News photographer hit by non-lethal bullets during LA protests
A British news photographer has undergone emergency surgery after being hit by non-lethal rounds during protests in Los Angeles.
Nick Stern was documenting a stand-off between anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) protesters and police outside a Home Depot in Paramount, a city in LA county and a location known as a hiring spot for day labourers, when a 14mm 'sponge bullet' tore into his thigh.
He told the PA news agency: 'My initial concern was, were they firing live rounds?
'Some of the protesters came and helped me, and they ended up carrying me, and I noticed that there was blood pouring down my leg.'
He was treated by a medic who urged him to go to hospital. At one point, Mr Stern says he passed out from the pain.
He is now recovering at Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre following emergency surgery.
Protesters throw objects to the police vehicles on a Freeway near the Metropolitan Detention Centre in downtown Los Angeles (Ethan Swope/AP)
Mr Stern, who emigrated to the US in 2007, said he typically makes himself 'as visible as possible' while working in hostile situations.
'That way you're less likely to get hit because they know you're media,' he said.
It is the second incident of its kind for Mr Stern, who said he sustained 'substantial' bruising after being hit by another live round during the George Floyd protests in 2020.
'The communities in LA are very tight and very close-knit,' Mr Stern said.
'So an outside organisation like Ice coming in and removing – whatever you want to call it, removing, kidnapping, abducting people from the community – is not going to go down well at all.'
It comes after US president Donald Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to California to quell the protests, which began on Friday in downtown LA before spreading.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move was 'essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States'.
The decision drew sharp criticism from Democratic politicians, including California governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'purposefully inflammatory'.
Demonstrators have been protesting the Trump administration's immigration raids, which last month aimed to detain as many as 3,000 people per day.
Despite his injury, Mr Stern says he is eager to return to work.
'I intend, as soon as I am well enough, to get back out there,' he said.
'This is too important and it needs documenting.'
Read More
Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Trump deploys National Guard troops
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Irish Sun
‘Just leave her in Gaza' Israeli hostage families slam Greta Thunberg over embarrassing ‘Freedom Flotilla' stunt
GRETA Thunberg's "Freedom Flotilla" ship stunt has been slammed by the tormented families of hostages. Anti-Israel campaigner Greta, 22, has been accused of supporting Hamas after attempting to breach the Gaza blockade. 11 Greta Thunberg pictured after the Israeli Defence Forces boarded the Madleen Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 11 Rita Lifshitz outside her father-in-law Oded's burnt-out home 11 The family of hostage Oded Lifshitz speaks to the crowd at a protest rally against the government Credit: Alamy 11 Greta pictured on a deportation flight from Israel Credit: Twitter/OSINTdefender Israeli naval forces seized the British flagged-yacht Madleen carrying the climate activist on Monday. Greta - who moaned she was "kidnapped" - has been blasted for her latest antic by the families of hostages who have lambasted her for wasting precious time. She has since been pictured on a deportation flight from Israel. One ex-government official rebuked what they branded an "insignificant episode which mostly manifested the stupidity of both sides". Rita Lifshitz, whose She told The Sun: "In Sweden they said it would have been better to let her into Gaza so she couldn't come back. "People don't believe in what she's doing and saying. "This will just show them more that they shouldn't believe what she is saying." Most read in The Sun Rita's father-in-law in captivity after being He and wife Yocheved were among 250 taken hostage when vile Hamas thugs tore across the border - killing at random and torching homes. Steve Brisley's sister Leanne 48, and his nieces Noiya, 16, and Yahel, 13, were among those Greta Thunberg's Gaza 'Freedom Flotilla' boarded & seized by Israeli forces The dad, from Bridgend, Wales, took aim at Greta's stunt for wasting time which could have been used to get the remaining hostages home. "This isn't about politics or publicity for me," he said. "It's about families torn apart and 55 "Their loved ones wait for their return - for an embrace or a burial. "Every moment wasted on anything else adds to the suffering on both sides." 11 Steve Brisley, whose sister and two nieces were killed on 7 October by Hamas Credit: AFP 11 Rita Lifshitz stands near her son, Daniel Lifshitz, as he delivers his grandfather's eulogy during the funeral for Oded Lifshitz Credit: Getty 11 Ruins of a kibbutz decimated by Hamas Credit: Katie Davis for The Sun 11 Greta Thunberg speaking at a press conference Credit: Getty Efrat Machikawa, whose elderly uncle Gadi Moses was trapped in Gaza for 15 months, resonated with Steve's call. She said: "The only comment I might have at the moment is to bring the focus on releasing all hostages and ending this terrible war, so we can all heal. "Every day passing is a day too late for all of us in the region." Israeli's furious government has vowed to make Greta and other activists detained Haunting clips shows innocents, including children, being slaughtered by Hamas savages during the attacks. The footage - titled "Bearing Witness" - was taken from the Hamas terrorists' bodycams as they Hamas unleashed carnage in the Middle East after massacring more than 1,200 and abducting 251 hostages on October 7, 2023. What happened on October 7? ON OCTOBER 7, 2023, Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack on Israel, marking one of the darkest days in the nation's history. Terrorists stormed across the border from Gaza, killing over 1,200 people — most of them civilians — and kidnapping 250 others, including women, children, and the elderly. The coordinated assault saw heavily armed fighters infiltrate Israeli