Los Angeles, CA – A 25-year-old Southern California woman is pursuing legal action against the Los Angeles Police Department after sustaining a facial injury during an anti-ICE protest in downtown Los Angeles on January 30, 2026. Jasmin Lomas alleges she was struck in the face with a less-lethal projectile while attempting to leave the demonstration, an incident that has sparked concerns about police response to protests and the use of force against demonstrators. The case raises critical questions about the appropriate level of force used by law enforcement during public gatherings and the rights of individuals participating in peaceful protest.
Lomas, a mother, recounts a chaotic scene near the Metropolitan Detention Center as the protest unfolded. She stated she initially joined the demonstration against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies but began to move away from the main area as tensions escalated and tear gas was deployed. While attempting to coordinate a ride-sharing pickup on Temple Street, she was unexpectedly struck in the face by what her attorney believes was a paint projectile. The impact occurred just centimeters below her eye, causing significant pain and injury. The incident underscores the potential for unintended harm during protests, even for individuals not actively engaged in confrontational behavior.
Details of the Incident and Lomas’s Injuries
According to Lomas, she was using her phone to provide directions to her driver when the projectile struck her. Witnesses reportedly rushed to her aid, and she was attended to by an emergency medical technician at the scene. Initial assessments indicated a significant impact, though the full extent of her injuries wasn’t immediately clear. Subsequent medical evaluations revealed fragments of metal embedded in her face, posing ongoing health risks. Her attorney, Paul Aghabala of the Prestige Law Firm, has indicated that removing all the metal fragments could be a complex and lengthy process. A CT scan is scheduled to determine if the metal has penetrated bone tissue.
Aghabala believes the projectile was an FN303 Less Lethal Indelible Yellow Paint Marker Projectile, or potentially an FN-330 less lethal paint projectile launcher, as reported by FOX 11 Los Angeles. These types of projectiles are designed to be non-lethal, but can still cause serious injury, particularly when aimed at the face. The use of such projectiles has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, with concerns raised about their potential for misuse and the severity of injuries they can inflict. The LAPD has faced previous criticism regarding its use of less-lethal weapons during protests.
Legal Claims and Investigation
Lomas has filed a claim with the Los Angeles Police Department alleging excessive force. She is also preparing to file a formal lawsuit against the department, seeking compensation for her medical expenses, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. Aghabala stated that the claim filed with the LAPD Internal Affairs Division seeks a thorough investigation into the incident, including identifying the officer who fired the projectile, their training qualifications, and the justification for using force in this situation. The legal team is also actively gathering witness video footage to support their case.
The filing of the claim comes amid broader discussions about police accountability and the use of force during protests. Civil rights advocates have long argued that less-lethal weapons can be disproportionately used against marginalized communities and peaceful protesters. The incident involving Lomas adds to a growing body of evidence highlighting the potential for harm associated with these weapons. The outcome of Lomas’s case could have significant implications for future police practices and policies regarding protest response.
LAPD Response and Previous Incidents
As of February 21, 2026, the Los Angeles Police Department has not issued a public statement regarding Lomas’s claim. ABC7 News reported that attempts to reach the LAPD for comment were unsuccessful. This lack of immediate response has drawn criticism from Lomas’s legal team and advocates who argue for greater transparency and accountability from law enforcement agencies.
This incident is not isolated. In recent years, the LAPD has faced scrutiny over its handling of protests, including allegations of excessive force and the indiscriminate use of less-lethal weapons. In January 2026, a court order mandated the department to cease using 40mm less-lethal projectile launchers, as reported by FOX 11 Los Angeles. This order followed previous incidents where protesters sustained serious injuries from these weapons. The ongoing legal challenges and public outcry suggest a growing demand for reform in the LAPD’s approach to crowd control.
The Use of Less-Lethal Weapons: A Growing Debate
Less-lethal weapons, including tear gas, rubber bullets, and paint projectiles, are intended to provide law enforcement with alternatives to deadly force. Although, their use remains controversial. Critics argue that these weapons can cause serious injuries, including concussions, broken bones, and eye damage. They contend that the deployment of less-lethal weapons can escalate tensions and lead to further violence. Proponents of their use maintain that they are necessary tools for maintaining order and protecting both officers and the public during protests.
The debate over less-lethal weapons is particularly relevant in the context of protests against ICE. These demonstrations often involve passionate individuals expressing strong opposition to immigration policies, and tensions can quickly escalate. Law enforcement agencies must balance the need to maintain order with the constitutional rights of protesters to freedom of speech and assembly. Finding that balance requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits of using different types of force.
Looking Ahead
Jasmin Lomas’s case is expected to move forward with a formal investigation by the LAPD Internal Affairs Division. The outcome of this investigation, as well as the subsequent lawsuit, could have significant implications for the department’s policies and training regarding the use of less-lethal weapons. It also highlights the broader need for greater transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices during protests. The case serves as a stark reminder of the potential for harm, even in situations where force is intended to be non-lethal.
The next step in Lomas’s case involves a scheduled CT scan to assess the extent of metal fragment embedding in her facial bones, according to her legal team. This scan will inform the ongoing medical treatment and potential long-term health implications. The legal team continues to gather evidence, including witness statements and video footage, to build their case. The public and legal observers will be closely watching the developments in this case, as it raises important questions about police accountability and the protection of civil liberties.
This is a developing story. We encourage readers to share their thoughts and experiences in the comments below. Please also share this article with your networks to raise awareness about this important issue.
Worth a look