The Daily Psyop

A report released this week by California Highway Patrol, the agency responsible for clearing the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) pro-Palestine encampment on 2 May, argues that 57 “less lethal” rounds fired at protesters were justified.

Former police lieutenant Jeff Wenninger, who specialises in investigating officers’ use of force, criticised the report for having no evidence to back up its justification.

The report said that officers encountered “assaultive resistance” from students who threw “frozen water bottles, bottles containing urine and other unknown fluids, full 12 oz soda cans, pieces of plywood, wooden poles, and various sized fire extinguishers (full and emptied)”.

It also alleged that officers were “sprayed with fire extinguishers and other unknown chemical irritants, causing temporary blindness and difficulty breathing”.

Wenninger, alongside a second law enforcement expert who reviewed video footage recorded by the newspaper, CalMatters, found that the protesters did not appear to attack or threaten officers.

Projectiles fired

Wenninger pointed out that an officer illegally fired a number of bean bag rounds in succession into a crowd.

An independent review of footage by The Los Angeles Times concurs that officers did fire into crowds and aimed at protesters’ heads.

The report said that “at no point were kinetic energy projectiles fired indiscriminately in the crowd of protesters”.

It documents that 33 bean bag rounds were fired from 12-gauge shotguns and 24 sponge rounds were fired from 40mm grenade launchers.

Research published in a Harvard University health law centre article finds that these “less lethal” rounds are “inaccurate at long range, potentially deadly at very short range”.

The one-page report was mandated by a law passed after the police severely wounded protesters with projectiles in the 2020 George Floyd protests.

The law stated that officers can only use projectiles to “defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury” – the report cited verbatim this reasoning, which was disputed by Wenninger.

The rounds may never be “aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs”, according to the law – actions Wenninger also observed.

Officers must also make “repeated, audible announcements” of their plan to use projectiles. A police captain announced dispersal orders 29 times, the report said in its section for de-escalation.

Police response to encampments

Reporting by UCLA’s student newspaper the Daily Bruin detailed a chronology of the evening of 1 May to early morning of 2 May, when the police officers arrested hundreds of students and some professors in the pro-Palestine encampment.

Notably, students shouted “Where were you yesterday?” at the officers, referencing the violent attack on the encampment from the evening of 30 April to the early morning of 1 May that saw an insufficient police response.

That night, over a hundred counter-protesters and aggressors attacked the encampment with sprays, fireworks and sticks. Many members of the encampment were hospitalised.

The police had waited three hours before directing the attackers away.

Universities around the world have called law enforcement on student encampments.

A report released this week by California Highway Patrol, the agency responsible for clearing the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) pro-Palestine encampment on 2 May, argues that 57 “less lethal” rounds fired at protesters were justified.

Former police lieutenant Jeff Wenninger, who specialises in investigating officers’ use of force, criticised the report for having no evidence to back up its justification.

The report said that officers encountered “assaultive resistance” from students who threw “frozen water bottles, bottles containing urine and other unknown fluids, full 12 oz soda cans, pieces of plywood, wooden poles, and various sized fire extinguishers (full and emptied)”.

It also alleged that officers were “sprayed with fire extinguishers and other unknown chemical irritants, causing temporary blindness and difficulty breathing”.

Wenninger, alongside a second law enforcement expert who reviewed video footage recorded by the newspaper, CalMatters, found that the protesters did not appear to attack or threaten officers.

Projectiles fired

Wenninger pointed out that an officer illegally fired a number of bean bag rounds in succession into a crowd.

An independent review of footage by The Los Angeles Times concurs that officers did fire into crowds and aimed at protesters’ heads.

The report said that “at no point were kinetic energy projectiles fired indiscriminately in the crowd of protesters”.

It documents that 33 bean bag rounds were fired from 12-gauge shotguns and 24 sponge rounds were fired from 40mm grenade launchers.

Research published in a Harvard University health law centre article finds that these “less lethal” rounds are “inaccurate at long range, potentially deadly at very short range”.

The one-page report was mandated by a law passed after the police severely wounded protesters with projectiles in the 2020 George Floyd protests.

The law stated that officers can only use projectiles to “defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury” – the report cited verbatim this reasoning, which was disputed by Wenninger.

The rounds may never be “aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs”, according to the law – actions Wenninger also observed.

Officers must also make “repeated, audible announcements” of their plan to use projectiles. A police captain announced dispersal orders 29 times, the report said in its section for de-escalation.

Police response to encampments

Reporting by UCLA’s student newspaper the Daily Bruin detailed a chronology of the evening of 1 May to early morning of 2 May, when the police officers arrested hundreds of students and some professors in the pro-Palestine encampment.

Notably, students shouted “Where were you yesterday?” at the officers, referencing the violent attack on the encampment from the evening of 30 April to the early morning of 1 May that saw an insufficient police response.

That night, over a hundred counter-protesters and aggressors attacked the encampment with sprays, fireworks and sticks. Many members of the encampment were hospitalised.

The police had waited three hours before directing the attackers away.

Universities around the world have called law enforcement on student encampments.

