Police Officers Condemn Federal Judge’s Ruling on Less-Lethal Projectiles
Rank-and-file police officers have criticized a federal judge they describe as an “activist” for a ruling that they believe removes essential tools for controlling violent street protests in Los Angeles.
In a decision that has stirred controversy within law enforcement circles, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department violated federal law by using 40mm “less-lethal” projectile launchers during intense protests triggered by immigration raids conducted by ICE agents in June 2025.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Board of Directors, representing about 8,700 sworn LAPD officers, accused the judge of disregarding the actual dangers faced by officers on the streets.
“We urge this activist judge to witness the behavior of these so-called peaceful protesters who are causing chaos on the streets of Los Angeles,” the board stated in a scathing message.
“These criminals throw rocks, frozen water bottles, and chunks of concrete at police officers. They shoot military-grade projectiles, light cars on fire, and ransack businesses.
“Yet somehow, they are the victims.”
The 40mm launchers, which fire rubber, foam, and plastic projectiles, were initially restricted in 2020 after their use during widespread protests following George Floyd’s murder. A previous court order, stemming from a lawsuit by Black Lives Matter activists, imposed limitations on targeting sensitive areas, mandated warnings when possible, and restricted usage to situations involving immediate threats of violence.
LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, a 40-year veteran of the department appointed by Mayor Karen Bass in November 2024, cautioned that the ruling eliminates a crucial de-escalation tool.
The launcher, according to McDonnell, enables officers to “maintain a safe distance from protesters, de-escalate dangerous situations, and protect the public without resorting to higher levels of force.”
“I understand that it’s challenging for the public to comprehend some of the decisions we make,” McDonnell stated. “But every member of this organization’s primary goal is to protect and serve the people of Los Angeles.”
“With that being said, the LAPD will always comply with the rule of law and continue to explore alternative tools to ensure the safety of both our officers and the residents of this great city.”
However, the police union cautioned that officers would now be less effective in violent confrontations and called for the city to appeal what they consider a ruling based on the “illusion that violent riots were peaceful protests.”
“Shame on this judge for prioritizing violent rioters over the safety of law-abiding citizens and police officers,” the board remarked.
The Office of the City Attorney, responsible for appealing the ruling, did not provide a response to requests for comment.
On Thursday, Marshall found that the city had not taken all necessary steps to comply with a 2021 injunction and dismissed arguments that the violations were minor or unintentional. She held the city in civil contempt and imposed an immediate ban on the use of the weapons for crowd control.
The judge highlighted various incidents from 2025 where LAPD officers deployed the launchers at protesters and press members, including a man filming police who sustained facial injuries requiring surgery, a woman shot while crouched behind a chair, and an attorney who was shot twice in the groin after requesting identification from an officer.
Other incidents mentioned included a man struck in the back of the head while trying to leave a protest and a registered nurse wearing a visible medical symbol who was shot while tending to injured demonstrators.
The court also permitted plaintiffs to seek attorneys’ fees but refrained from appointing an external monitor to ensure LAPD compliance.
