In the context of the situation described, the actions following the acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King case would be considered a riot rather than a mob for the following reasons:
1. **Violence and Property Damage:** Riots typically involve violent acts and widespread property damage, which aligns with the description of the events that occurred in Los Angeles after the verdict.
2. **Absence of Plan or Target:** Unlike mobs, riots do not necessarily require a specific plan or target for the violence. In this case, the outrage and unrest following the verdict led to spontaneous and widespread chaos, rather than a carefully orchestrated plan with a specific target.
3. **Lack of Clear Leadership:** While riots can involve leaders or instigators, they do not always have a clear leader directing the actions of the participants. In this scenario, the anger and frustration of the community as a whole contributed to the outbreak of violence, rather than a single leader dictating the course of action.
In summary, the events in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict were more accurately characterized as a riot due to the presence of violence, property damage, the absence of a specific plan or target, and the lack of clear leadership guiding the actions of the participants.
