Reposted by @westonrowland.bsky.social
To illustrate, 40mm are on left, tend to look like blue foam. 37mm on right, like smaller black donuts intended to be skip-fired off ground. Both can main, but again 40mm seems worse.
More details on these and other police munitions in this visual field guide I made:
docs.google.com/presentation...
![“If a violating party has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the court
order, technical or inadvertent violations of the order will not support a finding of
civil contempt.”) General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379
(9th Cir. 1986). “A contemnor in violation of a court order may avoid a finding of
civil contempt only by showing it took all reasonable steps to comply with the
order.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiffs
argue that Defendants directly violated the Court’s Preliminary Injunction by
“repeatedly [shooting] individuals in the face, eye, groin and back” with 40mm
weapons. (Mot at 10.) Because the Circuit has held that the 40mm munition is not
intended to disperse crowds, but “is chiefly designed, intended, and used for the
purpose of incapacitating its target,” Sanderlin v. Dwyer, 116 F.4th 905, 912 (9th
Cir. 2024), Plaintiffs argue these instances are not “technical or inadvertent” so as
to allow Defendants to avoid liability. (Id.)
However, Defendants have not demonstrated substantial compliance or that
all reasonable steps have been taken to be in compliance with the Court’s
Preliminary Injunction Order. (See Dkt. No. 243 at 4-7; Quiroz Decl. ¶ 4) (e.g.,
Crown management/Crowd Control management training, Crowd Management
and Control for Patrol training, requiring officers to undergo 24 hours of
perishable skills training every two years which includes use of force, LAPD
disseminated the content of the TRO to all personnel, and a notice to all personal
after the modified TRO was issued on April 28, 2021, LAPD issued nine
directives and policy updates regarding the use of 37mm and 40mm LLMs
between September 2021 and May 2025). Defendants do not argue that the
exceptions to the Preliminary Injunction Order apply here (e.g., if a protestor is
violently resisting arrest, poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vnsn3gjqvtaianuuziyiqxlx/bafkreiasowqazj7cr3fk3qbghkvk75juqztyaab75kgw247rz4imhqpn64)
