How LA Law Enforcement Adapted Crowd Control for Multi-Day Protests
More than a thousand people converged on Los Angeles’s Metropolitan Detention Center on January 30, refusing to leave even after federal officers deployed tear gas and pepper balls from the building’s rooftop. Over 48 hours, law enforcement adapted their crowd control approach in real time—shifting from chemical weapons to perimeter management, from mass dispersal attempts to selective arrests.
The demonstrations emerged from coordinated nationwide protests against immigration enforcement operations that had killed two civilians in Minnesota. On January 7, federal agents shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. The January 7 killing sparked what organizers called a “National Shutdown”—work stoppages and demonstrations across hundreds of cities on January 30-31. Border Patrol agents fatally shot Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse and union member working at a Minneapolis VA Hospital, on January 24, the day after a major Minneapolis shutdown and six days before the nationwide action.
Friday Evening: The Initial Confrontation
The march started peacefully. Around 1 p.m., more than 1,000 people assembled at Placita Olvera in downtown LA, then marched east toward the Metropolitan Detention Center on Alameda Street. The crowd included union members in SEIU shirts, student activists, families with children, faith leaders, and immigrant rights advocates. They held signs reading “ICE out of L.A.” and chanted as they walked.
By early evening, the atmosphere shifted. At 5:16 p.m., LAPD declared a tactical alert that keeps all officers on duty in response to what officials called “violent agitators” gathering outside the facility. This emergency order requires all on-duty officers to remain at their posts beyond scheduled shifts and enables redeployment across the city.
Federal authorities had positioned officers atop the building itself. Video footage shows them setting up defensive positions using tables as shields. When LAPD issued a dispersal order at 5:45 p.m.—giving demonstrators roughly ten minutes to leave or face arrest—a group of the 200-400 people who’d congregated outside the facility refused to move.
Rather than deploying force immediately, officers issued multiple dispersal orders with time for evacuation. Once that window closed, the response was swift.
From 6:05 p.m. forward, federal officers on the rooftop fired rubber bullets and similar weapons into the crowd. Witnesses described waves of chemical irritant—video shows at least five rounds creating large clouds of green and yellow gas that enveloped demonstrators. Many fled, covering their eyes and throats. Federal authorities deployed sound cannons—devices that blast painfully loud, high-pitched noise.
By maintaining the high ground rather than confronting demonstrators at street level, federal authorities could see everything and stay protected while reducing officer exposure to direct contact. But the optics were striking—armed federal agents on a government building firing chemical weapons downward at civilians protesting peacefully.
Despite the chemical weapons and sound cannons, approximately 40 to 50 people remained standing in front of the police line. If the goal was to clear the area entirely, the tactic failed. If the goal was to prevent staying in front of the entrance, it partially succeeded—the crowd was reduced, but not eliminated.
Eight people were arrested Friday evening: six for failure to disperse, one for assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, one for curfew violation. Law enforcement kept many officers there throughout the night but didn’t attempt to completely clear the area. Clusters of demonstrators maintained visibility outside the facility into early morning Saturday.
Saturday: Tactical Adaptation on Both Sides
Hundreds of people returned Saturday afternoon. This wasn’t spontaneous continuation—it was a planned return. And they came prepared.
Many wore or carried gas masks, goggles, and other protective equipment. The organizing groups had conducted advance training or distribution of protection against tear gas. This represents tactical learning from Friday’s experience—if law enforcement was going to deploy tear gas, demonstrators would adapt their defense.
Federal authorities deployed tear gas and pepper balls again around 9 p.m. Saturday, this time on Alameda Street. Police characterized the response as necessary due to “bottles, rocks, and fireworks being thrown by agitators,” though protesters and police gave different accounts of what happened. Despite this second night of chemical weapons deployment, hundreds held their ground.
Fifty people were arrested Saturday, mostly for failing to disperse, along with arrests for assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism. Video documentation showed a brief police pursuit that ended in a crash tied to the demonstration. Eyewitness accounts described federal officers pushing into the crowd, with one unmasked officer pushing young adults at the front, causing one woman to stumble.
By Saturday evening, the situation reached a standoff. Police kept control of the area and could prevent crowds from staying long-term through tactical force. But demonstrators maintained the ability to gather crowds again and hold contested ground despite chemical weapons exposure.
The Coalition Behind the Protests
The January 30-31 demonstrations represented a convergence of organized labor, grassroots immigrant rights organizations, student movements, and faith communities. The coordination required to mobilize thousands across multiple cities simultaneously reflected networks developed over years.
Labor involvement centered on major unions including the Service Employees International Union. SEIU Local 721 in Los Angeles and SEIU Local 26 in Minnesota played visible roles. One week before the occupation, SEIU and partner unions had organized what was described as a statewide shutdown in Minnesota that drew tens of thousands of workers to walk off the job or leave school.