Kamala Harris signalled on Thursday she could take a tougher line against Israel, telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that she would not be “silent” on the suffering of besieged Palestinians in Gaza.

In a meeting that is likely to be scrutinised in Israeli and US foreign policy circles, Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, took a more public approach to chastise Netanyahu over the devastating Palestinian death toll in Gaza than her boss, Joe Biden.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating. The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time,” Harris told reporters after the meeting.

“We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent,” she said, emphasising the need to reach a ceasefire.

Harris’s statements contrasted with the good-natured exchange between Biden and Netanyahu earlier on Thursday in the Oval Office, with the Israeli leader praising Biden as an “Irish-American Zionist” and Biden reflecting on his 1973 visit with Golda Meir.

Jewish Insider reported that the Harris-Netanyahu meeting left Israeli officials “disappointed”, with unnamed Israeli officials suggesting Harris’s comments on the staggering civilian death toll in Gaza could embolden Hamas.

However, it’s far from clear that Harris is prepared to depart from the longstanding tradition of US support to Israel.

‘Placate both sides’

Harris’s Jewish husband, Doug Emhoff, told a pro-Israeli group that Harris “has been, and will be, a strong supporter of Israel as a secure, democratic and Jewish state. And she will always ensure that Israel can defend itself, period.”

For thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who turned up in Washington this week to voice their anger against Israel’s war on Gaza and US military support for the offensive, Harris’s comments are unlikely to go far enough.

Harris also did not attend Netanyahu’s fiery address to Congress on Wednesday, but her decision was slammed by pro-Palestine advocates.

“Harris seems to not want images of her standing and clapping for this toxic genocidaire but also not to totally cut him off. She senses where the political winds are blowing, but this attempt to placate both sides has its limits,” one user said on X.

Harris later issued a statement condemning protestors who burned the American flag, saying: “I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.”

Activists slammed Harris for criticising the protests and refusing to publicly call Israel’s war on Gaza a genocide.

“[We] condemn the attempts of VP Kamala Harris to criminalize protests in Washington DC and for justifying the ongoing mass killings which have been called out by the International Court of Justice,” the Boston South Asian Coalition said.

The response underscores how Harris has broadly consolidated support among progressive US lawmakers – including Democrats Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley – but still faces criticism among pro-Palestinian groups.

The Abandon Biden campaign invited Harris to meet with them in July, saying they had yet to be swayed to back her campaign.

“Our demands remain unchanged: call for and pressure an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The new candidate must address these critical issues and break from the destructive legacy of the current administration,” the group said in a letter.

Kamala Harris signalled on Thursday she could take a tougher line against Israel, telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that she would not be “silent” on the suffering of besieged Palestinians in Gaza.

In a meeting that is likely to be scrutinised in Israeli and US foreign policy circles, Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, took a more public approach to chastise Netanyahu over the devastating Palestinian death toll in Gaza than her boss, Joe Biden.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating. The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time,” Harris told reporters after the meeting.

“We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent,” she said, emphasising the need to reach a ceasefire.

Harris’s statements contrasted with the good-natured exchange between Biden and Netanyahu earlier on Thursday in the Oval Office, with the Israeli leader praising Biden as an “Irish-American Zionist” and Biden reflecting on his 1973 visit with Golda Meir.

Jewish Insider reported that the Harris-Netanyahu meeting left Israeli officials “disappointed”, with unnamed Israeli officials suggesting Harris’s comments on the staggering civilian death toll in Gaza could embolden Hamas.

However, it’s far from clear that Harris is prepared to depart from the longstanding tradition of US support to Israel.

‘Placate both sides’

Harris’s Jewish husband, Doug Emhoff, told a pro-Israeli group that Harris “has been, and will be, a strong supporter of Israel as a secure, democratic and Jewish state. And she will always ensure that Israel can defend itself, period.”

For thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who turned up in Washington this week to voice their anger against Israel’s war on Gaza and US military support for the offensive, Harris’s comments are unlikely to go far enough.

Harris also did not attend Netanyahu’s fiery address to Congress on Wednesday, but her decision was slammed by pro-Palestine advocates.

“Harris seems to not want images of her standing and clapping for this toxic genocidaire but also not to totally cut him off. She senses where the political winds are blowing, but this attempt to placate both sides has its limits,” one user said on X.

Harris later issued a statement condemning protestors who burned the American flag, saying: “I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.”

Activists slammed Harris for criticising the protests and refusing to publicly call Israel’s war on Gaza a genocide.

“[We] condemn the attempts of VP Kamala Harris to criminalize protests in Washington DC and for justifying the ongoing mass killings which have been called out by the International Court of Justice,” the Boston South Asian Coalition said.

The response underscores how Harris has broadly consolidated support among progressive US lawmakers – including Democrats Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley – but still faces criticism among pro-Palestinian groups.

The Abandon Biden campaign invited Harris to meet with them in July, saying they had yet to be swayed to back her campaign.

“Our demands remain unchanged: call for and pressure an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. The new candidate must address these critical issues and break from the destructive legacy of the current administration,” the group said in a letter.