Statement from LAPD Chief of Police, Jim McDonnell: NR25126jf

“Standing Firm on Safety, Accountability, and Constitutional Policing”

Over the past two weeks, Los Angeles has witnessed large-scale protests—amid the deep fear and pain the community has experienced. This has most often been marked by peaceful expression that has at times been hijacked by violence, vandalism, and criminal aggression. Let me be unequivocal: the Los Angeles Police Department is and will always be committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of every Angelinos. Peaceful protest is not only protected by law—it is a vital thread in the fabric of our democracy. We honor and defend that right.

As Chief of Police, I also must speak with clarity and conviction when allegations—some incomplete, others patently misleading—challenge the integrity of our officers and the mission of our department.

The recent article in the Los Angeles Times contains serious accusations, and I do not take them lightly. Any injury suffered during protest activity deserves concern and review. That is why we’ve already initiated a comprehensive evaluation of each use-of-force incident, including a full, independent investigation by the Office of Inspector General. Our officers are held to the highest standards—legally, ethically, and operationally. And when we find that an officer has fallen short, we take swift and appropriate action. That is not new. That is our duty.

We are not afraid of scrutiny. We invite it. Accountability is not a threat to policing; it is a pillar of it. But accountability must cut both ways. What the article fails to fully convey is the dangerous, fluid, and ultimately violent conditions our officers encountered. When demonstrators began throwing objects, setting fires, and refusing to disperse after repeated lawful orders were given, officers were justified in taking swift and measured action to prevent further harm and restore public safety.

In numerous well-documented cases, our officers were not met with peaceful protest. They were violently attacked, and 52 LAPD officers sustained injuries that required medical treatment. Commercial-grade fireworks that could kill were launched directly at them. Bottles, bricks, and projectiles were hurled at their heads and bodies, in addition to incendiary devices and Molotov cocktails. A motorcycle was weaponized and deliberately driven into a police skirmish line. These were not isolated events; they were coordinated and dangerous acts by criminal agitators intent on causing harm—not just to officers, but to nearby demonstrators and bystanders.

Our deployment of less-lethal tools, such as 40mm foam rounds and chemical agents, was not indiscriminate. It was targeted, proportional, and made in direct response to immediate, credible threats. These decisions are guided by clear policy and rooted in years of reform and training. We have significantly limited our use of certain tools, improved our mass-arrest procedures, and instituted new safeguards for crowd management. But no policy can fully neutralize the threat posed by those intent on violence.

Regarding dispersal orders: they are issued in accordance with legal standards, and every effort is made to ensure they are heard. Orders are given in both English and Spanish and are delivered using ground-level amplified systems or, when necessary, by helicopter. If there are gaps in how these orders were heard, we will address them. But the claim that orders were not given simply because they weren’t heard by all is misleading and ignores the realities of large, loud, and often chaotic crowds.

To suggest our response lacked discipline or oversight is simply not accurate. We were in contact with city leaders and operated within a unified command structure alongside multiple local and regional agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. Our shared goal throughout was to restore order, preserve life, and uphold constitutional rights.

Some have questioned our tactics. Others have cited edited video clips or anecdotal accounts as definitive evidence of misconduct. We must separate fact from speculation and context from narrative.

To those who protested peacefully: we see you, we respect you, and we will continue to protect your right to speak and assemble. To those who sought to exploit these moments of civic expression for criminal ends: your actions endangered lives, and we will continue to respond lawfully and decisively to prevent further harm.

To the people of Los Angeles: thank you for your high expectations. You deserve accountability, transparency, and fairness, and we are committed to delivering all three—not just in this moment, but every day we put on the badge.

The LAPD is not perfect. But we are principled. We are evolving. And we are committed—every single day — to maintaining public trust, and to serving this city with courage, compassion, and constitutional integrity.

Lastly, I am proud of the courage, restraint, and resilience demonstrated by the men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the California Highway Patrol, and other mutual aid agencies who helped us respond to this emergency.