California Highway Patrol's Use of Force
A newly released report from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) asserts that its officers acted appropriately when they fired nearly 60 rounds of “less lethal” munitions at pro-Palestinian protesters at UCLA in early May. However, the report has been criticized for lacking evidence to substantiate these claims. This article examines the contents of the report, responses from various stakeholders, and the broader implications for law enforcement accountability.
The Incident: A Brief Overview
On a tense day in early May, pro-Palestinian protesters gathered at UCLA, leading to a confrontation with the California Highway Patrol. The CHP officers responded with substantial force, deploying beanbag rounds and 40mm sponge rounds to disperse the crowd. The one-page CHP report stated that officers faced "assaultive resistance" from protesters, who allegedly threw frozen water bottles, bottles containing urine and other unknown fluids, full soda cans, pieces of plywood, wooden poles, and fire extinguishers.
Claims of Threat and Resistance
The CHP's justification for using force hinges on the assertion that protesters posed a significant threat. According to CHP Director of Communications Jamie Coffee, the officers encountered a dangerous situation that warranted their response. However, a CalMatters review of footage from the protests found that officers aimed at people’s heads and fired into crowds—actions prohibited by state law and training guidelines unless there is a "threat to life or serious bodily injury."
Scrutiny and Criticism
Lack of Evidence
Critics argue that the CHP report falls short of providing concrete evidence to support its claims of a threat. Jeff Wenninger, a former Los Angeles Police Department lieutenant who oversaw use-of-force investigations, expressed skepticism about the report. “This doesn’t build public trust. Where is the evidence?” Wenninger questioned, emphasizing that the report lacks corroborative details about the alleged threats.
Wenninger, who reviewed the protest footage for CalMatters, noted that he did not observe any threats to life or serious bodily injury. He criticized an officer for improperly firing multiple beanbag rounds into a crowd, stating, “Bag rounds are meant for a single target, used for an individual engaged in a violent act, not indiscriminately into a crowd.”
Legislative Perspective
Lorena Gonzalez, the former assembly member who authored the 2021 bill restricting the use of “less lethal” munitions, described the CHP’s actions as “a total training failure.” Gonzalez, now heading the California Labor Federation, emphasized that the intent of the bill was to prevent unnecessary injuries during protests. She suggested that the training provided to CHP officers was insufficient, leading to violations of both the letter and spirit of the law.
Numbers and Accountability
The CHP report detailed the use of force during the UCLA protest, stating that officers fired 33 beanbag rounds and two dozen 40mm sponge rounds. The report also noted that 240 officers were deployed to disperse approximately 800 protesters. Despite these specifics, the report has been criticized for being "nothing more than boilerplate" and failing to address all required criteria under the law.
Building Public Trust
The lack of transparency and detailed justification in the CHP report has sparked concerns about public trust in law enforcement. The absence of charges against protesters for battery or assault further complicates the narrative presented by the CHP. As Jeff Wenninger pointed out, the CHP’s report appears to be more of an opinion than a substantiated account of the events.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the CHP’s use of force at the UCLA protest highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing law enforcement actions with public accountability and transparency. The criticisms from experts, legislators, and the public underscore the need for detailed, evidence-based reporting to build and maintain trust in law enforcement agencies. As California continues to navigate these complex issues, the lessons from this incident will likely inform future policies and training programs aimed at ensuring that crowd control measures are both effective and respectful of individuals' rights.