Civil lawsuits can supplement LA cops, Nat’l Guard, and exhortations

by John Banzhaf

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 10, 2025) – Massive numbers of city police (using tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, and flash bangs), federal officials from many different agencies involved in immigration enforcement, and even national guard forces were unable to stop the burning, looting, physical assaults, traffic blocking, attacks with thrown concrete and exploding fireworks. and other aspects of three days of illegal rioting in Los Angeles; to the point where downtown had to be officially declared an “unlawful assembly.”

Perhaps it’s finally time to utilize a rarely used but potentially very powerful weapon against those who engage in illegal activities to make a point; suing those who can be identified (from arrest records, facial recognition, or even doxxing) for damages under a variety of well established torts (civil actions), says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has successfully encouraged using such civil actions in a variety of situations involving criminal protest activities.

For many young people, the threat of a possible arrest, followed by at most a night in jail and a small fine – if the charges aren’t dropped as they often are – isn’t much of a deterrent to promoting a cause and/or participating in an exciting activity, suggests the law professor, who also notes that exhortations to protest responsibly are likewise ineffective.

But being sued individually for all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages caused by the entire mob, and facing the daunting prospect of having to pay it off through attachments of property (including any inheritance from parents) and seemingly endless garnishment of wages, is likely to make many of them think more than twice about engaging in a criminal conspiracy to riot, says Banzhaf.

Even if the civil law suit is unsuccessful after years of litigation and appeals, the rioter will still face daunting legal fees, massive damage to his credit rating, and a blemish on prospects of being hired for a desired job, he notes.

Banzhaf explains that under the well established doctrine of “joint and several liability,” those who participate and cooperate with others in collectively committing criminal acts (“joint tort feasors) can be held liable for all of the damages which result, no matter who caused what. 

Indeed, there is no legal requirement for a plaintiff to prove who in the crowd caused which damages; it is enough to show that the damages to property, and/or injury to people, grew out of the riot in which the defendant participated.

Rather than relying for justice upon prosecutors who increasingly drop charges against those participating in “cause” riots, any individual and/or business harmed by any of the rioters can (and should, says Banzhaf) bring a civil tort action against all of the rioters who can be identified.

The result is a legal action not subject to the whims of an individual prosecutor, political or public pressure, or other reasons for not vigorously prosecuting criminal charges.

Moreover, although it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a criminal conviction, it is always much easier to win a civil judgment which requires only proof preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence to win.

Any individual or business which was harmed by a riot can sue any identified rioter, and probably bring a class action law suit for millions of dollars, says Banzhaf, who has been called a “King of Class Action Law Suits,” as well as “a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars,” and “The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry.”