A video shot in front of the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles has sparked widespread attention on the internet. In the footage, protesters gathered outside the consulate’s main entrance to demonstrate, during which a person identified as a security personnel related to the consulate was seen using pepper spray. Subsequently, local law enforcement in the United States intervened and took enforcement measures. Regarding this incident, public opinion quickly diverged, with some viewing it as part of a diplomatic conflict, while others questioned whether the security personnel exceeded their authority in the use of force.
From a legal perspective, the true issue worth discussing in this event is not political stance or emotional response, but a more fundamental and easily overlooked question: under the legal system in the United States, what can and cannot foreign consulate security personnel do in public spaces?
Based on current publicly available information, the incident took place in a public area outside the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles, not within the consulate’s compound or building. This distinction is crucial legally. While international law does grant special protection to consulate premises, this protection applies to the “premises” and not to the streets, sidewalks, or public spaces outside the premises.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, consulate premises enjoy the status of “inviolability of the premises,” primarily restricting the entry of host country law enforcement into the premises without consent, rather than empowering consulate personnel to enforce laws or use force in public areas. The U.S. Department of State and U.S. courts have consistently emphasized that consulates are not equivalent to foreign territories, and “inviolability” does not imply “extraterritorial law enforcement authority.”
Considering the fact that the incident took place in a public space, the diplomatic or consular status of the consulate itself makes it difficult to provide direct legal justification for the security personnel’s use of pepper spray outside the consulate.
Before discussing the legality of the use of force, it is necessary to clarify a common misconception: the legal status of the security personnel involved. Merely serving a foreign consulate does not automatically grant them the legal status of diplomats or consular officials.
As per Article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic immunity applies only to explicitly designated diplomatic personnel and their specific family members, not to all administrative, technical, or security personnel. In multiple legal precedents, U.S. federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that diplomatic immunity must be “individual-specific” and typically requires formal recognition by the U.S. Department of State.
In the absence of any public information indicating that the security personnel have diplomatic immunity, a more reasonable legal analysis is to consider them as private individuals subject to the comprehensive jurisdiction of California law. This implies that their actions should be governed by relevant standards in the California Penal Code and U.S. common law, rather than diplomatic privilege frameworks.
Based on the current publicly available video, the on-site conflict appears to primarily involve verbal disputes, with no clear indication that the protesters posed an immediate, imminent physical threat to the security personnel. However, the limitations of the public video must be recognized, and the investigation results should ultimately prevail. But this initial impression still holds significance in legal analysis.
Under the legal framework of California, Section 12403.7 of the California Penal Code allows individuals to lawfully possess pepper spray, but this authorization does not mean it can be used in any conflict scenario. The prerequisite for its use must still align with the common law standard of self-defense under California law, requiring the defender to act based on a reasonable perception of facing a real and immediate threat to personal safety and ensuring that the defensive measures are proportional and necessary to the level of threat.
California courts have repeatedly emphasized in related cases that while pepper spray and other chemical irritants are non-lethal force, their harmful effects cannot be ignored, and they should not be used for punitive measures, dispersing crowds, or symbolically “enforcing order.” If subsequent facts confirm that the protesters did not pose an immediate physical danger to the security personnel, the use of pepper spray in this instance may be deemed exceeding the bounds of self-defense under California law and could potentially present actual risks of assault or battery.
Another common but dangerous misconception is equating “unpermitted demonstration” with “use of force to disperse.” Even if assuming demonstrators have procedural violations, in the U.S. legal system, this mainly falls under administrative management or public safety law enforcement issues.
Principles established by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and related precedents have long confirmed that even in cases of illegal or irregular gatherings or demonstrations, the handling authority primarily lies with law enforcement agencies and not private individuals or private security personnel. California law similarly does not authorize private security personnel to use chemical irritants or other coercive measures in public spaces as a substitute for law enforcement in maintaining order.
Therefore, in evaluating the legality of pepper spray use in this case, whether the demonstration had obtained permission can, at most, serve as background factual consideration, but it is difficult to constitute substantial exemptions or justifications.
Considering the current publicly available and yet fully verified facts, guided by general principles of international law and California law, foreign consulates and their related security personnel do not inherently possess law enforcement powers or the privilege to use force in American public spaces solely due to their diplomatic or consular background.
In the absence of clear diplomatic immunity and the failure to demonstrate an immediate physical threat, the act of using pepper spray presents significant controversy under California law and may potentially lead to criminal or civil legal risks.
The ultimate legal classification of this event should be left to factual investigation and judicial proceedings. This article merely attempts to steer the discussion back to reality outside of emotion and stance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to rules and boundaries to prevent similar incidents from happening again.