65.1 F
Los Angeles
Monday, June 30, 2025

Opinion: LAPD Protest Response Shows Tension Between Safety and Rights

“The police followed legal procedures, the situation was dangerous, and their response was swift and restrained.”

Protesters rally outside City Hall in downtown Los Angeles, California, during a No Kings Day protest against President Trump’s policies on June 14. [REUTERS]
People gather during “No Kings” protest against U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Aude Guerrucci

On June 23, in response to criticism that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) had used excessive force at the No Kings protest, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell made this statement according to the Los Angeles Times.

He made it clear that it was “an action taken for public safety.” It was also announced that 52 officers had been injured at the scene.

To some citizens, this response may have seemed excessive. For those who participated peacefully, the police intervention probably felt sudden and oppressive. But the scene is never uniform. Just because one person was peaceful does not mean the entire scene was. Protests are a constitutional right, but when thousands gather in the streets, that right can clash with public safety. It is not uncommon for a single act of violence among protesters to shift the entire dynamic. In these urgent situations, the police are tasked with protecting not just individual freedom of expression but also the safety and order of the collective.

LAPD stated that during the protest, some participants engaged in violent acts, throwing bottles, bricks, and fireworks at officers, and repeatedly ignored orders to disperse. The department declared the gathering an “unlawful assembly,” issuing multiple dispersal orders in both English and Spanish. Some were delivered via ground loudspeakers, others through helicopter broadcasts.

At this point, we must ask ourselves: rather than immediately condemning the LAPD’s use of force, shouldn’t we first confirm what protocols they followed and, if those procedures were observed, accept it as a legitimate public action? It would be unreasonable to claim that every action taken by the police on site was perfect, but approaching the matter with blanket criticism while excluding their preventive efforts for public safety does not reflect a balanced perspective.

In the United States, where gun possession is legal, the possibility of unexpected violence is ever-present. At protest sites with hundreds gathered, the police must assess situations and respond in real time. Underestimating threats can lead to even greater harm, which is why crowd control responses inherently operate within special and complex structures. If all interventions are judged by the same standards as isolated incidents, ignoring this specificity, even rightful public actions could be stifled.

Furthermore, recent controversies over protest policing often form around short video clips or fragmented testimonies. The role of the media and citizens in monitoring police misuse is certainly important, but assessing an entire situation based solely on one intense, complex moment warrants caution.

At the same time, the police must also strive to earn public trust. If there was excessive force, it must be thoroughly investigated and disclosed, while transparency in protocol-based training and responses should be strengthened. The belief that public authority operates within verifiable structures underpins the safety of society as a whole.

The police are an organization tasked with protecting citizens. Because of that responsibility, they often become targets of criticism. But if that criticism focuses only on outcomes without examining the judgments and procedures leading up to them, we risk distorting their responsibilities.

This does not mean LAPD’s response in this protest was flawless. If there was excessive force, it deserves scrutiny and improvement. However, if all criticism flows toward the notion that “police are always the aggressors,” we may lose sight of whom we should truly empathize with. Police officers are citizens like us, positioned to protect us. Their responsibilities, and the weight of the judgments those responsibilities demand, must also be understood.

If we regard even the use of force to protect public safety as merely violence, we may be disabling the very minimum mechanisms needed to protect society in moments of crisis.

BY YOONJAE JUNG [jung.yoonjae@koreadaily.com]

- Advertisement -
Yoonjae Jung
Yoonjae Jung
Yoonjae Jung reports on society for The Korea Daily. Before joining The Korea Daily in June 2024, he graduated from UC Berkeley with a degree in economics. He has a strong interest in entertainment and culture.