “violent, criminal psychopaths” applied to some ICE agents reflects a strong public perception of their conduct as exceeding the bounds of acceptable behavior for public servants. The call for their imprisonment instead of continued employment stems from a profound sense of injustice.
It is particularly troubling to note the observations about individuals who once advocated for the Second Amendment to prevent government overreach, now seemingly cheering on actions that mirror such potential overreach. This suggests a concerning disconnect and a willingness to overlook abuses when they align with certain political viewpoints. The prospect of taxpayers bearing the financial burden of lawsuits arising from these incidents adds an economic dimension to the call for reform and accountability. The presumption of deliberate action, unless proven otherwise, reflects the severity of the allegations and the perceived intent behind them.
The lasting impact of these weapons is not theoretical; for many, it is a daily reality. The lingering smell of chemical agents in residential buildings, and the resultant medical emergencies, like a child suffering an asthma attack requiring emergency room care, illustrate the immediate and tangible harm inflicted on unsuspecting communities. The call to sue the government and hold it accountable is a direct response to these experiences. The notion that protesters themselves are somehow “weaponizing” their chants and flags, even when flagpoles are not involved, is a rhetorical deflection that belies the real danger posed by the munitions used against them. The phrase “less-lethal weapons” is proving to be a dangerous misnomer, as the report’s findings clearly indicate their capacity for severe and permanent harm, and even death. The casual acceptance of “less-lethal” weaponry by the public has, in retrospect, allowed for a dangerous normalization of their use.
The legal framework for addressing such abuses is also being considered, with references to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This act empowers federal courts to review agency actions and overturn policies or practices that are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or procedurally flawed. Individuals directly affected by these actions, who can identify a reviewable agency policy or systemic practice, may seek judicial review to declare the agency action unlawful and obtain appropriate relief. The current situation, however, breeds skepticism, with a sentiment that “nothing will come of it.”
The report’s findings directly contradict any notion that these incidents were unavoidable or accidental. The evidence points towards deliberate actions that have severely injured individuals, and the calls for the perpetrators to face consequences are resolute. The assertion that these individuals are “psychopaths” and have “no place in civil society” reflects the extreme nature of the perceived violations. The question of whether body cameras were used is pertinent, as it relates to transparency and accountability, though the response suggests a cynical view of their effectiveness in such cases. The sarcastic “Don’t be silly. ICE would never hurt an innocent person!” highlights the public’s distrust and the stark contrast between official narratives and documented reality.
Acknowledging the misuse of these munitions is a crucial first step, and the report’s findings are being welcomed as a validation of the harm experienced by victims. The emphasis on accountability, particularly when public safety is involved, is paramount. The argument that peaceful protest should be a protected category under the First Amendment, and that ICE and the government are disrespecting this right, underscores the civil liberties implications of these events. The report, created by reputable organizations, serves as a critical document shedding light on these serious allegations and the human cost of alleged weapon misuse. The deliberate misuse of “less-lethal weapons” has, in some instances, had lethal consequences, blurring the line between injury and death. The notion that extensive training is sufficient to prevent such abuses is challenged by the reported outcomes, suggesting that the issue lies not just in the training but in the application and oversight of force. The presence of elderly individuals and children at protests is framed not as an anomaly but as a natural consequence of a protected right to assembly, and the question of why they are present is met with the assertion that protesting is for everyone. The example of a man permanently blinded after being shot in the eye by a federal agent in Los Angeles is a stark illustration of the severe consequences documented. The report suggests that these actions were not confined to specific incidents but occurred across different locations, including Chicago, during what are described as peaceful protests where officers were not perceived to be in danger. The calls for arrest, conviction, and punishment reflect a demand for justice and a deterrent against future abuses. The claim that police trainers may have implicitly or explicitly condoned extreme violence is deeply disturbing and indicative of systemic issues. The historical parallels drawn to neighbors turning against neighbors serve as a cautionary tale about the erosion of societal trust and the potential for widespread abuse of power. The incident of a canister being thrown into a car with children inside, and the hope that individuals involved will sue the government, highlight the fear and trauma experienced by innocent bystanders. The question of who is ultimately responsible, and whether accountability will truly materialize, remains a significant concern. While the report focuses on ICE, it acknowledges that local law enforcement was also responsible for a substantial portion of these incidents, suggesting a broader pattern of problematic weapon use. The deliberate choice of terminology, shifting from “non-lethal” to “less-lethal” weapons, already hints at their inherent danger. The fact that these abuses are not secret, and that keeping them in the public eye is seen as a path to reform and better governance, emphasizes the importance of transparency and public awareness. The observation that political discourse sometimes deflects blame, even to foreign policy, further complicates the pursuit of accountability. The core constitutional right to protest is repeatedly invoked, highlighting the tension between the government’s actions and fundamental freedoms. The observation that protests are often attended by older people and mothers with young children challenges the narrative that protests are inherently dangerous or solely the domain of radical elements. The idea that protest is a protected right with no age limit, and that the right will label peaceful protests as riots to justify abuse, points to a deliberate manipulation of language and perception to rationalize the use of excessive force. The sentiment that some people are simply “evil” and that nothing has changed historically underscores a pessimistic but perhaps realistic view of human nature and the ongoing struggle for justice. The concern that the government might be targeting schools or vehicles picking up children illustrates the pervasive and indiscriminate nature of some enforcement actions. The constitutional rights of citizens, including the right to vote, practice religion, and own firearms, are invoked to emphasize the breadth of protected freedoms, suggesting that protesting should be viewed in a similar light. The argument that protesters are being foolish for expecting violence unless they are physically fit and “ready to rumble” is rejected, asserting that everyone, regardless of physical frailty, has the right to protest and should not expect violence.