Medics at UCLA protest say police weapons drew blood and cracked bones

Published

1 year ago

May 16, 2024

admin

May 16 2024 KFF Health News

Inside the protesters’ encampment at UCLA, beneath the glow of hanging flashlights and a deafening backdrop of exploding flash-bangs, OB-GYN resident Elaine Chan suddenly felt like a battlefield medic.

Police were pushing into the camp after an hours-long standoff. Chan, 31, a medical tent volunteer, said protesters limped in with severe puncture wounds, but there was little hope of getting them to a hospital through the chaos outside. Chan suspects the injuries were caused by rubber bullets or other "less lethal" projectiles, which police have confirmed were fired at protesters.

"It would pierce through skin and gouge deep into people's bodies," she said. "All of them were profusely bleeding. In OB-GYN we don't treat rubber bullets. … I couldn't believe that this was allowed to be [done to] civilians — students — without protective gear."

The UCLA protest, which gathered thousands in opposition to Israel's ongoing bombing of Gaza, began in April and grew to a dangerous crescendo this month when counterprotesters and police clashed with the activists and their supporters.

In interviews with KFF Health News, Chan and three other volunteer medics described treating protesters with bleeding wounds, head injuries, and suspected broken bones in a makeshift clinic cobbled together in tents with no electricity or running water. The medical tents were staffed day and night by a rotating team of doctors, nurses, medical students, EMTs, and volunteers with no formal medical training.

At times, the escalating violence outside the tent isolated injured protesters from access to ambulances, the medics said, so the wounded walked to a nearby hospital or were carried beyond the borders of the protest so they could be driven to the emergency room.

"I've never been in a setting where we're blocked from getting higher level of care," Chan said. "That was terrifying to me."

Three of the medics interviewed by KFF Health News said they were present when police swept the encampment May 2 and described multiple injuries that appeared to have been caused by "less lethal" projectiles.

Less lethal projectiles — including beanbags filled with metal pellets, sponge-tipped rounds, and projectiles commonly known as rubber bullets — are used by police to subdue suspects or disperse crowds or protests. Police drew widespread condemnation for using the weapons against Black Lives Matter demonstrations that swept the country after the killing of George Floyd in 2020. Although the name of these weapons downplays their danger, less lethal projectiles can travel upward of 200 mph and have a documented potential to injure, maim, or kill.

The medics' interviews directly contradict an account from the Los Angeles Police Department. After police cleared the encampment, LAPD Chief Dominic Choi said in a post on the social platform X that there were "no serious injuries to officers or protestors” as police moved in and made more than 200 arrests.

In response to questions from KFF Health News, both the LAPD and California Highway Patrol said in emailed statements that they would investigate how their officers responded to the protest. The LAPD statement said the agency was conducting a review of how it and other law enforcement agencies responded, which would lead to a "detailed report."

The Highway Patrol statement said officers warned the encampment that "non-lethal rounds" may be used if protesters did not disperse, and after some became an "immediate threat" by "launching objects and weapons," some officers used "kinetic specialty rounds to protect themselves, other officers, and members of the public." One officer received minor injuries, according to the statement.

Video footage that circulated online after the protest appeared to show a Highway Patrol officer firing less lethal projectiles at protesters with a shotgun.

"The use of force and any incident involving the use of a weapon by CHP personnel is a serious matter, and the CHP will conduct a fair and impartial investigation to ensure that actions were consistent with policy and the law," the Highway Patrol said in its statement.

The UCLA Police Department, which was also involved with the protest response, did not respond to requests for comment.

Jack Fukushima, 28, a UCLA medical student and volunteer medic, said he witnessed a police officer shoot at least two protesters with less lethal projectiles, including a man who collapsed after being hit "square in the chest." Fukushima said he and other medics escorted the stunned man to the medical tent then returned to the front lines to look for more injured.

"It did really feel like a war," Fukushima said. "To be met with such police brutality was so disheartening."

Back on the front line, police had breached the borders of the encampment and begun to scrum with protesters, Fukushima said. He said he saw the same officer who had fired earlier shoot another protester in the neck.

The protester dropped to the ground. Fukushima assumed the worst and rushed to his side.

"I find him, and I'm like, 'Hey, are you OK?'" Fukushima said. "To the point of courage of these undergrads, he's like, 'Yeah, it's not my first time.' And then just jumps right back in."

Sonia Raghuram, 27, another medical student stationed in the tent, said that during the police sweep she tended to a protester with an open puncture wound on their back, another with a quarter-sized contusion in the center of their chest, and a third with a "gushing" cut over their right eye and possible broken rib. Raghuram said patients told her the wounds were caused by police projectiles, which she said matched the severity of their injuries.

