logo
Los Angeles Police Department and the protest that shifted from peaceful to 'unlawful'

Los Angeles Police Department and the protest that shifted from peaceful to 'unlawful'

The day had been peaceful. As 30,000 people marched through Los Angeles as part of the nationwide No Kings protests, the streets were busy with children, families, their pet dogs, medics and people giving out water and snacks.
But as protests across the country wound down, the one in Los Angeles changed shape.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass made the point the large morning demonstrations were "overwhelmingly peaceful".
She said the tension across the afternoon came when law enforcement was forced to move along the "stragglers".
At a federal building just a few blocks from City Hall, United States Marines and National Guard troops were in place. By mid-afternoon, a crowd had formed and the tone was very different from that of the morning demonstrations.
What played out over the following hours was a case study of the way a stand-off can spark and turn a tinderbox into a raging fire.
The protesters' anger was for Donald Trump and his immigration raids being carried out by the federal agency Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE).
The federal building guarded by Donald Trump's troops has been at the centre of protests in Los Angeles. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
The mayor said the crowds across Los Angeles were "overwhelmingly peaceful". ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
It was the commander-in-chief's decision to federalise the National Guard and deploy marines to help patrol the protests.
But it was local police units that would eventually disperse the crowd with tear gas, flashbang grenades and rubber bullets.
While onlookers screamed "peaceful protest", various units from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) used the "less-lethal" force available to them to move on those they called "the agitators".
In the haze of gas and smoke, it can be hard to make sense of the chaos.
This is what it looks like when a progressive city in Trump's America is forced to turn on itself.
Holding the line
From mid-afternoon, a crowd had once again gathered at the Edward R Roybal Federal Building, which was being guarded by members of the Marines and National Guard.
Troops, as well as LAPD and LASD officers, were standing in line formations across the building's entrance.
Standing shoulder-to-shoulder and, at some points, multiple layers deep, the troops and police officers were at times less than a metre from the front of the crowd.
US Marine Corps troops as well as Los Angeles law enforcement officers push back the crowd. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
The National Guard troops were federalised by Donald Trump and deployed to Los Angeles despite opposition from state officials. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
In that crowd was Aileen Rivera, 18, whose family was from Mexico.
"We're here to tell them to get out and that they shouldn't be holding guns here if there's peaceful protest," she said.
"I think it's a little unnecessary. They're just wanting to scare us and intimidate people from speaking out, but that's not going to happen," she said.
About the evening ahead, Ms Rivera said she was "scared, honestly".
"They tend to take things really far — protesters and police officers — and then people get hurt and people go to jail when it's unnecessary, when we just want to send out our messages peacefully."
For hours after the No Kings protests, the demonstration at the federal building slowly built, and as the crowd swelled, it pushed ever so slightly forward.
At that moment, the marines drove them back. The crowd responded — loud, disapproving and heightened.
From a high position in a nearby garden, it was possible to see the entire scene.
And zoom in on the moment the marines moved toward the anti-ICE crowd.
This is the point of tension in the protest where the two sides come together and the potential for escalation exists. At this moment, the crowd was loud and outraged.
The marines can be seen getting closer to the protesters, putting distance between them and the building's entrance.
That looks like a Trump flag, but make no mistake, it is a "F**k Trump" flag.
Right at this point in the crowd were activists who were trying to engage the people standing in military uniforms, asking them if they believed in what they were doing.
These troops are on the ground in Los Angeles because Trump believed the city would have "burned to the ground" without them.
Local officials said they were never necessary.
Los Angeles Police Department sirens were blaring across the city for hours after this moment.
But here, its officers are sprinkled throughout the troops, helping to hold the skirmish line.
The LAPD and the LASD deployed SWAT, mounted units, highway patrol and police helicopters to the event.
Looking around the scene a little more.
We can learn more about who is in the crowd and the people and groups these events attract.
The upside-down American flag, while it is a Trumpian reference too, has historically been flown as a distress signal.
The flag of Mexico and the California State flag were everywhere throughout the Los Angeles protests.
And this is the anti-fascist action flag — one sometimes flown as the flag of Antifa.
The road here becomes important because eventually, cars park across it. People stand on their roofs and hang from their windows. The crowd builds around them and eventually, the LAPD declares "the demonstration has taken the street" and a dispersal order is issued.
From there, the dynamic completely shifts and the law enforcement on the scene have authority to use "less-lethal" methods to clear the crowd.