towns, kibbutzim, and military bases, unleashing indiscriminate violence. Innocent families were slaughtered in their homes, and graphic footage of the atrocities spread across social media, leaving the world in shock. And as well as attacking people in their homes, they stormed the Nova music peace festival - killing at least 364 people there alone. The massacre triggered a swift and massive retaliatory response from Israel, escalating into a full-scale war. The attack not only reignited long-standing tensions in the region but also left deep scars on both sides of the conflict, setting the stage for the 16 months of devastation that followed. Some 56 hostages remain in Gaza - 20 of whom Greta's bid to get into the strip with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) came after a failed attempt in May, when another of its vessels was struck by two drones in international waters off Malta. Footage on Monday showed the Israeli Navy communicating with the Madleen over a loudspeaker, urging it to change course. Israeli forces boarded the ship and the foreign ministry later confirmed it was "safely making its way to the shores of Israel ". All passengers were safe, unharmed and handed sandwiches and water before the vessel docked at the southern Israeli port of Ashdod. The boat was carrying a "tiny amount of aid" on board - which will be sent to Gaza. Greta had earlier posted on social media with a Palestine flag and wearing a keffiyeh scarf while on the journey. Who is on board the "Freedom Flotilla"? Greta Thunberg - Swedish climate activist Rima Hassan – French-Palestinian MEP Yasemin Acar – German activist Thiago Avila – Brazilian activist Omar Faiad – French journalist Pascal Maurieras – French activist Yanis Mhamdi – French reporter Suayb Ordu – Turkish activist Sergio Toribio – Spanish activist Marco van Rennes – Dutch activist Reva Viard – French activist Liam Cunningham - Irish Game of Thrones actor Baptiste Andre - French Physician US President Donald Trump commented: "She's a strange person. "I think she needs to go to an anger management class." Travelling alongside her was Rima Hassan, a French member of the European parliament of Palestinian descent. She was barred from entering Israel due to her outspoken criticism of the country's Read more on the Irish Sun Organisers claimed pro-Palestinian FFC claimed the voyage was 'a non-violent, direct action to challenge Israel's illegal siege". Israel imposed a near-total blockade on Gaza in late 2023, following Hamas's horror massacre on southern Israel on October 7. 11 A photo posted on Telegram purportedly showing activists with their hands up on board the Madleen Credit: Freedom Flotilla Coalition 11 Greta Thunberg was part of the crew of the ship Madleen Credit: Getty 11 Greta Thunberg on board the "Freedom Flotilla" aid mission Credit: @chris_kebbon
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Explainer: is it legal for Trump to use US troops to suppress protests?
In a rare use of military force on domestic soil, the Trump administration has deployed national guard troops and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles to respond to protests set off by its immigration crackdown. US president Donald Trump has long mused about using military force on domestic soil to crush violent protests or riots, fight crime and hunt for migrants living in the country illegally – a move that his aides talked him out of during his first term. Between his two presidencies, he said he would do so without the consent of state governors if he returned to the White House. The state of California and its governor, Gavin Newsom , filed a lawsuit on Monday night seeking to overturn Trump's move, calling it an unnecessary provocation and unlawful. Here is a closer look. READ MORE What did Trump's order do? Trump called up national guard troops to be put under federal control, issuing an order late on Saturday that authorised defence secretary Pete Hegseth to use them to protect immigration enforcement agents, buildings and functions from interference by protesters. As justification, the White House cited recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles. The order called for at least 2,000 troops to be deployed for at least 60 days. Trump also authorised Hegseth to use regular federal troops 'as necessary' to augment the work of the federalised national guard units. The national guard consists of military forces in the state, largely part-time troops who have separate, full-time civilian jobs. Normally, each state's governor controls its own guard, directing it to deal with a disaster or civil disorder. But under certain circumstances, federal law allows the president to take control. Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies clash with protesters in Compton on Saturday. Photograph: Philip Cheung/The New York Times On its face, deploying active-duty troops into an American city is an escalation because they fight war full time and, unlike a national guard, may come from anywhere around the country. Legally, both federalised national guard forces and active-duty troops are federal troops, under the control of the defence secretary and the president. What are the rules of engagement? This is unclear. For now, the federalised troops appear to have limited authority, Stephen I Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in analysing the order over the weekend. It says the troops can protect ICE agents and federal buildings against attacks by protesters, but it does not authorise them to carry out immigration raids or police the city's streets in general. But Trump's order did not specify any standards for when troops would be able to use force – such as arresting people or shooting them – if his administration deemed a protest to threaten federal personnel, property or functions. Notably, Hegseth has railed against military lawyers who promoted what he saw as unduly restrictive rules of engagement aimed at protecting civilians in war zones. He has fired the top judge advocate general lawyers who give advice on legal constraints. And his remarks since Saturday have not signalled restraint. On social media, Hegseth called protests against ICE in Los Angeles 'violent mob assaults' intended to prevent the removal of migrants living in the country illegally who he said were engaged in an 'invasion.' Police fill the street as they face off with protesters in Los Angeles, California on Sunday. Photograph: EPA Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said on Sunday that 'no matter who carries the gun or what uniform they wear, it's important to remember that the constitution – and in particular the First Amendment – applies and troops' conduct is governed by strict constitutional limits.' Is it legal to use federal troops on US soil? Usually it is not, but sometimes it can be. Under an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act, it is normally illegal to use federal troops on domestic soil for policing purposes. But an 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, creates an exception to that ban for situations in which the president decides that 'unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law. Trump's order criticised the protests as violent and said they threatened to damage federal immigration detention facilities. