Rioters torch driverless cars in third day of LA unrest
Masked protesters in Los Angeles smashed and torched self-driving electric cars during a third day of volatile demonstrations.
Protesters waving Mexican flags were pictured vandalising and standing on the bonnets of the white Waymo autonomous taxis as thousands of activists descended on the city's downtown area.
It came as demonstrators protesting against federal immigration raids clashed with police again on Sunday, with officers firing rubber bullets, tear gas and balls of pepper spray into the crowd.
Photographs appeared to show a protester smashing a car with a hammer, while in video footage a burning American flag was seen being thrown into a vehicle.
Other videos showed the self-driving taxis with their tyres slashed and windows smashed, along with anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency graffiti sprayed on the bodywork.
Protesters who swarmed around the vehicles were also seen tearing their doors off and using a makeshift flamethrower to set them on fire.
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) warned people to avoid the area. The force said in a statement: 'Burning lithium-ion batteries release toxic gases, including hydrogen fluoride, posing risks to responders and those nearby.'
By 6pm, at least four self-driving cars had been completely burnt out, with only their wheels recognisable amid mounds of white ash and metal.
Launched in San Francisco in 2021, Waymo, a subsidiary of Google's parent company Alphabet, began its service ferrying passengers in Los Angeles in November.
A Waymo spokesman told the Los Angeles Times that the company was in touch with law enforcement regarding the incident.
Protestors were also filmed throwing Lime electric scooters at police cars, smashing their windscreens.
Sunday's protest had been organised by the Los Angeles branch of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Another is planned for Monday.
Cynthia Martinez, whose parents moved to the US from Mexico, told The Telegraph: 'I'm here because I want to fight for the rights of immigrants.'
The 30-year-old teacher added: 'I want to make sure I'm here for the people and stand up for those that cannot stand up for themselves.'
On Saturday night, Gavin Newsom, the Democrat California governor, urged protesters not to give Donald Trump a 'spectacle' after the US president announced he was deploying 2,000 National Guard troops to the city.
The arrival of hundreds of troops on Sunday marked the first time since 1965 that a president had activated a National Guard force without a request from a state's governor.
Despite Mr Newsom's pleas, National Guard troops were quickly deployed to guard federal government buildings, as dozens of police cars lined the streets.
The LAPD declared several rallies, in different parts of the city, to be 'unlawful assemblies', while accusing some protesters of throwing concrete projectiles, bottles and other items at officers.
The sky over downtown Los Angeles was thick with smoke as protesters set off fireworks and law enforcement fired flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets in an attempt to disperse the crowds.
Among those caught up in the chaos was an Australian journalist, who was shot in the leg with a rubber bullet as she delivered a piece to camera.
Nine News
'This is the worst I've seen since the LA riots,' a police officer said as he escorted a Telegraph reporter through a barricaded area to retrieve their car, which had been hit by a projectile, cracking the windscreen.
At least five police helicopters circled above, while officers on horseback fired tear gas into the crowd to push the protesters back.
Whole swathes of downtown Los Angeles were coated in graffiti, with vandals spraying 'F--- Ice, F--- Trump' and 'Deport Trump's wife' onto walls and buildings.
By nightfall, the majority of protesters had gone home. Some of those that remained set fire to bins on street corners, set off fireworks and threw Molotov cocktails towards the police.
One helicopter circled lower, using its spotlight to illuminate pockets of protesters.
'Why are you running?' an officer said from the aircraft, as protesters ran from police just after 10pm. 'I'm gonna getcha.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character
'South Park' released a new clip teasing Wednesday night's episode that features the return of a fan-favorite character as the show appears set to continue trolling President Donald Trump. The clip shows Towelie ― a sentient towel who loves to get high ― arriving by bus in Washington, D.C. to find the city under military control. 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel,' Towelie says as he watches a tank roll past the White House ― mimicking the real-life situation in which Trump has sent the National Guard into the city. Trump has claimed the military is needed to bring order to a city besieged by crime. However, the violent crime rate there dropped in both 2024 and 2025, leading critics to blast the move as a 'stunt.' 'South Park' has pulled a few stunts of its own since the show returned last month, mocking corporate parent Paramount for caving to Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit over '60 Minutes' that most legal observers considered frivolous. Related: Trump has claimed the settlement includes PSAs, and 'South Park' mockingly gave him one at the end of the episode, which showed a very realistic Trump stripping in the desert until he was naked, complete with a talking 'teeny tiny' penis. The show continued to go after Trump and his administration in the second episode, which focused mostly on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The next episode airs Wednesday night on Comedy Central, and will stream on Paramount+. 'South Park' Goes Scorched-Earth On Trump In Shockingly NSFW Season Premiere Aubrey Plaza Details 'Awfulness' After Her Husband's Shocking Death Elon Musk Was Not Pleased With 'Silicon Valley' Show's Portrayal Of Tech Parties


Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime
When the man says no, the agent continues. 'Yeah, Trump's got all federal agencies coming together, seven days, and going out trying to stop the violent crime, all kind of stuff,' the agent says. He continues: 'Smoking, drinking in public, right, it can't happen.' I'm a Detroit-born, Boston transplant at heart, but I've worked as a journalist in Washington for nearly two decades. Though I've built my career here working only for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Understandably, I have some very strong and very personal views about the president's Advertisement Most obviously, sending armed federal agents and the National Guard to patrol the streets of the nation's capital bears all the hallmarks of a But from my local vantage point, I see even more layers to this dangerous gambit. Advertisement First, let's dispel the idea that Trump's effort is driven in any way by a true desire to make D.C. a better place to live and visit. Trump points to anecdotal evidence, like the If Trump really wanted to fight crime here, there are many things he could do that would actually help, starting with telling his fellow Republicans in Congress to release No, Trump's crime crusade is about something else. Aside from satisfying his Trump loves a shock-and-awe-style attack on perceived domestic enemies. Look at Trump's immigration crackdown, complete with images of suspected immigrants being detained and held in brutally inhumane facilities with nicknames like 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's a show put on by the former reality show host and the latest episode is brought to you from Democratic-controlled cities he has long railed against. Crime fighting isn't the point. Cruelty is. Advertisement It's gut wrenching to see it happening in a place so filled with history, culture, and joy. It's a richness that comes not just from transplants like me or its world-renown cultural institutions (which are They, and I, want safe, well-policed, and well-resourced communities. Not a federal takeover. And I'm exhausted by the crime hot takes from people who couldn't identify Ironically, even if you thought soldiers should be sent here, they are also being sent from Ohio, the only state that Even Trump's claim that Advertisement Trump is selling a dangerous lie about the city I've made a life in. My D.C. is one of Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at


Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at