815
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours ago

Eyewitness News Reporter Sid Garcia spoke to the protester who was shot from his hospital bed at the L.A. General Medical Center.

I was thinking at first like, how lucky to be in a hospital bed already when being shot. 🧐

[-] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

ICE will retaliate at a time, place, and manor of their choosing. /S

[-] [email protected] 20 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

This was so common during protests in Spain they made a movie about it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555674/

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

"A young man who lost his eye with a rubber ball in a street protest, coincidentally meets the riot police who shot the ball in a dinner."

Holy shit. This must be a thing that cops do on purpose, then.

[-] kayky 4 points 17 hours ago

We need a database of pigs and ICE.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

best they can do is have palintir make a database about citizens.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

"Just one more peaceful protest bro. I swear bro"

[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago

Waiting for Pussolini to send the National Guard to city hall, to depose the mayor and council.

[-] [email protected] 130 points 1 day ago
[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago

It is this kind of thing that made me decide to ignore my city's municipal codes regarding protest gear. It outlaws the wearing of bulletproof vests, helmets, protective visors, hearing protection, gas masks, and so on. To say the least, I cannot respect a law that is designed to permit bullies to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago

If you don’t bring any protective gear, you better run when things get ugly. If you plan to stay when things get ugly, you better bring the appropriate gear with you.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 21 hours ago

Gods forbid that people should protect their faces from damage.

[-] [email protected] 59 points 1 day ago

In the video from last weekend of the Australian reporter being shot in the back, you can clearly see the police officer behind her raise and aim straight at her. Clearly there's no repercussions for misusing these weapons.

[-] [email protected] 51 points 1 day ago

Different victim but here's what a shot to the back can do:

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

I had a similar bruise from a less-lethal bullet on my butt, and I've seen a kid get hit with one in his head, that was scary. This was a long time ago though, but the bullets then were steel core and rubber around it. Not sure if they use different ones in the US.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

This shit is ridiculous. I have many, many words. None of which are not pure rage and sadness.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hundreds have been permanently blinded.

Just think about how that could even happen. You put any of us in their shoes, we would obviously aim low, to prevent permanent damage.

It's like police are overgrown toddlers, mad that they're forced to use less lethal rounds... So they take it out on civilians and aim for the face. Can you imagine being as hate-filled as these fucking orcs that you would want to blind the people you "serve" for the rest of their lives (if you don't kill them)!? Absolute monsters...

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

'Quantified immunity' is unique to the USA. Never should have been made law and it should surprise no-one that it came about during push-back to the civil rights movement. It enables all of this bullshit by making police behaviour untouchable.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Toddlers would see people getting hurt and angry and stop.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago

Eye shot vs nut shot I can’t decide which is worse

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 60 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I hope they recover their vision. As someone who lost sight in one eye I can attest that going from binocular to monocular vision is life altering AND not considered a disability under the ~~law~~ Social Security requirements but typically is covered by ADA.

Edit: clarification.

[-] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago

How is losing 50% of your eyesight not a disability?

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago

Because you still have eyesight in the other eye, so in social security's mind there's jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT) you could still perform, and if there's three jobs you could perform despite your impairment you aren't disabled. Also, if you're under 50 you almost certainly aren't disabled for some reason. It's maddening.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

That's bonkers, in the UK I'm technically disabled because i have tinnitus and ADHD. (I still work like anyone else, but I have protected rights because of my status)

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

A lot of states don't even care if you've only got so-so vision in one eye and are completely blind in the other. No stereopsis, no problem! Here's a driver's license. Good luck.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

I would absolutely not be comfortable driving with vision in only one eye. It isn't just depth perception, but you are losing significant field of vision.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago

Here's a driver's license. ~~Good luck.~~ Now get to work you lazy bum!

[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 day ago

My dude, teeth are considered luxury bones in this country.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago

In general, insurance covers nothing in your head.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 37 points 1 day ago

Imagine if you are a refugee and escaped from a war/tyrannical regime only to end up in the US and reading these type of things on the news...

Must be awkward... 👀

[-] [email protected] 8 points 21 hours ago

Pretty depressing to imagine escaping one despotic regime, through hell and high water, only to watch another rise and set its sights right on you.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

chemistry stores in college sell those hard plastic glasses or goggles.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 19 hours ago

You'll need z87+ (ANSI Z87.1) impact resistant safety glasses or goggles. If the chemistry store does not have these you can find them at any big box hardware store

[-] [email protected] 131 points 1 day ago

You shouldn’t have to wear safety rated glasses to protest, but I wouldn’t go to one without them at this point. If you normally wear glasses and they’re not rated an impact can shatter them and cause even more damage than not wearing them at all would have.

[-] [email protected] 64 points 1 day ago

If you have glasses buy safety glasses that go over top of them. Doesn’t matter if your glasses are rated for it, use the safety glasses. Glasses are expensive and safety glasses can be bought for fairly cheap.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 115 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The protester was among tens of thousands of people who took to the streets for the demonstrations across Southern California and the rest of the country.

Tens of thousands? There were over FIVE MILLION protesters.

E OVER THIRTEEN MILLION protesters - thank you, Lucidlethargy

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
815 points (99.5% liked)

News

30274 readers
3918 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS