A Jury Speaks: The Price of Protest and the Power of Civil Action

When people take to the streets to protest, they exercise a fundamental American right. Peaceful protest is messy, noisy, and sometimes inconvenient. That is the point. It is how citizens demand change. Yet when law enforcement responds with force that does not match the threat, the state betrays its obligation to protect the right to dissent. A Los Angeles jury’s recent multimillion-dollar verdict in a case involving a protester struck in the face by a less lethal munition sends a clear message: the civil justice system can provide redress where other systems fall short. AP News

The facts are distressing. The protest took place in the aftermath of high-profile police killings. During crowd control operations, a deputy fired a projectile that struck a protester in the face, causing severe injuries. A jury found the county liable and awarded significant damages to the injured man and to a family member who suffered emotional distress from the incident. The size of the award reflects both the severity of the injury and the jury’s conclusion about law enforcement’s conduct that day. AP News

Why the verdict matters: First, it recognizes that so-called less lethal weapons can cause permanent harm when used recklessly. The term less lethal should not be shorthand for indiscriminate. Second, civil trials create accountability even when criminal prosecution is absent or inadequate. Juries are public forums where evidence, including body camera footage and expert testimony, can show patterns of misconduct. That public airing has consequences beyond monetary awards. It shapes police training, departmental policy, and the public understanding of acceptable use of force. Los Angeles Times

This verdict also reinforces a vital reality: civil rights lawyers are necessary guardians of civic order. They pick up the pieces when the criminal justice system fails to provide answers, and they use litigation to drive structural change. Lawsuits can obtain reforms to use-of-force protocols, changes in crowd-control tactics, mandates for training, and stronger accountability mechanisms. Those remedies can reduce the risk of future harm and restore public trust. AP News

BNCL’s perspective is firm but straightforward: protest is a constitutional act, not a liability that justifies careless force. The right to assemble and to express dissent is the oxygen of democracy. When officers fail to respect those rights, civil litigation is one of the most effective tools for demanding accountability. Families and victims who pursue suits make public what might otherwise remain hidden. Juries, in turn, provide a societal judgment that shapes behavior going forward. AP News

We do not litigate to punish for punishment’s sake. We litigate to change practices and to ensure that when law enforcement uses force, it does so within clear, constitutionally permissible rules. The Los Angeles verdict is a reminder that civil courts remain a crucial mechanism for enforcing those rules.

BNCL Commitment

Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry, and Lacy are committed to protecting the right to protest and to enforcing legal limits on the use of force. We stand with individuals injured in the exercise of their constitutional rights, and we will pursue redress and reform through civil litigation. When criminal systems fail to offer full accountability, civil justice must remain a meaningful avenue for change.

Citations: AP, Los Angeles Times, regional reporting on the protest verdict.