--That depends on your definition of 'innocent'.--
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'.
I think some civil servant making $18,000 a year working on sewer lines would be classified in this case as 'innocent'
What the "civil servant" earns is irrelevant. Additionally, in the context of political awareness, the so-called "civil servant" would not be "innocent" if he had been directed to enter private property under false pretenses, or without due process being afforded the owner of the private property. Perhaps, the "civil servant" just followed orders and, seeing as how the guv'mint is backing him, went about his business without thinking of the rights of the property owner. As in, 'screw you, Mr. Jones. I can do what I want, 'cuz the law's with me'. It gives the 'underpaid' "civil servant" peon some personal satisfaction that he can do something someone else prefers he not do.
Innocence is relative. The "civil servants" must have had some idea that there was the potential for violence, or an altercation. It is very rare and unnatural for any utility worker to be escorted to any jobsite under police protection. Blissful ignorance does not equate innocence.