The patients made it clear the police officers were closing in on the medical tent, Raghuram said, but she stayed put. Related StoriesWearable biosensors with skin interfaces for newborn and neonatal health monitoringStranded in the ER, seniors await hospital care and suffer avoidable harmResearchers aim to use AI for early screening and prognosis of Dry Eye Disease

"We will never leave a patient," she said, describing the mantra in the medical tent. "I don't care if we get arrested. If I'm taking care of a patient, that's the thing that comes first."

The UCLA protest is one of many that have been held on college campuses across the country as students opposed to Israel's ongoing war in Gaza demand universities support a ceasefire or divest from companies tied to Israel. Police have used force to remove protesters at Columbia University, Emory University, and the universities of Arizona, Utah, and South Florida, among others.

At UCLA, student protesters set up a tent encampment on April 25 in a grassy plaza outside the campus's Royce Hall theater, eventually drawing thousands of supporters, according to the Los Angeles Times. Days later, a "violent mob" of counterprotesters "attacked the camp," the Times reported, attempting to tear down barricades along its borders and throwing fireworks at the tents inside.

The following night, police issued an unlawful assembly order, then swept the encampment in the early hours of May 2, clearing tents and arresting hundreds by dawn.

Police have been widely criticized for not intervening as the clash between protesters and counterprotesters dragged on for hours. The University of California system announced it has hired an independent policing consultant to investigate the violence and "resolve unanswered questions about UCLA's planning and protocols, as well as the mutual aid response."

Charlotte Austin, 34, a surgery resident, said that as counterprotesters were attacking she also saw about 10 private campus security officers stand by, "hands in their pockets," as students were bashed and bloodied.

Austin said she treated patients with cuts to the face and possible skull fractures. The medical tent sent at least 20 people to the hospital that evening, she said.

"Any medical professional would describe these as serious injuries," Austin said. "There were people who required hospitalization — not just a visit to the emergency room — but actual hospitalization." Police tactics 'lawful but awful'

UCLA protesters are far from the first to be injured by less lethal projectiles.

In recent years, police across the U.S. have repeatedly fired these weapons at protesters, with virtually no overarching standards governing their use or safety. Cities have spent millions to settle lawsuits from the injured. Some of the wounded have never been the same.

During the nationwide protests following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, at least 60 protesters sustained serious injuries — including blinding and a broken jaw — from being shot with these projectiles, sometimes in apparent violations of police department policies, according to a joint investigation by KFF Health News and USA Today.

In 2004, in Boston, a college student celebrating a Red Sox victory was killed by a projectile filled with pepper-based irritant when it tore through her eye and into her brain.

"They're called less lethal for a reason," said Jim Bueermann, a former police chief of Redlands, California, who now leads the Future Policing Institute. "They can kill you."

Bueermann, who reviewed video footage of the police response at UCLA at the request of KFF Health News, said the footage shows California Highway Patrol officers firing beanbag rounds from a shotgun. Bueermann said the footage did not provide enough context to determine if the projectiles were being used "reasonably," which is a standard established by federal courts, or being fired "indiscriminately," which was outlawed by a California law in 2021.

"There is a saying in policing — 'lawful but awful' — meaning that it was reasonable under the legal standards but it looks terrible," Bueermann said. "And I think a cop racking multiple rounds into a shotgun, firing into protesters, doesn't look very good."

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

This article was reprinted from khn.org, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Source:

KFF Health News

World

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Published

2 hours ago

July 16, 2025

admin

Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach

Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction.

The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families – with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.

The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.

Politics latest: Minister sorry after ‘extraordinary secrecy’ concealed data leak

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.

However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn.

In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction.

Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government.

Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.

Defence Secretary John Healey offered a “sincere apology” for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

He said he had felt “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” around the data breach, adding: “No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.”

The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.

Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.

This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach.

The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported.

How did the data breach happen?

The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.

The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.

A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.

It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list – only that the MoD lost control of the information.

Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: “This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.

“It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.

“A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups.”

The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted “to pursue potential legal action”.

It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list – about 10 to 15% – would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.

A superinjunction – preventing the reporting of the mistake – was imposed in September of that year.

It meant the extraordinary – and costly – plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government inherited the scandal.

What is a superinjunction?

In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information.

However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself.

Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm.

They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage.

Why was superinjunction lifted?

An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant.

It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The review said it was “unlikely to substantially change an individual’s existing exposure given the volume of data already available”.