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws,' it added, 'they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' But he did not invoke the Insurrection Act. What legal authority did Trump cite? Trump invoked a statute, Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US code, that allows him to call national guard members and units into federal service under certain circumstances, including during a rebellion against the authority of the federal government. The call-up statute does not, on its face, appear to confer any authority to use any kind of federal troops – whether they be federalised national guard members or active-duty Marines – in the ways Trump has authorised. But Trump also referred to 'the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution,' which may suggest his administration believes he can claim inherent constitutional power as the commander in chief to use troops on US soil in those ways. During the Vietnam War, William Rehnquist, then a lawyer for the justice department before being confirmed to the US supreme court, wrote memos for its office of legal counsel saying that presidents had inherent power to use troops to prevent anti-war protesters from obstructing federal functions or damaging federal property in the District of Columbia and at the Pentagon. Using troops in such a protective capacity would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, Rehnquist argued at the time. But there was no definitive court test of that idea. Moreover, the nation's capital and the campus of the Pentagon are both federal enclaves, unlike the businesses in Los Angeles where ICE agents are carrying out raids. Must a state's governor consent to federal troops? Not always. But Section 12406 says that orders for national guard call-ups 'shall be issued through the governors of the states.' One of the state's complaints is that Hegseth ignored that provision, notifying the general in charge of California's national guard without going through Newsom. The Insurrection Act would provide a separate basis for federalising California's National Guard or for using active-duty troops without going through a governor. California attorney general Rob Bonta said on Monday that his office had been studying that law should Trump try to invoke it, but he insisted that local authorities were 'completely prepared' to address any developments. Protesters confront police near a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in San Francisco. Photograph: Loren Elliott/The New York Times Using federal troops on domestic soil outside military bases for policing purposes has happened only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, and doing so over the objection of a state's governor is even more unusual. The last time a president used federal troops for domestic policing purposes was in 1992, when then president George HW Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to suppress widespread riots in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted police officers who had been videotaped beating a black motorist, Rodney King. But in that instance, California's governor, Pete Wilson, and Los Angeles' mayor, Tom Bradley, asked for federal assistance. Presidents have not used federal troops without the permission of state governors since the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied court orders to desegregate state schools. Which troops is Trump using? For now, the national guard troops have come from the California National Guard, while about 700 Marines joining them are normally based at Twentynine Palms in California, said US northern command. But Trump directed Hegseth to 'co-ordinate with the governors of the states' – plural – in identifying which units to call into federal service. That raises the possibility that Hegseth could send troops from a Republican-controlled state, further heightening the political tensions. Another possibility is that the administration envisions expanding the use of troops to other parts of the country. Trump's order is not limited to Los Angeles, stating instead that troops must protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' What is the status of the court challenge? California filed a lawsuit on Monday evening. It argued that the Trump administration had violated the procedure required by the National Guard call-up statute in bypassing Newsom. It also argued that local law enforcement could handle policing the protests, and by sending federal troops into the fray, Trump was impeding states' rights protected by the 10th Amendment. It reserves to the states those governing powers that the constitution does not bestow on the federal government. The US justice department has not yet responded to the lawsuit and declined to comment. As events unfold, there could also be lawsuits on behalf of protesters, invoking individual rights such as First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly. This article originally appeared in The New York Times . 2025 The New York Times Company
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
How Trump's actions against LA protesters defy all precedents
