Forum

Violent protests, riots, and injuries are commonplace in Downtown Los Angeles. Protesters assume the risk in facing off with police who are licensed to use lethal force in life-threatening situations. When crowd control is under stress, police use water hoses and rubber bullets. Not only do police K9s prevent rioting and mayhem, but they also safeguard protesters from potential harm.

In a country where free speech and peaceful assembly are constitutionally protected, the line between lawful protest and violent confrontation can be dangerously thin. A recent incident in Los Angeles underscores the very real risks protesters assume when events escalate from demonstration to riot.

Martin Santoyo, a 33-year-old activist protesting against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claims his testicle was “shattered” and the other severely bruised after he was struck by a rubber bullet fired by law enforcement during a chaotic clash between demonstrators and police.

The event took place during a protest that had reportedly turned violent, part of a broader anti-ICE and anti-Trump rally on June 1 in downtown L.A. One of the innocent bystanders commented and said, “This protest is having a hard time busting the nut and getting on the news.” Little did they know that they were more accurate than imagined.

‘Nut-busting,’ also known as ‘testicle damage,’ was exactly what was about to happen.

“It sucks to sit down,” Santoyo told KTLA from his home, where he is recovering and currently unable to walk. He says the injury occurred shortly after arriving on his bicycle, and he insists he heard no police order declaring the protest unlawful before the shooting.

While Santoyo’s injuries are undoubtedly severe and tragic, his story brings into sharp relief an important yet often overlooked truth: when individuals choose to participate in protests that devolve into violent confrontations, especially those involving physical conflict with law enforcement, they inherently accept the risk of harm.

Rubber bullets, tear gas, and other “less-lethal” tools are used by police forces across the U.S. specifically to disperse crowds while minimizing fatalities. However, “less-lethal” does not mean “harmless.” When protests descend into riots, characterized by property destruction, threats to officers, or aggressive crowd behavior, officers are trained to restore order using force that can, and does, result in serious injuries.

In legal terms, courts have historically ruled that those who voluntarily place themselves in volatile, riotous situations cannot reasonably claim full immunity from the consequences of that environment. This doesn't mean police can act with impunity, but it does mean that participants in unlawful assemblies or riots carry some responsibility for the risks they incur, particularly when orders to disperse have been given or force becomes necessary to prevent greater harm.

To be clear, Santoyo maintains he did not hear a dispersal order before being struck. If that’s true, it’s a point that must be seriously considered in any legal or policy review of the incident. Law enforcement agencies have a duty to ensure warnings are clearly issued and that crowd control tactics are used proportionally.

But context matters. The protest in question was not a peaceful sit-in. Video and eyewitness accounts from that weekend depict escalating confrontations with officers, attacks on police lines, and widespread civil disorder. In such high-risk, high-pressure environments, split-second decisions can lead to unintended, even life-altering consequences. And anyone entering that environment, activist or officer, does so under threat of harm.

This incident isn’t just about one man's devastating injury. It’s about the growing tension between protest rights and public safety, between outrage and order. Activists have every right to voice dissent; this is foundational to democracy. But when protest crosses into the realm of violence, the rules change. So too does the level of personal risk.

As federal and local authorities brace for more unrest, particularly around immigration, presidential politics, and police reform, it is crucial for protesters to know their rights and their risks. Participating in a protest doesn’t guarantee immunity from harm, especially if the event turns into a riot.

Santoyo’s experience is a strong reminder that when protests turn violent, the consequences are real. Whether you’re an officer in riot gear or a demonstrator on a bike, the decision to enter the fray comes with heavy responsibility. And occasionally, it comes with a painful, permanent cost.

Final Word: At least he had the balls to show up; next time he may come up a little short! 😱