Photojournalist Blinded in One Eye While Reporting on Protests Is Suing the City of Minneapolis, Using Pictures She Took of Police as Evidence

Photojournalist Blinded in One Eye While Reporting on Protests Is Suing the City of Minneapolis, Using Pictures She Took of Police as Evidence

During the protests in Minneapolis last month, photojournalist Linda Tirado was left blind in one eye after being hit by a foam bullet used by police. After initially making light of the situation, she has now decided to pursue legal action against the City of Minneapolis, and is citing the last images she took of police before she was shot at as evidence.

Tirado says she was clearly identifiable as press, wearing her press credentials as expected, when the police fired shots at her. PetaPixel shared court documents which detail that Tirado “stepped in front of the protesting crowd and aimed her professional Nikon camera at the police officers to take a picture of the police line,” before the police “[shot] her in her face with foam bullets.” The bullet destroyed her protective eyewear, leaving her eye in such a state, it was beyond saving.

Tirado is suing the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Chief of Police Mederia Arradondo, Lieutenant Robert Kroll, Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer, and four other unnamed officers, questioning why she was targeted despite wearing everything that was required of her.

She accuses the police of using “excessive, unprovoked, unreasonable force to prevent Plaintiff from exercising her constitutional rights was intended to cause imminent harmful and offensive contact.”  

She has submitted to the court the last photos she took before the attack, one of which shows one of the officers aiming a gun at her. She is seeking a number of things, namely compensation for work she may now miss out on, and financial aid for her legal expenses.

Lead image: ev on Unsplash.

Log in or register to post comments

39 Comments

Deleted Account's picture

She should get more than a payout from this. The man who shot her should be facing criminal charges - but even now with all this supposed reform (which to me sounds like a flock of geese making noise and little else), he's probably going to get by with administrative duty or whatever.

Richard Twigg's picture

Unprovoked assault. I hope she wins, although nothing will bring her eye back.

John Adams's picture

Was this during the night? I don't think she has any chance of winning against the city. Makes no sense at all. There are tens, if not hundreds of people marching against you, screaming, smoke, fire, all chaos. Very easy to make a small mistake. Just because she has some tags on her self doesn't put her in invincible-god mode. She also purposefully put herself in the most dangerous position possible right before the police and protesters just to take a photo. I meat what did she expect, why didn't she stay on the sides of the action? Her case holds absolutely no ground imo..

Deleted Account's picture

Not what the photos show. Ridiculing her is more than a little disrespectful.

John Adams's picture

Photos show something similar to that, most importantly it's during the night. If you put yourself at risk you're yourself the one to blame for your misfortunes sorry to say. Let's be reasonable here.

Deleted Account's picture

This almost implies that cops are forces of nature that act without regard to consequence. While the reality of who they are may be close to that, it isn't exactly how it's meant to be and on a fundamental level, we are all supposed to be responsible for our own actions.

This applies far more to a cop who is supposedly trained to handle escalated situations but fired a nonlethal weapon without the need to do so than it does to a journalist who was simply doing journalism. Besides, it isn't easy to hit someone in the eye, you know. He had to have been aiming at her head regardless of who he thought she was and what he thought she was doing.

Also, it's funny how cops get excuses and administrative duty and whatever when they behave in ways that would be diagnosed as symptoms of mental disorders and possibly lead to "involuntary commitment" with other people...

John Adams's picture

You make no sense at all.. just blabla

Deleted Account's picture

What a literal manchild. Work on that reading comprehension - you'll get there someday.

John Adams's picture

Let's look at your downvotes and come up with a good argument and not some childish talk.

Deleted Account's picture

Nice mirroring mate. I ain't getting paid enough to deal with you.

John Adams's picture

You're much better at it.

jim hughes's picture

You're absolutely correct. Rubber bullets injure people. When their use is authorized, it's understood that people will get hurt. If everyone hit by a bullet can sue, police would be unable to end a riot.

