Latest news with #immigrationraids
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
How Trump plans to punish Newsom
The Trump administration is considering cutting California's federal education funding, as a tit-for-tat battle with Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, reaches boiling point. Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested Mr Newsom should be arrested for his 'bad job' in handling a wave of anti-deportation protests, which erupted on Friday in response to immigration raids. It comes as Mr Newsom on Tuesday accused Mr Trump of a 'brazen abuse of power' when he deployed thousands of National Guard troops and 700 US marines in Los Angeles to quell the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The state is suing the president for sending in troops without Mr Newsom's approval, marking the first time since civil rights protests in 1965 that a president sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest without cooperation from the state's governor. Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said the administration is 'committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream'. He added: 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the administration have been made.' In the wake of the row, White House officials may stop the education department's disbursement of 'formula funds' to California, Politico reported. The state receives $8 billion a year from the education department. Some of the payouts are used towards programs for students with disabilities and from low-income homes. Mr Trump's vow to cut funding to the country's most populous state began before his latest clash with Mr Newsom and his dispatch of Marines and the National Guard. He has already cut $126.4 million in flood prevention projects, and threatened to dilute California's tough vehicle emissions standards. Last month, he said he would halt federal funding after a transgender athlete took part in a sporting event. Student visa pause will impact California His pause to visas for students from China would also have an outsized impact on California as it enrols more foreign students than any other state. As the state was ravaged by a series of wildfires in January, Mr Trump directly blamed Mr Newsom for LA's struggling water supply, and threatened to bar California from accepting federal disaster funds unless they changed water policies. Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Trump described the LA protesters as 'a foreign enemy' and vowed to 'liberate' Los Angeles. A curfew has been enforced between 8pm to 6am in the downtown area of central Los Angeles, in what officials say is necessary to stop vandalism and looting. Mr Newsom has urged demonstrators – who have been protesting ICE raids since Friday – to remain peaceful and said Mr Trump's actions were fulfilling 'the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president' .
Sky News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Los Angeles latest: White House 'provoked' unrest with 'chaotic escalation', LA mayor says
LA 'maybe part of a national experiment', mayor says - as she blames White House for 'provoking' unrest A week ago, everything was peaceful in LA, the city's mayor has just said. Speaking at a news conference with a group of regional mayors, Karen Bass singled out the White House for "provoking" the disorder seen on the streets there since Friday. On that day, immigration raids started in the city, which Bass said is "the cause of the problems". "When you raid Home Depots and work places, when you run armoured caravans through streets... you're not trying to keep anyone safe, you're trying to cause panic," she said. "I posit that maybe we are part of a national experiment to determine how far the federal government can go in reaching in and taking power from governors, local jurisdictions... and frankly leaving our residents in fear." Donald Trump said he deployed the National Guard - unusually, without the local governor's approval - for the safety of residents. Bass criticised that move as a "drastic and chaotic escalation", and called for immigration raids to end. "These aren't criminals the administration is allegedly targeting... these are mothers and fathers, restaurant workers," she added. A US citizen, who is due to give birth within days, was "hospitalised" after being detained, Bass said, as she gave examples of the dangers of the raids. LA curfew in effect We reported last night that LA's mayor announced a curfew covering an area downtown. That's now come into effect for a one-square-mile section in an attempt to prevent vandalism and looting. Karen Bass emphasised the area, where people will be subject to arrest, is a small fraction of the city's nearly 500-square-mile landscape. "This is not citywide civil unrest," she said. ICE agents being deployed in five Democrat-run cities ICE, the immigration agency at the heart of tensions across the US, is preparing to deploy special teams to five Democrat-run cities. That's according to our US partner network NBC News, which reports tactical units - known as Special Response Teams (SRT) - will head to Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, northern Virginia and New York. These are teams used in operations considered to be high-risk. It's not clear if raids in those cities will begin immediately, but all SRT units in those areas have been told to be ready to deploy, NBC said. Protests spread to other cities across US Demonstrators have marched in major cities across the US, with anger towards ICE immigration raids not confined to southern California. Last night, protests were held in New York, Atlanta and Chicago, with hundreds chanting anti-ICE slogans and some, at times, clashing with police. Texas governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, said he plans to deploy the National Guard today ahead of protests in San Antonio and other parts. He's the first governor to activate the reserve force. Police in Austin, Texas, fired tear gas and pepper balls on Monday. We've mapped out where demonstrations have been planned since Monday - though not all locations are shown - to give you an idea of the scale of the protests. Trump 'stoking fear and unrest', says local mayor We've just heard from Dan O'Brien, the mayor of Culver City in Los Angeles. He's accused Donald Trump's administration of "stoking fear and unrest", after deploying the National Guard (the country's reserve force) in response to riots in LA. He also urged communities to stand with immigrant populations. Many are too scared to leave their homes, he said, and some businesses have closed. Watch below: Martha Kelner reports from LA as curfew enforced on Tuesday For context: It's unusual for a president to deploy the National Guard in a state, particularly without the local governor's backing. Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code - a federal law outlining the role of the armed forces - in his order to send in troops. Title 10 is for if the US is invaded, there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion", or the president is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States". Legal experts from both left and right-leaning advocacy groups have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10, describing it as inflammatory and reckless, especially without local support. Trump will 'never allow mob rule to prevail' - despite pardoning January 6 rioters As expected, the White House press secretary has come out swinging against the disorder we've seen in LA. Describing scenes as "shameful" - and again showing pictures from riots - she blamed the Democrat state governor and the LA city mayor. "These criminals injured police," she said, referring to rioters, insisting Donald Trump will "never allow mob rule to prevail" in the US. That's despite - as many critics have pointed out - the president pardoning insurrectionists who were part of the January 6 Capitol Hill riots back in 2021 at the end of his first presidency, during which police officers were targeted. Here's a brief breakdown of what Karoline Leavitt said about the protests: These attacks were aimed "not just at law enforcement, but at American culture and society itself", she said; California governor Gavin Newsom and LA mayor Karen Bass "shamefully failed to meet their sworn obligations to their citizens" (for their part, both have accused Trump of dangerous escalation by sending in troops to deal with protests); Trump deployed the National Guard because neither Newsom or Bass had the "courage" to do the right thing, Leavitt argued; The "criminals" responsible will be "swiftly brought to justice", and the Trump administration's operations to "arrest illegal aliens are continuing unabated"; Asking if Trump supports peaceful protests is a "stupid question", she said, after the president warned against demonstrations at this weekend's military parade. Welcome back - watch as White House press secretary gives news conference Karoline Leavitt is again in front of the media at the White House, with disorder in Los Angeles and elsewhere expected to form the agenda. She's also bound to address the recent fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk - for which the SpaceX founder and billionaire has apologised. Watch live in the video at the top of this page. That's all for our coverage today We'll be back soon with more updates on the situation in Los Angeles. In the meantime, here is what you need to know tonight: Donald Trump said if the National Guard was not sent to Los Angeles the city "would be burning". He said: "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there"; The US leader called protesters in LA "insurrectionists" and "paid agitators"; Trump defended his decision to deploy 5,000 troops to Los Angeles; LA mayor Karen Bass criticised the "idea that the administration would usurp the authority of our state government" and "take it away from California governor Gavin Newsom". She said the solution to the violence is the "administration needs to stop the raids"; Trump said he will be restoring the names of military forts in the US during a speech in Fort Bragg; California governor Gavin Newsom filed an emergency motion blocking National Guard troops and the marines from assisting with immigration raids. You can watch Trump speaking to reporters at the Oval Office here... California judge orders hearing request to limit military in LA A federal judge in California has scheduled a hearing for Thursday on the state's request for an emergency order to stop Donald Trump from using the military for immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, our partner network NBC News reports. We reported earlier that California governor Gavin Newsom had filed an emergency motion blocking National Guard troops and the marines from assisting with immigration raids (see post at 8.25pm). Now, US district judge Charles Breyer has granted the Trump administration's request for more time to respond. The Trump administration has been given until until tomorrow to file a response, with a hearing set for Thursday. White House: Newsom continues to fail his state Our partner network NBC News has reached out to the White House for a response to California governor Gavin Newsom claiming Donald Trump didn't call him yesterday. White House communications director Steven Cheung issued this statement... "The president called Gavin Newsom to tell him to get his ass in gear. The governor has clearly decided to disgustingly side with the violent rioters instead of protecting Californians. "The only liar here is Newsom who continues to fail his state as he prioritises doing interviews with leftist media to gaslight the public instead of helping his state." How did this start? In the Oval Office today, Trump was asked when he last spoke to Newsom. "A day ago," the president replied. "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job. He's doing a bad job. Causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death. If we didn't send out the National Guard, Los Angeles would be burning right now." In response to Trump's comments in the Oval Office, Newsom's office said: "Trump and Newsom did not speak since Friday." A Newsom aide added that a review of the governor's phone did not show a missed call or voicemail from the president since then.
