On Tuesday 6 October 2026, the day of a large lycée pupils’ demonstration in Strasbourg, the day ends with small clashes between protesters and law enforcement; Rue89 Strasbourg reports, according to the prefecture, nine arrests and one police officer injured in the city.
The DNA (7 October) specify that, “during the dispersal of the last protesters” (translated), a police officer was injured in the face by a thrown paving stone while in an unmarked car, that the alleged perpetrator, 19, was arrested, and that the victim suffers a double fracture of the eye socket and brow ridge with four days of ITT (days of total incapacity for work) (the article does not name its source for this detail); a complaint is to be filed. The same day, a police union representative cited by the DNA speaks of a colleague who, on a “Wednesday” according to him (the DNA date the incident to the Tuesday), “received a paving stone in the face” (translated) while in an unmarked car, and France 3 Alsace (8 October) reports the words of a police union representative: “two injured in Strasbourg, with paving stones thrown” (translated), one of them “simply in his car” (translated).
The exact place of the impact is given by no source: the coordinates are those of the centre of Strasbourg. The sources do not say either whether the throw is linked to a specific event of the demonstration, or what judicial follow-up was given to the suspect’s arrest.
On 9 October, Rue89 Strasbourg reports on the hearing of an adult protester, tried for violence against a police officer during the lycée pupils’ demonstration of 6 October. According to his lawyer, he had first been accused of injuring a police officer by throwing a paving stone at him (“The police officer had been injured on the head by a thrown stone” (translated), the outlet writes), but “the victim did not see who threw the paving stone” (translated); he is ultimately prosecuted only for having thrown two projectiles, unrelated to this injury, and only one police officer identifies him as the author of those throws, according to the lawyer, who says that the surveillance videos, the drone images and the onboard cameras “yielded nothing” (translated). The court has adjourned the case to 26 November and maintained his judicial supervision (Rue89 Strasbourg). The article describes neither an unmarked car, nor a fracture, nor an incapacity for work, and does not say that this police officer is the one in this entry: nothing makes it possible to assert that it is the same incident, nor that the person arrested on 6 October mentioned by the DNA is this man.