And they do.
The dispersal order
"A dispersal order has been issued on Los Angeles St between Aliso and Temple. People in the crowd are throwing rocks, bricks, bottles and other objects.
"Less lethal has been approved. Less lethal may cause discomfort and pain. It is advised that all persons leave the area."
Once law enforcement had approval to disperse the crowd and authority to use less-lethal methods to do it, the intersection was flooded with different units of the LAPD and LASD.
LASD units arrived in people carriers, as mounted units arrived too. The highway patrol units that had been waiting to the side of the building and down the highway on and off ramps, now formed new skirmish lines across the central street.
Moments after a mounted unit arrived at the overpass, the first round of what those present reported as feeling like pepper spray was sprayed into a group of protesters after an apparent altercation with the horses.
That movement drove part of the crowd one block to the east of the federal building.
As some units drove protesters back, others shuffled in behind to form new skirmish lines and systematically pushed protesters out of the area.
This was happening block-by-block, in several directions, and soon the constant sound of non-lethal rounds being fired was ringing out across the downtown Los Angeles area.
In the "hot zone", the action feels like it is happening in every direction and the skirmish lines move quickly.
The mood, and the crowd, appears completely different to that from the start of the day.
LAPD officers form a skirmish line as law enforcement act on the dispersal order. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
Multiple additional units from across LA law enforcement moved in once the dispersal order was in place. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department had units working across the downtown area, including mounted officers. ( ABC News: Emily Clark )
Aerial video from the scene shows some protesters throwing bottles at law enforcement and the ABC witnessed several protesters setting off fireworks in the area.
For several hours, the LAPD account on X posted updates saying officers in the area were requesting assistance.
LAPD chief Jim McDonnell said officers "started taking rocks, bottles" and other projectiles "from a high ground position" and at that point, "they deployed gas in order to disperse the group" and were successful.
"They used some tactical manoeuvres as well, some flanking movements and moved the group out of there."
At 5:00pm, three hours before curfew, the LAPD declared an "unlawful assembly", meaning those who failed to leave the area were subject to arrest.
We now know that at 6:15pm, LAPD officers and other agencies were dispersing a crowd in the downtown area and a 27-year-old man broke through a skirmish line.
An officer fired a single shot from a "less-lethal launcher" and the man sustained a "law enforcement-related injury" to the back of his head and was hospitalised, according to the LAPD. That use of force is now being investigated.
At curfew, which only covers a small section of the downtown area, Chief McDonnell estimated there were still 1,000 protesters on the street across the city.
He said the protest that started as US Marine Corps and National Guard units stood at the federal building had been dispersed, but as night fell, skirmish lines were popping up all over the city.
He said it then became a game of "cat and mouse".
In the "hot zone" of the Los Angeles protest, police fired less-lethal rounds into the crowd to disperse it. ( AP: Ethan Swope )
Police fired tear gas and other less-lethal rounds into crowds. Here, a protester has picked one up. ( AP: Noah Berger )
People move through tear gas during the protest. ( AP: Noah Berger )
The state of California is suing Donald Trump for deploying the National Guard, arguing it undermines its sovereignty and democracy more broadly.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the issue of whether or not federal troops are participating in domestic law enforcement — something they are prohibited from doing without the president invoking the Insurrection Act.
But here is the problem for Los Angeles.
California Governor Gavin Newsom says the federal troops are escalating the situation and are part of the reason protesters show up.
But as happened on Saturday, June 14, it is then up to local law enforcement to clean up the streets.
A hearing in this case began on Tuesday, local time, and its outcome will impact whether Donald Trump can keep his troops on the street or if they have to go home.
That is of course only part of the issue, because ICE raids are still happening across several cities in the state and across the country, with Donald Trump pledging to target the "Democratic power centre".
Los Angeles does not spend resources on enforcing immigration law. That makes it what's called a "sanctuary city" — but also a political target.
The No Kings movement and anti-ICE protesters are not the only signs of resistance across the city. Local businesses help warn customers if ICE is present, and advocates patrol the streets too, hoping to offer assistance if they encounter people being detained.
On the day of the No Kings protest, 35 people would end up being arrested by the LAPD for curfew violations, as well as several other arrests for resisting arrest and obstructing police officers.
LAPD said three officers were injured that day.
By midnight, from down town there were still sounds of sirens, fireworks and non-lethal rounds being deployed somewhere across the sprawling city of Los Angeles.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Carnage at Gaza aid distribution sites reminds who pays cost of war
Carnage at Gaza aid distribution sites reminds who pays cost of war