WIRED
a day ago
- Politics
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
CNA
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNA
Trump pushing legal limits with deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, say analysts
United States President Donald Trump has deployed more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids. California Governor Gavin Newsom has blasted the order as "purposely inflammatory", and the state on Monday (Jun 9) sued the Trump administration to block what it calls the 'unlawful' deployment of soldiers. Questions have emerged over whether Trump's activation of the troops is in line with the law, with analysts telling CNA it is a legal grey area. 'Legally, he's pushing the limits. But then again, we haven't tested this out before,' said Rick Mullaney, executive director of Jacksonville University's Public Policy Institute. HOW IS TRUMP JUSTIFYING THE DEPLOYMENT? Trump invoked a statute – Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code – in his order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service last Friday. The provision allows the president to federalise National Guard units in the event the US is invaded, if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion', or when the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. While the federal law generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from being involved in civilian law enforcement, they can protect federal personnel and property. 'Trump's view is that (the troops) are protecting federal property and federal agents, (who are carrying out) the enforcement of federal law, and that this was necessary given the circumstances in Los Angeles,' Mullaney told CNA938. 'The law in this area is not well developed. This will test the law.' WILL THIS HOLD UP IN COURT? Rachel VanLandingham, a co-associate dean of research at the Southwestern Law School, said the statute that Trump cited to deploy troops is not well defined. 'It's so broadly written that it gives vast discretion to the president to decide when the conditions are ripe to federalise – that is, to take control of the National Guard and use them,' she noted. She added that as there was some violence in the protests – cars were set aflame and scuffles broke out with law enforcement – the Trump administration could use the incidents to justify their case, even if they were a minority. 'I think the courts, at the end of the day, will yield to the president,' said VanLandingham, who is also a retired lieutenant colonel who served primarily as a military attorney for over 20 years in the US Air Force. Analysts noted that the decision to deploy the National Guard usually comes from the ground up – local state officials determine if it is necessary, and the governor requests troops. VanLandingham pointed out it is primarily Newsom's responsibility and duty to keep the streets of Los Angeles safe, not the president's. 'Trump completely bypassed him in an unprecedented manner,' she told CNA's Asia First. 'This goes against hundreds of years of norms, of procedural safeguards, in an aversion against using federal troops - particularly active-duty troops - in a domestic law enforcement policing capacity, because it smacks of authoritarian overreach.' TRUMP'S CRACKDOWN ON IMMIGRATION Trump's authorisation of the troops came after protests rocked Los Angeles as immigration and customs enforcement officers executed search warrants and arrested immigrants in the county last Friday. The president has made clamping down on immigration a cornerstone of his second term since his return to the White House in January, and has not held back on 'pushing the limits of executive power', said Mullaney. 'Whether it's tariffs, higher education or immigration, the president has pushed those limits,' he said. He added that the deployments were a 'calculated strong move' as part of the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants. 'The Trump administration … is sending a message to other sanctuary cities around the country, particularly in blue (Democrat) states, that are sympathetic and supportive of what's going on in Los Angeles,' he said. Protests have also sprang up in at least nine other US cities, including New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco, according to US news outlets. Observers said that while Trump has faced criticisms, particularly from the Democrats, some polls conducted by American media outlets before the Los Angeles protests showed a slight majority approving of the crackdown on undocumented immigrants. 'The Democrats will argue that Trump was quick on the trigger. Trump will argue that Newsom wasn't doing his job,' said Mullaney. 'Trump may or may not have the legal high ground, but he believes he has the political high ground, and he likely does.'
