Did protestor who picked up a flash bang lose a digit
Executive summary
Reporting indicates that a Los Angeles protester, identified in a federal civil-rights lawsuit as Sergio Espejo, alleges a flash‑bang device struck his hand and detonated on impact, resulting in the amputation of a finger; this claim is reported by local media and the plaintiff’s attorneys but rests primarily on the lawsuit and the plaintiff’s accounts rather than an independent law‑enforcement confirmation [1] [2]. Historical and international reporting establishes that stun/concussive grenades have in other instances caused catastrophic hand injuries, including loss of digits, which makes the allegation plausible even as the specific facts of this incident remain contested and litigated [3] [4].
1. The core allegation and the sources reporting it
A federal complaint filed by plaintiff attorneys alleges that during the “No Kings” protest in downtown Los Angeles, a flash‑bang device struck Espejo’s hand, detonated, and caused such severe damage that one of his fingers was amputated; this account is detailed in a Fox 11 Los Angeles report summarizing the lawsuit and echoed in the law firm’s own press materials [1] [2]. The law firm claims there is video evidence, including a livestream the plaintiff was conducting, and frames the injury as part of a pattern of excessive force by deputies [2]. Fox11’s piece reports the filing and the injury but describes it as an allegation in a civil suit rather than a concluded finding of wrongdoing by the sheriff’s department [1].
2. What independent verification exists in the reporting provided
Among the sources supplied, the factual basis for the amputation is derived from the plaintiff’s lawsuit and the law firm’s statements; the local TV report relays those claims but does not present an LASD admission or independent forensic confirmation that the flash‑bang caused the amputation [1]. The law firm blog asserts the existence of multiple videos showing the crowd and the device impact, but that is a claim by counsel rather than an independent media‑verified frame‑by‑frame forensic analysis in the materials provided [2]. No LASD statement, medical records, or court adjudication is included in the supplied snippets to conclusively prove causation beyond the plaintiff’s allegation [1] [2].
3. Context: are such injuries plausible with these devices?
International reporting and weapon‑safety analyses document past cases where explosive crowd‑control grenades have caused catastrophic hand trauma and digit loss — for example, reporting on French protests notes a demonstrator who lost four fingers after a grenade incident, and a weapons‑analysis group has cataloged similar severe injuries tied to “sting‑ball” or explosive grenades used in crowd control [3] [4]. That body of reporting establishes a credible mechanism by which a direct strike from a detonating stun or hybrid explosive device can maim a hand, lending plausibility to Espejo’s allegation even while not proving this specific event [3] [4].
4. Alternative viewpoints and gaps in the public record
The principal alternative viewpoint — which would come from LASD, independent medical records, or neutral video forensic review — is absent from the supplied reporting, leaving a critical evidentiary gap; the Fox11 story reports the lawsuit and its claims but does not include a response from LASD in the provided excerpt and the law firm’s narrative is naturally advocacy‑oriented [1] [2]. In short, there is a credible allegation corroborated by media summary of the complaint and by historical precedent that such devices can cause amputations, but the supplied sources do not contain an independent, dispositive confirmation of causation or a law‑enforcement account disputing it [1] [2] [3].
5. Final assessment
Based on the reporting provided, the direct answer is: yes — a protester (identified as Sergio Espejo in the lawsuit) is reported to have lost a finger after a flash‑bang allegedly struck his hand and detonated, and this claim is the central allegation in a federal lawsuit summarized by local media and the plaintiff’s attorneys [1] [2]. However, that conclusion must be understood as the plaintiff’s documented allegation supported by attorney statements and secondary reporting, not as an independently adjudicated or officially confirmed fact; independent confirmation from medical records, law‑enforcement statements, or court findings is not present in the supplied sources [1] [2].