When force meets protest, the rules governing non-lethal weapons spark intense debate over safety and accountability.
Story Overview
- The LAPD’s policy on 40mm less-lethal launchers limits use to immediate threats, yet violations during protests have raised accountability concerns.
- Significant protests in 2025 against immigration enforcement highlighted the misuse of these weapons, leading to a federal ruling against their use in crowd control.
- Despite an 8-4 City Council vote to continue use, a U.S. District Judge ruled the LAPD in contempt for violating previous injunctions.
- These developments underscore the ongoing tension between security measures and civil rights in Los Angeles.
Understanding LAPD’s Use of Non-Lethal Weapons
The Los Angeles Police Department employs 40mm less-lethal launchers equipped with foam rounds intended for situations posing immediate threats to public or officer safety. However, the rules governing these weapons came under scrutiny following the summer 2025 protests against immigration enforcement. During these protests, the LAPD faced accusations of violating their own guidelines, with reports of foam rounds causing significant injuries, including head and groin shots, sparking a broader dialogue on the department’s protest tactics.
The LAPD’s rulebook permits the use of these launchers only when there’s an immediate threat, yet footage and testimonies from the 2025 protests depict a different reality. Protesters, journalists, and bystanders reported injuries from foam rounds fired without prior warning, contradicting the department’s stated protocols. This led to a significant legal challenge, culminating in a federal judge’s ruling that branded the department in contempt of a 2021 injunction and banned the use of the 40mm launcher for crowd control.
Judicial and Legislative Responses
In December 2025, the Los Angeles City Council voted to allow the continued use of 40mm foam launchers and tear gas, despite growing public concern. The decision was rooted in maintaining operational flexibility and officer safety. However, this local legislative decision clashed with federal judicial oversight. U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall’s January 2026 ruling underscored a legal mandate: the LAPD was found in contempt of court for flouting the restrictions imposed by the 2021 injunction, which had already set clear boundaries for the use of such weapons.
This ruling aligns with a broader series of legal actions and public inquiries aimed at re-evaluating law enforcement’s use of force. The LAPD now faces increased scrutiny, legal challenges, and the potential for more significant policy shifts. This judicial intervention reflects a growing national trend towards reining in aggressive police tactics, especially in protest scenarios.
Stakeholders and Influences
The key players in this issue include the LAPD, city officials, judicial authorities, and community activists. The LAPD, under Chief Jim McDonnell, argues that these weapons serve as essential de-escalation tools designed to protect both officers and the public. However, organizations like Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles continue to push for greater accountability and safety for protesters. The Los Angeles City Council, tasked with balancing public safety and oversight, finds itself navigating between these competing interests.
Judge Consuelo B. Marshall’s rulings emphasize the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance with civil rights protections, challenging the LAPD’s operational practices. Meanwhile, legal advocates such as attorney Carol Sobel highlight the city’s financial and ethical stakes, noting potential liabilities from civil rights lawsuits and the broader implications for public trust and safety.
Implications for the Future
The immediate effect of Judge Marshall’s ruling is clear: the LAPD must adapt its crowd control tactics, ceasing the use of 40mm foam launchers in protest settings. This ruling could prompt a reevaluation of police protocols across California, influenced by state legislation like AB 481, which mandates annual reviews of military equipment use by law enforcement. The ongoing investigations into excessive force complaints, coupled with past settlements exceeding $50 million, underscore the city’s vulnerability to financial and reputational damage.
LAPD rulebook shows when cops can — and can’t — fire ‘non-lethal’ weapons https://t.co/M4UydVomPb pic.twitter.com/I2HvUg3fl0
— New York Post (@nypost) January 18, 2026
In the long term, this situation may catalyze broader reforms within the LAPD and potentially beyond, as other jurisdictions observe the outcomes of Los Angeles’ legal and policy battles. The conversation around less-lethal weapons, their appropriate use, and the balance between security and civil liberties will continue to be a pivotal issue for lawmakers, law enforcement, and communities alike.