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
A look at the ‘less lethal' weapons authorities used to crack down on Los Angeles protests
FacebookTweetLink Follow Late Sunday, as protesters against federal immigration raids clashed with law enforcement, the Los Angeles Police Department's Central Division sent out a warning: 'Less Lethal munitions have been authorized,' officials wrote on X, ordering crowds in Downtown Los Angeles to disperse. 'Less lethal munitions may cause pain and discomfort.' Over the weekend, police used a standard variety of tools to disperse crowds and quell protests that had devolved into violence: Protesters lit self-driving cars on fire. Two motorcyclists drove into a skirmish line of officers, injuring two. And LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, condemning the 'disgusting' violence, alleged on Sunday evening a Molotov cocktail had been thrown at officers. Authorities responded with force. So far, CNN has documented the deployment of flash-bangs, tear gas, pepper balls, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds, as well as more traditional gear such as batons. These weapons – often described as 'less lethal,' 'less-than-lethal' or 'non-lethal' – are those 'explicitly designed and primarily employed to incapacitate … while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property, facilities, materiel, and the environment,' according to a Department of Defense directive. Prev Next That does not mean they are harmless: After the 2020 protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd, researchers found many people suffered injuries from less lethal weapons – particularly rubber bullets. Here's a look at the equipment authorities have used: Authorities have used several tools that a 2025 report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service noted for their ability to incapacitate using blunt force. Foremost among these is the baton, which the CRS report described as the oldest kinetic less lethal weapon. Also called a nightstick, the baton is essentially a club with a handle, often used for crowd control. A CNN field crew witnessed officers pushing and striking protesters with batons Sunday afternoon. Also included are blunt-force projectiles, such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds – both of which were seen in use this weekend. These weapons are used for long-range crowd control, according to the CRS report, and are meant to cause 'temporary blunt-force trauma to the skin.' Rubber bullets are larger than their lethal counterparts, and some include cores made of metal or wood. Though they are considered 'less-than-lethal,' there are cases where they have been found to disable, disfigure and even kill. Lauren Tomasi, the US correspondent for CNN affiliate Nine News in Australia, was reporting on the scene Sunday when she was struck in the leg by a rubber bullet. The bullet left her sore but she was otherwise unharmed, Tomasi's network said. Bean bag rounds are small, lead pellet-filled pouches, usually fired from a shotgun or a specialized launcher. Each pouch is typically filled with 1.4 oz of lead pellets. Law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles have also turned to chemical irritant devices, which rely on chemical compounds to irritate the sinuses, lungs and skin, causing enough pain to render an individual temporarily unable to function. Tear gas is one such tool, and commonly known. Also referred to as a 'riot control agent,' tear gas can cause excessive tearing, burning or blurred vision and a runny nose or a burning sensation inside the nose, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It can also cause difficulty swallowing, chest tightness, coughing, shortness of breath and a feeling of choking. Law enforcement agents usually disperse tear gas – which actually comes in a powder form – from grenades or a canister, per the CRS report. Pepper spray is similar but deployed using a hand-held canister for 'close-proximity encounters.' The compressed gas, the CRS report says, propels the chemical irritant at the target, who typically does not need medical attention afterwards. Pepper balls marry the effects of a chemical irritant with the delivery of a blunt-force projectile: Pepper spray balls, according to the CRS report, rupture on impact, releasing a chemical irritant similar to those used for tear gas. CNN footage captured law enforcement using pepper balls, spray and tear gas in an attempt to disperse protesters Sunday outside the Metropolitan Detention Center. CNN has also seen the repeated use of flash-bangs, which rely on a bright flash of light to obscure a target's vision and hearing. Flash-bangs – thrown either by hand or with a launcher – use an 'explosive propellant to emit a bright flash of light … and ear-piercing sound,' the CRS report says. While their principal purpose is to help police make a 'tactical entry' – disorienting barricaded suspects, for example – they are sometimes used for crowd control. CNN's Harmeet Kaur, AJ Willingham and Sarah-Grace Mankarious contributed to this report.
