Protester permanently blinded in one eye when DHS fired a non-lethal weapon in his face.

[blackbird]

"A young protester in Santa Ana is permanently blind in one eye after being hit in the face at close range by a “nonlethal” round fired by a Department of Homeland Security agent last week amid nationwide protests against an immigration agent’s killing of US citizen Renee Good in Minneapolis."

"While such projectiles are often described as “nonlethal,” Ed Obayashi, the Modoc County sheriff’s deputy and legal adviser to police agencies, told the paper that firing one just feet away from a person’s face “constitutes as deadly force as far as the law is concerned” because “these projectiles can cause serious injury [or] death.”

Protester permanently blinded after DHS agent fires nonlethal round at close range

Edited January 14 by blackbird

[gatomontes99]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

"A young protester in Santa Ana is permanently blind in one eye after being hit in the face at close range by a “nonlethal” round fired by a Department of Homeland Security agent last week amid nationwide protests against an immigration agent’s killing of US citizen Renee Good in Minneapolis."

"While such projectiles are often described as “nonlethal,” Ed Obayashi, the Modoc County sheriff’s deputy and legal adviser to police agencies, told the paper that firing one just feet away from a person’s face “constitutes as deadly force as far as the law is concerned” because “these projectiles can cause serious injury [or] death.”

Protester permanently blinded after DHS agent fires nonlethal round at close range

When you literally fight law enforcement, they will fight back. 

 

[John Stone]

[Deluge]

Perhaps the silly cultist will respect boundaries next time. 

[User]

This is the crap you want @blackbird and your incitement is producing it. Look in the mirror. 

[blackbird]

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians.  There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians.  There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

Actually there was justification.

Obstruction of justice.

The guy is lucky he doesn't reside in a cage now.

[QuebecOverCanada]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians.  There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

There is justification; the protester was alongside a group assaulting police officers. 

Hence, the officer shot a weapon legally.

If you aren't happy about it, there is the Tehran treatment for protesters that seems a bit over the top 10 000km away compared to that.

[User]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians.  There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

There is justification. He was interfering with the arrest of someone. These are the consequences of being part of an unruly mob and charging at Officers. 
 

 

[robosmith]

50 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Actually there was justification.

Obstruction of justice.

The guy is lucky he doesn't reside in a cage now.

NOT under US Law, dropout Of course you have ZERO EVIDENCE for ^this lDIOCY as USUAL.

 

52 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

There is justification; the protester was alongside a group assaulting police officers. 

Guilt by association is NOT a thing HERE, Canuck

52 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Hence, the officer shot a weapon legally.

If you aren't happy about it, there is the Tehran treatment for protesters that seems a bit over the top 10 000km away compared to that.

Your whataboutism is really LAME.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

These kind of replies are exactly what I expected from the barbarians.  There was no justification for what happened to this guy, but you guys are fine with it.

In the video, the guy ran right up to the officer and for obvious reasons, that officer is on high alert.

It is not in any way, shape or form, a good idea to run up to a law enforcement officer at any time, especially while they are conducting operations. His actions clearly pose an immediate threat.

 

[robosmith]

57 minutes ago, ironstone said:

In the video, the guy ran right up to the officer and for obvious reasons, that officer is on high alert.

It is not in any way, shape or form, a good idea to run up to a law enforcement officer at any time, especially while they are conducting operations. His actions clearly pose an immediate threat.

 

The officer OBVIOUSLY posed an much GREATER THREAT, esp absent any weapon carried by the VICTIM.

[User]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The officer OBVIOUSLY posed a much GREATER THREAT, esp absent any weapon carried by the VICTIM.

Yes! Keep that in mind when you try to charge at an Officer that is greater threat next time.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The officer OBVIOUSLY posed an much GREATER THREAT, esp absent any weapon carried by the VICTIM.

This would not have happened if this person had simply stood where he was instead of aggressively running right up to an officer.

That's it.

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

This would not have happened if this person had simply stood where he was instead of aggressively running right up to an officer.

That's it.

Running is NOT aggression. Did he even make contact with the officer?

[User]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Running is NOT aggression. Did he even make contact with the officer?

Yes, running AT an Officer is aggression. Especially Officers effecting an arrest during mob activity’s You love to dishonesty leave off those inconvenient details.

[ironstone]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Running is NOT aggression. Did he even make contact with the officer?

You couldn't be bothered to even watch the video posted above? It's only 32 seconds long.

But your mind was already made up wasn't it?

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

You couldn't be bothered to even watch the video posted above? It's only 32 seconds long.

But your mind was already made up wasn't it?

I asked you a question. That means my mind is not "made up." Duh

Your mind is made up that "running" is "aggression" which is obviously not true when contact is avoided.

[Hodad]

 

36 minutes ago, ironstone said:

This would not have happened if this person had simply stood where he was instead of aggressively running right up to an officer.

That's it.

Paramilitary troops shooting a protester holding a megaphone is a pretty apt summary of life in Trump's America.

Kid is unarmed and looks like he weighs a buck thirty including the megaphone. Didn't appear to even touch anyone. I can see why a gaggle of armed and armored troops were so scared that they decided to shoot him in the face. 🙄

[User]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Paramilitary troops shooting a protester holding a megaphone is a pretty apt summary of life in Trump's America.

Kid is unarmed and looks like he weighs a buck thirty including the megaphone. Didn't appear to even touch anyone. I can see why a gaggle of armed and armored troops were so scared that they decided to shoot him in the face. 🙄

Once again… play stupid games, win stupid prizes! 

[gatomontes99]

[LEFT]It is so Hitler like to stop us from killing you![/LEFT]

[QuebecOverCanada]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Guilt by association is NOT a thing HERE, Canuck

Guilt of association is not in play here. 

Guilt of association would be; let's imprison every protester for associating with X or Y element.

Here it is concretely a person charging, running into law enforcement.

Edited January 15 by QuebecOverCanada

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Guilt of association is not in play here. 

Guilt of association would be; let's imprison every protester for associating with X or Y element.

Here it is concretely a person charging, running into law enforcement.

You said it was because he was in a group. The details said there was NO CONTACT with LEO

[User]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You said it was because he was in a group. The details said there was NO CONTACT with LEO

And?

There was no contact because they prevented it. They don't have to wait for someone charging them to actually hit them or physically attack them to stop the threat.