Analysis: Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California Violence has erupted on the streets of cities across southern California over the weekend, as protesters clashed with agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency detaining people they suspected to be illegal immigrants. The US president, Donald Trump, took the unusual decision on Saturday to deploy 2,000 troops from California's National Guard, despite not being requested to by the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom has threatened to sue Trump over what he has called "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act". Other California officials have also denounced the move, with Senator Adam Schiff calling it a "dangerous precedent for unilateral misuse of the guard across the country". Raids by ICE agents have increased significantly since mid-May when the Trump administration threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they did not deliver on higher arrest quotas. Several high-profile wrongful arrests of US citizens have further inflamed tensions. Protests have escalated in California, a Democratic stronghold and a "sanctuary state" where local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE to detain illegal immigrants. At around 24,000 troops, California's National Guard is the largest in the United States. Each state has its own National Guard unit, a reserve force under the control of the governor which can be called upon in times of crisis – often to help out during natural disasters or other emergencies. For example, in January, Newsom activated several thousand troops to aid relief work during the devastating fires that threatened Los Angeles. In 1992, the then president, George H.W. Bush, backed the call of the then governor of California, Pete Wilson, call to deploy National Guard members to quell the South Central LA riots. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Los Angeles-based reporter Sean Mandell reports on the ongoing LA protests Now troops are back on the streets of LA. But this time not at the behest of the governor. Trump's unilateral decision to take federal control over the National Guard pits the president against the state of California – and importantly, against a state that has constantly resisted his anti-immigrant agenda. Newsom is seen by many as a possible contender for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2028 presidential election. Historical precedents Is there a precedent for this? Yes and no. The Insurrection Act (passed in 1807, but revised several times) authorises the president to call on the National Guard in times of crisis or war to supplement state and local forces. This has been codified in title 10 of the US Code, which details the laws of the land. In 1871, the law was revised to specifically allow for the National Guard to be used in the protection of civil rights for black Americans. Legal experts have long called for reform of the Insurrection Act, arguing that the language is too vague and open to misuse. From RTÉ News, Trump calls deployment of troops in Los Angeles a 'great decision' In the past, former US presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked different sections of the Act to protect civil rights, particularly against segregationist states. While the act implies consent between governor and president, it does not require it. Two examples stand out. On June 11 1963, Kennedy issued executive order 11111 mobilising the National Guard to protect desegregation of the University of Alabama, against the wishes of Alabama governor George Wallace. Wallace's determination to block the registration of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, produced a produced a sensational media moment when Wallace physically blocked the entrance of the university. Local law enforcement stood by the governor. With the state of Alabama in defiance of federal law, Kennedy saw no alternative but to deploy the guard. Less than two years later, in March 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson again deployed the guard in Alabama, bypassing Governor Wallace. In February, a state trooper in the town of Marion killed a young voters-rights activist, Jimmie Lee Jackson. This shooting, along with several violent attacks by the local police on voter registration activists in Selma, inspired a series of marches in support of the 1965 voting rights bill. On the eve of the march from Selma to Montgomery, tensions between local police and civil rights protesters were at a high. In response, Johnson bypassed Wallace and called in the National Guard to ensure, as he put it, the rights of Americans "to walk peaceably and safely without injury or loss of life from Selma to Montgomery". Before last Saturday, this was the last time a president circumvented the authority of the state governor in deploying the guard. But even in this instance, there was an implied request from Wallace, who explicitly requested federal aid in the absence of state resources. The subtext here is that Wallace did not want to be seen to call up the National Guard himself, so he forced Johnson to make that decision, allowing him to claim that the president was trampling on state sovereignty. Insurrection Act But this is not the current situation in California. The LAPD is the third largest police force in the US, with over just under 9,000 sworn officers. While its ranks have shrunk in recent years, it has been responding to the recent protests and unrest. There is no reason to think that Newsom would hesitate to call in the National Guard if warranted. In reality, Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act to protect ICE agents. Indeed, the National Guard has a complicated history of responding to civil unrest. The current situation is in stark contrast with the past, and faces serious questions of legitimacy. It is difficult not to see this as the latest move by the Trump administration to subjugate California. In early January Trump threatened to withhold federal aid to rebuild after the wildfires. In past months he threatened to withdraw all of the state's federal funding to punish it for its stance on campus protests and the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has not mobilised the National Guard to protect civil rights against a hostile police force. Instead, he appears to be using this as leverage to undermine a political opponent he views as blocking his agenda. Circumventing gubernatorial powers over the National Guard in this way has no precedent and heralds the next stage in an extended conflict between the president and the state of California.
