this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
476 points (99.6% liked)

California

1788 readers
308 users here now

Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.

Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.

Related Communities:

Nearby Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
badbrainstorm@lemmy.world
476
Cop deliberately shoot a less lethal round into an Australian reporter. (babka.social)
submitted 3 days ago by mesamunefire@piefed.social to c/california@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 97 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Wear safety glasses

Not sunglasses, or shades or prescription glasses

Wear actual industrial rated workers safety glasses.

If you get those shots in your face, you're going to lose an eye or both eyes. Safety glasses are designed for this kind of stuff and they actually work. It will stop those projectiles from damaging your eyes.

Cops all over the world are known to purposefully shoot people's faces and heads. After the fact they will just argue that it didn't happen, it was accidental, it was chaotic, it was dangerous, etc, etc .... it won't matter after the fact if you lose an eye or end up completely blind.

Wear safety glasses, they're easy to find and easy to use.

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Germany: that's a passive weapon which is illegal to wear in and close to political gatherings

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wtf is a passive weapon? Are you saying I'm not allowed to take a simple walk sporting my Dutch Goalkeeper fully automatic close-in weapon system in case of drone strikes in my area?

[–] killingspark@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Wtf is a passive weapon?

Yeah it's weird.

Unter Schutzwaffen im technischen Sinne (§§ 17a Abs. 1, 27 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 Alt. 1 VersammlG) sind ausschließlich Gegenstände zu verstehen, die nach ihrer Zweckbestimmung, ihren Konstruktionsmerkmalen oder ihren besonderen Eigenschaften von vornherein dazu bestimmt sind, dem Schutz des Körpers zur Verteidigung gegen Angriffe bei kämpferischen Auseinandersetzungen zu dienen. Hierzu gehören vornehmlich Schutzschilde, Panzerungen sowie Schutzwaffen aus dem polizeilichen oder militärischen Bereich (Helme, Schutz- oder Gasmasken usw.) oder aus dem Bereich von Kampfsportarten.[4]

Translation by me:

Defensive arms in a technical sense are excusively objects that are by their purpose, construction or special properties specifically meant to protect the body from attacks in violent conflicts. This includes shields, armor, as well as defensive arms (talk about recursive definitions right) used by the police or the military (helmets, protective masks, gasmasks, etc.) or used in martial arts.

Recently a judge ruled that even a sheet of plastic tucked in front of your face to protect from pepper spray is a defensive arm. Officially the idea is, that the police should always be able to use the least amount of force to do their jobs. Using defensive arms forces them to use more force to do their job. Thus defensive arms cause more police violence, thus they are forbidden.

This logic obviously falls apart as soon as the police uses more force than they need to anyways, which they often do. But no one in politics will follow this logic because it would mean talking badly about the police which is currently very frowned upon in german politics. There was a huge dramatic outfalling because the leader of a youth organization of the green party wore an ACAB sweater in an instagram post. Leaders of the party called for her to resign and leave the party entirely.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

I'd rather be arrested or charged by the police for this .... than in risking losing my eyesight

If government and security forces want to endanger you like this ... than all the more reason to wear eye protection.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Make sure to replace them when they get hit though. They're only rated for one strike, and after that the protection is not guaranteed.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

Any brand recommendations? I assume there are brands floating around stating protection but are just knockoffs that do nothing.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

3M .... and get a pair from an actual hardware store and not the dollar or discount store.

Discount places are more liable to sell cheap knock offs.

Hardware stores sell actual equipment meant for safety and sell reputable products.

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Anything ANSI Z87+, sometimes written Z87.1+ (note the plus) rated or CSA Z94.3 rated are ensured to safely withstand a direct high energy strike.

ANSI Z87 (Z87.1) is a lesser qualification only meant for lighter duty. Use them if you can't find Z87+ or Z94.3.

I checked my local hardware stores and while Z87+ is fairly hard to find outside of places that directly supply contractors, CSA Z94.3 ratings are common under $10 but are less loudly marketed. Check the packaging carefully.

3M is a common and high quality supplier, but anything with an official rating is risking pretty severe penalties from OSHA and commercial liability, so really you should be able to trust them.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

I work in a bit of construction and renovations and I've collected all sorts of safety glasses over the years. I have them in my shop, garage, basement, truck and office. They're easy to find and buy, cheap (about $10-$20 CAD) and for the price, will actually save your eyes if you buy actual safety equipment.

Here are a couple of images of a pair I have sitting in my kitchen. If you find a reputable brand, there should be a readable notation on the band to indicate authenticity. If there are no markings, then it is probably a knockoff.

[–] numanair@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Carhartt has some that also have UV protection and choice of tint.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Tinted lenses are a good choice because then you can just claim that they are personal sunglasses ... as opposed to safety glasses you want to use at a protest event.

[–] ElJefe@lemm.ee 56 points 3 days ago

What a cowardly piece of shit cop. Fucking pig.

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 3 days ago

Fucking fascists. They all should be put down ☺️

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Sorry I might not be up-to-date with the fash parlance, but is 'less lethal' some sort of official nomenclature?

"It's OK you're not quite dead, it was a less lethal bullet to your head, ahah. OwO"

I am amazed by the times.

[–] scbasteve7@lemm.ee 33 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think all non-lethal weapons had the name changed to less than lethal about 5-10 years ago.

Turns out if you shoot a rubber bullet at someone's head and it kills them, the weapon manufacturer can be open to liability. So now it's less than lethal.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Less lethal, not less than. TASER wound up in a big lawsuit after a guy died from cardiac arrest being hit by one, so most manufacturers changed it to "less than", but then a couple more people died from being hit with beanbag/baton/rubber rounds, so now they're marketed as "less lethal" because legally they can't say "this can't kill people" in their marketing when it absolutely can.

[–] Clepsydrae@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Princess Bride beat them to the punch decades ago. The suspect was rendered only mostly dead when long-distance kinetic interaction was applied in an officer-involved pacification tool activation.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

They used to call it “non-lethal” which was a copaganda lie. After being called out they changed their words instead of their behavior.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago

It should be completely legal to fire rubber bullets at police whenever you feel like it.

[–] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

it even seems like he waited for the camera to pan over to him before taking the shot

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They're specifically escalating shit. Trump et al want this to turn violent, and since it's not, they're trying to force it instead. It's right outta the 2025 playbook to get martial law enacted.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

His firing stance is shit, he's halfway taking a step back while turning to shoot. The way he snapped the rifle up the moment the camera was pointed directly at him, I think he was actually aiming for the camera and is just a terrible shot.

Which would be worse, as that's eye level.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 26 points 3 days ago

Not authoritarian. Freest country in the world.

[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

that's just how they welcome foreigners in america.... not really big on vaccines, but really into injecting lead into women and people of colour

[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 3 days ago

She was clearly rioting.

[–] Pnut@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

The United States of America is starting to be a worm out answer. Yet...

[–] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 9 points 2 days ago

Holy shit he was so close too, what the actual fuck???

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"less lethal" fuck off, rubber bullets are as dangerous, tasers are also very dangerous, off with that bullshit, ACAB and that applies to soldiers

[–] Uriel_Copy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They didn't need to use the word lethal at all, I read this as an intentional reminder that even these rubber bullets can be lethal and this incident isn't a joke

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago

It is much better than 'non-lethal' but it still is literally a bullet, it is very much so still lethal (especially to the head and throat and legs)