Four plaintiffs who took part in an anti-Israel protest at UCLA are suing the city of Los Angeles and state of California over what they say was excessive force used against allegedly peaceful demonstrators.
The lawsuit, which was filed on May 1 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that law enforcement officers from the Los Angeles Police Department, California Highway Patrol and University of California indiscriminately fired 50 rounds of rubber bullets at UCLA students and community members who gathered at the so-called Palestine Solidarity Encampment, set up in support of Hamas in its conflict with Israel in Gaza.
“The officers shot peaceful students and community members, including plaintiffs Abdullah Puckett, David Ramirez, Kira Layton and Juliana Islam Hawari-Vogenpoohl, in the head, hands, buttocks and other body parts,” the lawsuit states. “The officers’ violence sent bloody victims to the hospital and spread fear and chaos.”
The encampment, where students called on UCLA to divest from companies allegedly profiting from the war in Gaza, was described as nonviolent and orderly in the complaint.
But Wade Stern, president of the Federated University Peace Officers Association (FUPOA) disagreed, saying the allegations in the lawsuit about the law enforcement response to the encampment were baseless.
“The operation to dismantle the so-called ‘Palestine Solidarity Encampment’ was a necessary and carefully coordinated response to a dangerous and escalating situation,” Stern said in a statement emailed to the Southern California Record. “The encampment had grown increasingly volatile following violent clashes between opposing groups. It immediately threatened campus safety, public order, and the rights of all students and faculty to access a safe and secure learning environment.”
He called the actions by law enforcement, including those carried out by the UCLA Police Department and other agencies, measured and in sync with officers’ training and departmental policies.
“Officers responded with appropriate force only after repeated warnings were ignored and individuals refused to disperse from an illegal encampment that had descended into chaos and violence,” Stern said. “The use of non-lethal tools and crowd-control tactics was designed to prevent further injury and restore order, not to harm peaceful protesters.”
Violent activities around the encampment were documented prior to the law enforcement intervention, he said, and some officers were subjected to direct attacks. The lawsuit’s characterization of the police response as a “violent attack” on peaceful individuals was a distortion of reality, according to Stern.
“Our officers acted with professionalism and restraint under extraordinarily difficult circumstances,” he said. “They upheld their duty to protect the UCLA community, enforce the law, and prevent further harm amid a volatile and deteriorating situation.”
The lawsuit alleged that the police response resulted in protesters sustaining broken bones, head trauma and excessive bleeding, and at least one person required surgery.
One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Thomas Harvey, indicated that the lawsuit would be one of dozens of legal actions challenging the police response to the protest.
“This case once again demonstrates the ‘Palestine exception’ to free speech,” Harvey said in a prepared statement. “Compare the police’s response on May 1 and 2 (of last year) – when they shot our clients with 40-mm kinetic energy projectiles – to their total inaction on April 30, 2024, when a mob ruthlessly attacked (our clients) for more than four hours on live TV.”
The lawsuit was announced by the Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) and several law firms. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law enforcement reaction to the encampment unlawful, to enjoin defendants from repeating such an action and to award compensatory and punitive damages.