Great beginning... and although I too cannot provide very much more in the way of definitive facts, I can most certainly point you in the direction where you can determine what is absolute self-serving propaganda/fiction:

Fact check

the police may know that they're not about to kill someone, but nobody else does. it looks the same, sounds the same, and makes people just as afraid. I'm sure people are glad not to be dead, but that's a pretty low bar.

JL

whether or not it is lethal is immaterial to the image it presents of the relationship between the population and law enforcement.

It is immaterial??? I am fairly certain it makes ALL the difference in the world whether the image is of a person who has an ouchie on their leg or it is an image of a person shot to death. I am surprised you would suggest that lethal and non-lethal could ever be viewed as equals.

When my husband was trained in “crowd control tactics”, he was shot at close range by rubber bullets multiple times. It hurt, which is why he was required to experience it before he could use it on others, but it was just “painful” and not meant to injure. Being shot with a rubber bullet is so far from being shot with live ammunition that the equivalent would be… (choose from an obscene number of potential examples). These are used to get people to move without injuring them. It stings and startles a person in the hope that that will be enough to get the person to obey the police’s commands.

I would bet that the officer was focused on whoever was behind the cameraman. That would make much more sense than thinking that an officer would intentionally shoot a reporter being filmed in the back. They know that they are being watched by the world. They know that it takes one incident caught on film being twisted into something it was not to cause their family to have to go into hiding from being targeted for violence.

I think you're minimizing the meaning of firing a weapon at someone who's unarmed. whether or not it is lethal is immaterial to the image it presents of the relationship between the population and law enforcement.

yes, live bullets would be worse, but shooting someone is still shooting someone.

So if I shoot you with a rubber band from my fingers and you respond by pulling out a handgun and shoot me with a hollow point bullet, we are both equally wrong for our actions? They are the same?!?

Americans are shooting at Americans, not for lawbreaking or insurrection, but for protesting the completely haphazard arrests and deportations in their own communities.

Police are not authorized to fire crowd-control devices unless the public has been given the order to disperse. The police were NOT shooting live ammunition at protesters! That is BS! When you are given a lawful command to disperse and you refuse to immediately obey, you ARE BREAKING THE LAW!

where's the evidence of noncompliance? has the officer forgotten how to use his vocal chords? yes, live bullets would be worse, but shooting someone is still shooting someone.

First, ALL of the people in that immediate area had been ordered to disperse by the authorities. The reporter was facing the protesters with her back to the police. What the camera does not capture was what was going on behind the cameraman. The officer could have been firing at whoever the reporter was facing. We don’t know and may never know who he was firing at.

The officers were ordered to disperse the crowd. The officer fired a RUBBER bullet — which is more block-shaped than a bullet is shaped. The rules for firing non-lethal rubber bullets are VERY different than the rules for firing live ammunition… and rightfully so! Please note that the reporter can be heard saying immediately after being struck that she was “Fine”. She may have had a bruise after being hit, but it did not break the skin.

The media saying that “the police shot a journalist” is like when my best friend told a police officer that some guy around the corner was “huffing drugs” in front of little kids. I had used my asthma inhaler after we finished a rugby match. My best friend is hilarious … or so he keeps telling us! While the descriptions are technically correct, they do not accurately describe what actually occurred. This can cause people to believe things that are not true.

Lastly, journalists must obey the law just like anyone else. If ordered out of an area, they must leave and report from a new location. While I hope that there was some fact in this story that we are not yet aware of to explain why she was struck by the rubber bullet, there might not be.

the journalists are kind-of beside the point. Americans are shooting at Americans, not for lawbreaking or insurrection, but for protesting the completely haphazard arrests and deportations in their own communities.

But as bad as the news is that local police are taking potshots at reporters at these demonstrations, I think the far worse news is the larger story: the president and federal government have essentially declared war on the state of California and the greater L.A. area, using federal troops against civilian protesters. The purpose, it seems clear to me, is to suppress dissent and simultaneously inflame it, to justify even more violent and widespread federal intervention.

I wonder how the upcoming 'Flag Day'/'Trump Birthday' event this Saturday will affect the national mood, both on the resistance side and on the side of the president's supporters? Tanks and massed troops in the streets of D.C. - just waiting to encounter some noisy but peaceful group of protesters (and reporters)?