The term “less-lethal” suggests restraint, control, and reduced harm. In practice, the deployment of these weapons by immigration enforcement raises a different set of questions—about how force is applied, when it is justified, and whether the governing rules are being followed. Recent reporting and video evidence indicate that these tools are being used in ways that extend beyond their intended limits, particularly in encounters involving civilians who do not present a clear threat.
WHAT THE INVESTIGATION FOUND
A review of multiple incidents, including video documentation analyzed by journalists, shows repeated use of pepper spray, pepper ball launchers, and other projectile-based weapons in situations where escalation appears disproportionate. These findings are not based on a single event but on a collection of encounters that, taken together, suggest a pattern of misuse rather than isolated error.
The designation “less-lethal” does not eliminate the potential for harm. These weapons can cause significant injury depending on distance, targeting, and frequency of use. Their legitimacy depends entirely on adherence to strict operational guidelines. When those guidelines are not followed, the classification becomes largely symbolic.
WHAT THE RULES ACTUALLY SAY
Use-of-force policies governing these weapons are structured around three core principles: necessity, proportionality, and risk mitigation. Officers are required to identify a clear and immediate threat before deploying force, to match the level of force to that threat, and to avoid actions that could result in severe or unintended injury.
Restrictions are explicit. Targeting sensitive areas such as the head or neck is prohibited. Use against individuals who are not actively posing a threat is limited. Courts have reinforced these standards in multiple rulings, including restrictions on the use of tear gas and projectiles against civilians and journalists during public demonstrations.
The framework is not ambiguous. The issue is whether it is being consistently applied.
WHAT THE VIDEOS SHOW
Available footage provides a direct view into how these encounters unfold. In several instances, individuals are struck at close range, increasing the likelihood of injury. Journalists documenting events have been hit while clearly identifiable as press. In other cases, force is deployed without visible escalation, raising questions about whether the threshold for use was met.
There are also examples of repeated strikes against the same individual and the use of projectiles against groups where no single, immediate threat is evident. These patterns suggest that the application of force may, at times, function less as a controlled response and more as a broad deterrent.
PATTERN, NOT INCIDENT
These incidents are not confined to a single location. Similar reports have emerged across multiple cities, including Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles. The consistency of these accounts—across different jurisdictions and circumstances—indicates that the issue is not limited to individual decision-making.
Legal challenges and court interventions have followed in several of these cases, further reinforcing the concern that the misuse of “less-lethal” weapons is systemic rather than incidental. When similar outcomes occur in different places under different conditions, the pattern becomes difficult to dismiss.
WHY IT MATTERS
“Less-lethal” weapons are intended to reduce harm, particularly in situations where some level of force is deemed necessary. When used outside of those parameters, they can produce the very outcomes they are meant to prevent. Injuries to civilians, bystanders, and journalists undermine both public safety and institutional credibility.
Beyond the immediate physical impact, the broader consequence is erosion of trust. If enforcement actions are perceived as unpredictable or excessive, the legitimacy of the system itself is called into question.
FROM PATTERN TO ACCOUNTABILITY
Patterns of behavior, once established, do not resolve without intervention. Documentation, legal scrutiny, and public visibility are essential mechanisms for enforcing compliance with existing rules. Without consistent accountability, the gap between policy and practice widens.
The issue is not whether guidelines exist, but whether there are consequences when they are not followed.
CLOSING
The use of force in any system is defined not only by what is permitted, but by what is enforced. When the standards governing “less-lethal” weapons are not upheld, the distinction between controlled enforcement and harmful conduct becomes unclear.
Accountability is the mechanism that restores that distinction.
Accountability requires more than policy — it requires exposure, documentation, and pressure that cannot be ignored. This work tracks use-of-force incidents, identifies patterns, and builds a public record where oversight fails.