Michael Krueger's picture

It's hard to know exactly what happened without being there at the moment, but these "peaceful" protests became violent and destructive quickly.

On one side you had rioters throwing rocks, bottles, and even molotovs at the police while looting, vandalizing, and committing arson. On the other you have police shooting tear gas and rubber bullets. Numerous civilians and police have suffered injuries in this chaos.

To me these photos don't prove she was the target, but simply that she put herself in the line of fire. It's absolutely foolish to put yourself in the middle of a chaotic and violent situation and expect a press pass to make you safe. No one or weapon has perfect accuracy. It's hard to prove whether she was the target or standing near/in front of the target.

Personally I nearly got hit with a tear gas canister at close range, and I got tear gased several times. I don't blame the police because I was dumb enough to stand between them and rioters destroying my city.

Tragic she lost an eye, she probably deserves a payout and the courts will decide, but there is no denying she put herself at risk to get photos.

Michelle Maani's picture

You send police into peaceful protests and you can guarantee violence. The police will turn a peaceful protest into a violent one.

Dan Seefeldt's picture

This is going to get thrown out.

jim hughes's picture

I deliberately walked into a riot, ignored an order to clear the street, was distracted taking photos I hoped would make me money, got in the way of some very stressed-out police, and was accidentally injured. So naturally I'm suing everyone in sight. Is this a great country or what?

Michael Krueger's picture

Not to mention the city wide curfew she clearly ignored.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

When covering riots, I don't understand why reporters, journalists, etc don't where safely goggles. There's rocks, bricks, glass, rubber bullets, and all kinds of debris flying all over the place.

Deleted Account's picture

She was wearing safety glasses; the bullet smashed the lens.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

Apparently, the ones she had on weren't made to even withstand rubber/foam bullets.

I was referring to these type of goggles. It can take a shotgun shot. And, they're only $34.

https://youtu.be/FU6alF65Nug?t=207

Deleted Account's picture

Contributory negligence aside; rubber bullets are not meant to be fired at people's heads.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

Just because she got hit in the face doesn't mean they were aiming for her face.

VINICIUS YUZO ZUCARELI's picture

Light projectiles have a tendency to aim high, unfortunately. And I doubt police have enough practice and a special gun that has a calibrated sight for this ammunition.

Deleted Account's picture

It is more likely they were aiming for her head than not.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

No, it's more likely they aimed center mass. It's much easier to aim for.

Deleted Account's picture

So, I'm wondering at this time, exactly what the point of this little exchange we have going? Is this where we posture and try to establish intellectual dominance over the other?

They shot her in the head. She was blinded in one eye.

But sure, let's argue about subjective intent.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

And, therein lies the problem. You want to go with "they shot her in the head" because it sounds dramatic and sensational. Makes it sound intentional. Versus, going with, "she got shot in the head" which sounds more plausible that it was not intentional.

Deleted Account's picture

Funny thing, police and other people who are in positions of power, should be held to a higher standard.

You idiots just don't grasp that.

Let's not forget that now police are being told not to kill unarmed blacks, they are resigning.

No, I am not sympathetic to your arguments. There is no "but"; "but" coupled with militarisation of your police got you to this point.

However, I am amused at the fact your garbage nation is disintegrating.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

Well well, looky what we have here. Lol, you started off well-mannered until you couldn't get your way, then turn hostile. You're just like those "peaceful" protesters.

Deleted Account's picture

Oh, that's cute, you have been sucked in by the narrative constructed by a wealthy elite; who have convinced the majority that violence prima facie invalidates the position of the perpetrator(s).

The irony is, the state maintains power by virtue of holding a monopoly on power; further, violence is a perfectly legitimate political tool; why do you think the Second Amendment follows the first - honestly, I don't for an instant believe you have considered these issues, about the best you can come up with is "violence bad" whilst concurrently defending violence perpetrated by the executioners of the state. You are too stupid to even realise the inconsistencies in your own position.

More comments