Sydney Morning Herald

timean hour ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Carnage at Gaza aid distribution sites reminds who pays cost of war

US President Donald Trump's black hole ability to suck attention has diverted eyes from the real consequences of war in the Middle East and its devastating impact on ordinary lives. Trump's prevarication on Iran amid claims and counterclaims on Tehran's nuclear preparedness has much of the world distracted. Now, horrific footage showing the aftermath of Palestinians killed or wounded by Israeli gunfire, tanks and airstrikes, some while desperately waiting at aid distribution points, has put Gaza's ongoing carnage into sharp focus and reminded us what could await further escalation in the Middle East. Israel imposed a blockade on all supplies entering Gaza throughout March and April and threatened the 2.3 million residents with a 'critical risk of famine '. Food has become extremely scarce, and prices for basics have soared. The blockade was partially lifted last month, but United Nations attempts to deliver aid have been hampered by Israeli military restrictions, air strikes and growing anarchy. With outside media banned and no independent eyewitnesses, the Gaza war has been conducted behind closed doors, but the aid distribution footage has revealed the suffering and death inflicted on individuals and families and the despicable thing that is being visited upon the innocent. Israel claims it does not target civilians. However, dozens of civilians have died in the recent violence and the UN human rights office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has called on the Israeli military to stop using lethal force near aid convoys and food distribution sites. The overall death toll, according to the Hamas-run Health ministry, has climbed to 55,637, with 129,880 wounded since the conflict erupted following the despicable Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023. At the same time, Russia has taken advantage of the distraction provided by the Middle East drama to launch a brutal missile and drone attack on Kyiv that killed 28 and injured at least 140 people in the Ukraine capital. They also hit other towns and districts and transferred 50 children from an occupied zone to a camp deep inside Russia that reportedly specialises in ideological brainwashing and systemic Russification. Ukraine's national database, Children of War claims since February 2022, 19, 546 children have been abducted from Russian-occupied territories and sent to other Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine or to Russia. Preoccupied with Iran, a distracted world has hardly batted an eye as the political leaders of Russia and Israel allowed their troops to kill civilians in Gaza and Ukraine. More is being destroyed than infrastructure in both theatres of war. The rules of war have been thrown to the winds. The conflicts will have to fade before it is possible to judge if these are war crimes. But the footage of crying men, women and children in the rubble of their lives is tragic testimony that opens up the most closed of minds to the cost of such obvious transgressions.

Trump's ‘revenge tax' on super funds, companies may be delayed
Trump's ‘revenge tax' on super funds, companies may be delayed

AU Financial Review

timean hour ago

  • AU Financial Review

Trump's ‘revenge tax' on super funds, companies may be delayed

Sydney/Washington | Australian companies and superannuation funds in the United States have secured a 12-month reprieve from punitive new taxes that would dramatically increase their costs after Republicans watered down core parts of Donald Trump's so-called 'big beautiful bill'. The Senate Finance Committee and its chairman, Idaho senator Mike Crapo, have moderately eased the potential burden on overseas entities operating or investing in the US, even though lobbyists and tax experts still believe the section 899 law at the centre of their fears is still overwhelmingly negative.

Too much huffing from the AUKUS caucus
Too much huffing from the AUKUS caucus

The Advertiser

timean hour ago

  • The Advertiser

Too much huffing from the AUKUS caucus

There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store