The January 23 Minneapolis shutdown drew 75,000 participants in sub-zero weather. When Alex Pretti was killed on January 24, momentum shifted to nationwide action. The AFL-CIO called for ICE to leave Minnesota immediately, followed by unions including the Communications Workers of America. Jesus Garcia, SEIU Local 721 organizing coordinator, provided public statement: “Today, along with millions across the country, including thousands of SEIU members, we demand ICE and Border Patrol out of our communities.”
Immigrant rights organizations coordinated through coalition structures established over previous years. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, founded in 1986, maintains the Los Angeles Action Table—a coalition created in 2016 composed of community, faith, immigrant, labor, LGBTQI, and refugee organizations. This network let them organize quickly when the event that sparked nationwide action occurred.
Student organizing played a visible role. Video documentation shows students walking up from nearby schools being handed signs and taking position on the steps of City Hall. One 19-year-old student, Yamilet Segundo, was present at the confrontation with friends from her school, indicating student organization through school-based networks.
The crowd composition reflected this broad coalition. Journalists documented participants waving American and California flags alongside banners from Mexico and Palestine, women wearing clothing with political messaging, men wearing Dodgers caps as sun protection, children and elderly participants alongside core activist cohorts. One teacher, Beba Bonilla, age 37, explained her participation: she felt it was her duty to show up for immigrants who are too afraid to leave their homes.
Immediate and Long-Term Impact
The immediate stated objective was opposition to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Primary demands centered on “ICE and Border Patrol out of our communities” and opposition to federal agents operating on city streets. Secondary objectives included demanding justice for Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and drawing national attention to the costs of aggressive immigration enforcement.
From the perspective of disrupting operations, the occupation partially succeeded. The facility couldn’t proceed with normal operations Friday evening. Police had to redirect officers to handle the demonstration, and the facility couldn’t operate normally through Saturday. Federal authorities couldn’t operate at full capacity while managing sustained exterior occupation.
But the sustained occupation didn’t achieve the goal of securing facility closure. The facility continued functioning throughout the period.
Media attention generated by the demonstrations was substantial. Coverage appeared in major national news outlets, California-specific news sources, and immigrant community media. Images of federal officers firing chemical weapons from a rooftop at peaceful civilian assemblies circulated through national and social media networks.
The Trump administration didn’t withdraw federal enforcement operations in response to the demonstrations. However, in Minnesota, the administration announced drawdown of federal personnel after state and local officials agreed to cooperate with federal enforcement. This suggests administration priorities shifted based on local cooperation rather than pressure from demonstrations alone.
The 2018 Occupy ICE Portland action maintained continuous occupation for 38 days—longer than the two-day LA action. That occupation forced temporary closure of the facility and created a model that inspired similar occupations in other cities. But after federal police cleared the encampment in late June 2018, the facility resumed operations with intensified security measures that made future occupations more difficult.
This pattern suggests that while short-term disruption and attention can be achieved through occupation tactics, closing facilities requires other approaches alongside demonstrations—legal challenges, legislative advocacy, economic pressure on contractors, long-term community organizing.
Legal Constraints on Police Tactics
Law enforcement’s response operated within legal rules shaped by decades of litigation following prior protest-related police violence.
The Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law—bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when allowed. Once the president takes control of National Guard members, they can’t be used this way.
California state law and Los Angeles municipal law impose constraints on police use of force. Following the 2020 George Floyd demonstrations, judges issued restraining orders against the city and police bureau to stop the use of CS gas and impact munitions, creating a legal ruling that these weapons violated constitutional protections against excessive force. A federal judge banned LAPD from using 40mm projectiles at demonstrations, though other crowd control weapons remain available.
The deployment of tear gas and pepper spray against people outside the facility fell into unclear legal territory. California law requires that police first warn demonstrators before using tear gas and determine that a “riot” is occurring. LAPD’s declaration of “unlawful assembly” provided legal justification for dispersal orders and subsequent force, though whether these declarations were constitutional is being fought in court.
The documented evidence that protesters and police gave different accounts of what happened—regarding whether people threw bottles, rocks, and fireworks or whether police initiated force without being provoked—leaves unresolved whether the force deployment was legally justified.
Historical Context: Federal Deployments and Immigration Demonstrations
The demonstrations occurred as part of a longer history of federal military deployments against domestic movements and immigration enforcement generating organized resistance.
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the National Guard to Alabama, but in that case Johnson took control of the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers from Selma to Montgomery. That deployment represented the last time until 2025 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without a request from the state’s governor—when the Trump administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles earlier in 2025.
Richard Nixon’s deployment of the National Guard during the 1970 Postal Service Strike was the first time since 1965 that a president used this power for civilian purposes.
Immigration enforcement has previously generated organized resistance that mobilized diverse coalitions. The 2006 “Day Without Immigrants” nationwide demonstrations drew hundreds of thousands across multiple cities and generated coordinated action across hundreds of cities simultaneously, with over 40,000 students walking out of schools and labor unions endorsing the actions. The January 23 Minneapolis shutdown and January 30-31 nationwide National Shutdown appear to have copied the 2006 precedent.
