"non-lethal" Oh, boy! What an infuriating misnomer that is.

This is also a good time to remember nothing here in this context is "non-lethal". All of these things (sand bags, tear gas, tasers, pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets, batons, shields, tactical holds, etc.) are accurately called "less lethal" because all of them can and will kill under certain circumstances, even when used by trained officers with good intentions. (I know. How often does that happen, right?) It doesn't take much to cross that line between "not intending murder" and "actual fucking murder", often something as simple as a common medical condition or simply falling while moving over hard ground like curbs and sidewalks. If a reporter is using the term "non-lethal" in the context of police brutality, that's a pretty good sign that you are being lied to.

Almost all " non-lethal" munitions are really "less lethal" and capable of killing someone if they get hit in the wrong area. They also easily maim. I saw a pellet from what are called "donkey balls" which are essentially clay-more mines filled with little rubber pellets bounce off a wall fast enough to go through someone's cheek and exit out the other side of his mouth. TLDR You can really fuck someone up with that stuff. Cops think they are like nerf toys.

Even if less-lethal ammunition were risk free, that should still be a crime. Even in the ideal risk-free case, how is this any different from assault, if the cop came up behind a reporter swinging his baton. There was clearly no justifiable reason, it was clearly assault for fun or intimidation, and any reasonable person would know that.

That and the fact it’s directly attacking your civil rights to free speech and an unprovoked attack. So it’s definitely unconstitutional.