It also concluded that “it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting” and it is “therefore also unlikely that family members… will be targeted simply because the ‘principal’ appears… in the dataset”.

This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted.

Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach.

He added: “Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service.

“We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives.”

Latest MoD data breach

While the MoD’s data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.

Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.

Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.

In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the “egregious” breach could have been life-threatening.

World

‘My family is finished’: Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

Published

2 hours ago

July 16, 2025

admin

'My family is finished': Afghan man in UK military data breach says he feels betrayed

An Afghan man who worked for the British military has told Sky News he feels betrayed and “completely lost (his) mind” after his identity formed part of a massive data breach.

He told The World with Yalda Hakim about the moment he discovered he was among thousands of Afghans whose personal details were revealed, putting him at risk of reprisals from the Taliban.

The man, who spoke anonymously to Sky News from Afghanistan, says that for more than 10 years he worked for British forces

But now he says he regrets working alongside troops, who were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.

“I have done everything for the British forces… I regret that – why (did) I put my family in danger because of that? Is this is justice?

“We work for them, for [the] British, we help them. So now we are left behind, right now. And from today, I don’t know about my future.”

He described receiving an email warning him that his details had been revealed.

He said: “When I saw this one story… I completely lost my mind. I just thought… about my future… my family’s.

“I’ve got two kids. All my family are… in danger. Right now… I’m just completely lost.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The mistake by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022 ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans.

On Tuesday, a court order – preventing the media reporting details of a secret relocation programme – was lifted.

Defence Secretary John Healey said about 6,900 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to the UK under the previously secret scheme.

He said no one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum, after a government review found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution.

But the anonymous Afghan man who spoke to Sky News disputed this. He claimed the Taliban, who returned to power in 2021, were actively seeking people who worked with British forces.

“My family is finished,” he said. “I request… kindly request from the British government… the King… please evacuate us.

“Maybe tomorrow we will not be anymore. Please, please help us.”

US

Trump to ‘refine trade deal’ with UK during Scotland trip

Published

2 hours ago

July 16, 2025

admin

Trump to 'refine trade deal' with UK during Scotland trip

Donald Trump has said he will “refine the trade deal” with the UK during his private trip to Scotland later this month.

The US president told reporters outside the White House on Tuesday that he will meet with Sir Keir Starmer “probably in Aberdeen”.

Politics latest: Reeves committed to ‘non-negotiable’ fiscal rules

Mr Trump is expected to travel to Scotland in the coming weeks to visit his golf courses ahead of an official state visit in September.

“We’re going to be meeting with the British prime minister, very respectful, and we are going to have a meeting with him, probably in Aberdeen, and we’re going to do a lot of different things.

“We’re going to also refine the trade deal that we’ve made.

“So we’ll be meeting mostly […] at probably one of my properties, or maybe not, depending on what happens, but we’ll be in Aberdeen, in Scotland, meeting with the prime minister.”

The UK and US signed a trade deal earlier this year that reduced car and aerospace tariffs, but questions have remained about a promise from Washington to slash steel tariffs.

In May, the White House said it would exempt the UK from plans for a 25% tariff on global steel imports but that is yet to be ratified and the levy has since been doubled on all other countries.

Mr Trump had insisted that unless Britain could finalise the details of a metals trade deal with the US by 9 July, when wider “Liberation Day” tariff pauses were expected to expire, he would slap the UK with a 50% rate as well.

However that pause was extended until 1 August, with the US president saying nations would instead get letters informing them of his plans.

As Sky News’ economics and data editor Ed Conway has reported, the metals deal has floundered on two key issues, including that while the government has taken control of British Steel, the company itself still legally has Chinese owners.

Downing Street is still hoping it can secure 0% tariffs on steel.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

On Tuesday, a Downing Street spokesperson played down the significance of the meeting in Scotland, stressing it was a private trip so it “will not be a formal bilateral”.

Since taking office in January, Mr Trump has imposed tariffs on countries across the world in a bid to boost domestic production and address trade deficits.

As well as sector specific tariffs, there is a baseline tariff of 10% for most other imports, though some countries face higher rates.

The UK was the first to hash out a deal on exemptions after a successful charm offensive by Sir Keir.

Mr Trump has praised the PM, telling the BBC earlier on Tuesday: “I really like the prime minister a lot, even though he’s a liberal.”

There are also plans for Scottish First Minister John Swinney to meet Mr Trump during his trip.

It will be followed by the official state visit between 17-19 September, when Mr Trump will be hosted by the King and Queen at Windsor Castle and accompanied by his wife Melania.

It will be Mr Trump’s second state visit to the UK, having previously been hosted during his first term in 2019.