Immigration operations have generated sustained occupation tactics. The 2018 Occupy ICE Portland action—where activists occupied a federal ICE facility for 38 days—represents the most similar example. That occupation forced temporary closure of the facility and created a model that inspired similar occupations in other cities including Tacoma, Washington. But despite 38 days of continuous presence, the occupation didn’t achieve its core stated goal of closing the ICE facility. After federal police cleared the encampment, the facility resumed operations with intensified security measures.
Law enforcement’s adaptation of crowd control tactics has evolved continuously since the civil rights era. The Kent State University shooting in 1970, where Ohio National Guard troops fired between 61 and 67 shots into a crowd, killing four students and injuring nine, represents an extreme historical outcome that federal law enforcement has since worked to prevent through training, protocols, and approach to handling crowds.
The 2020 George Floyd demonstrations saw extensive use of rubber bullets and similar weapons—flash bangs, tear gas, and pepper spray—representing evolution from direct lethal force deployment to “non-lethal” but dangerous crowd control methods. Research found that police were more likely to use more aggressive tactics at racial justice demonstrations compared with other demonstrations, raising questions about whether this violated constitutional protections against excessive force and equal treatment.
What Sustained Occupation Requires
What distinguished the January 30-31 demonstrations from many other police-suppressed actions was the ability to bring people back together after chemical weapons deployment and maintain presence across a full 48-hour period.
The provision of protective equipment—gas masks, goggles, and other protective gear distributed to Saturday participants—represents organized distribution of supplies. Research shows that movements that create support systems can maintain presence far longer than movements relying on spontaneous participation.
The Standing Rock water protector encampment of 2016-2017 provides historical precedent for sustained occupation under conditions of police force. Water protectors maintained their encampment despite police deployment of water cannons in freezing weather, rubber bullets, and concussion grenades. The success of that occupation in maintaining presence for months despite police violence derived from Standing Rock developing infrastructure supporting continued presence: medical teams, legal support, food distribution, and training in nonviolent resistance.
The contrast between Standing Rock’s months-long occupation and the two-day LA occupation suggests that while both employed nonviolent resistance despite police force, staying longer requires more organized support systems.
The fact that protesters stayed peaceful throughout the documented confrontations represents an organizational achievement. Despite confrontations with law enforcement, chemical weapons deployment, and physical pushing, documented accounts reveal no instance of violence initiated by demonstrators. Video and eyewitness accounts describe people standing, chanting, maintaining presence—not attacking police or fighting back despite provocation and pain from chemical weapons exposure.
Staying peaceful and holding their ground represents what research by Erica Chenoweth demonstrates works better than violent response: campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts between 1900 and 2006.
Ongoing Developments
The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge shows no indication of halting. The administration announced that more than 4,000 people were arrested in Minnesota since Operation Metro began, indicating intensification rather than reduction of enforcement operations. However, the administration did announce partial drawdown of federal agents from Minnesota after state and local officials agreed to cooperate by turning over arrested immigrants.
The organizing networks built for the demonstrations continue to mobilize. The labor-immigrant rights coalition that organized the January 23 Minneapolis shutdown, the January 30-31 occupations, and subsequent actions throughout February can organize future protests. Union statements from organizations including National Nurses United, which has 225,000 members calling for the abolition of ICE, indicate that support from major unions for anti-ICE organizing has deepened.
The law enforcement adaptation pattern established during the confrontations will likely inform police responses to future immigration enforcement demonstrations. The demonstrated capacity to deploy chemical weapons from rooftops, declare unlawful assembly, and conduct mass arrests within brief periods—all without major disasters or major injuries—gives police departments a blueprint for handling future protests.
But the legal constraints established through prior litigation will constrain future law enforcement responses. Federal judges’ blocking of certain projectiles, requirements for warnings before tear gas deployment, and protections for legal observers create limits police have to follow.
Recent city actions show that local laws can limit federal enforcement operations. Minneapolis City Council voted 13-0 to strengthen the city’s separation ordinance. San Diego city councilmember San Elo-Rivera and county chair Terra Laeson-Remer are leading efforts on a new law that would limit federal immigration enforcement by requiring federal officers to have a judicial warrant to access certain city-owned properties.
These local laws limit federal access to city facilities without direct street confrontation. After an ICE agent shot a legal observer in Minneapolis, Minneapolis City Council Minority Leader Robin Wonsley advanced an eviction moratorium at the city level so that renters can be protected.
The Trump administration’s stated intention to achieve mass deportations suggests that immigration enforcement operations will intensify in subsequent months. This increase makes renewed and bigger protests more likely by movement organizations opposed to immigration enforcement. The coordination capacity demonstrated—national shutdown across hundreds of cities—provides infrastructure for potentially larger demonstrations if new incidents create fresh motivation.
This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.