Fact Check: Video doesn't show people setting Jeep on fire during LA protests
Claim:
A video authentically showed people setting a Jeep on fire during June 2025 protests in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement.
Rating:
Context:
While the video of people setting fire to a Jeep in Los Angeles is real, it was not filmed during the June 2025 immigration protests. The video was taken in March 2024 during a street takeover in Los Angeles' Hyde Park neighborhood.
In June 2025, a video circulated on X claiming to show people in Los Angeles dousing a Jeep with gasoline and lighting it on fire.
The video was shared as thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in Los Angeles to protest immigration raids led by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.
The footage appeared in a popular X post (archived) that read, "OVERNIGHT IN LA: Low IQ Illegal Aliens light themselves on FIRE after dousing Jeep with gasoline and lighting it. Do you feel bad for these guys?"
(X user @OcrazioCornPop)
The claim also appeared elsewhere on (archived) X (archived).
However, the video was miscaptioned. While the footage is authentic and was captured in Los Angeles, it does not show people dousing a Jeep in gasoline and setting it on fire amid the June 2025 protests. It was taken in March 2024 during an unrelated street takeover in Los Angeles.
Using InVid to isolate keyframes of the viral video and RevEye to conduct a reverse image search, Snopes traced the footage back to the March 2024 incident.
The reverse image search led us to a Daily Mail article published on March 15, 2024. The article included screenshots from a video that showed a Jeep doused in gasoline and set on fire during a street takeover in Los Angeles' Hyde Park neighborhood.
The Daily Mail credited the footage to a TikTok user. Snopes found an Instagram account with the same username that shared the footage of a Jeep set on fire in a post on March 9, 2024.
We also conducted a Google search using details from the Daily Mail article to find further reporting on the incident. That led us to an article published by Los Angeles news station KABC on March 12, 2024, that includes footage of the incident.
The video in the KABC article and on TikTok appear to be captured from a different angle than the footage shared in June 2025, but the videos clearly show the same incident. The person pouring the gasoline on the Jeep is wearing the same beanie and red coat in the KABC and TikTok videos and the footage shared in June 2025. A street sign for 63rd Street also is visible in all of the videos.
Though Snopes could not verify the source of the video circulating on X in June 2025, there was enough evidence to show it was filmed before the 2025 protests in Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles Police Department said the street takeover where the video was captured occurred at the intersection of 63rd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard in the early hours of March 9, 2024, according to KABC. Police said about 50 cars were involved in the street takeover and the crowd was already dispersing when officers arrived.
Snopes reached out to the LAPD for additional information about the video and incident, and is awaiting a response.
While the video of the Jeep is miscaptioned, protesters did set self-driving cars on fire during June 2025 clashes with federal immigration authorities in Los Angeles, The Associated Press reported.
Tatananni, Mackenzie. "Shocking Moment Woman Is Sent Flying and Knocked out Cold by Car Doing Donuts at 'Street Takeover'..." Mail Online, Daily Mail, 15 Mar. 2024, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13200093/woman-car-donuts-street-takeover-Los-Angeles.html. Accessed 9 June 2025.
"Jeep Doused in Gasoline and Set on Fire during Chaotic Street Takeover in Hyde Park." ABC7 Los Angeles, 12 Mar. 2024, abc7.com/hyde-park-street-takeover-jeep-set-on-fire-video/14515977/. Accessed 9 June 2025.
Dearen, Jason and Sullivan, Tim. "California Governor Plans to File Lawsuit against Trump over National Guard Deployment to Protests." AP News, 9 June 2025, apnews.com/article/los-angeles-protests-national-guard-trump-14c9dda32663d7d2c45f2b1c5a1d219c. Accessed 9 June 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Demands Republicans Crack Down on Nonprofits That Protest ICE
President Donald Trump voiced support Saturday for new legislation aiming to punish groups linked to the June protests in Los Angeles against the administration's aggressive immigration raids and arrests. The legislation, offered by Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would make nonprofits involved in supposedly 'organizing the riots' ineligible for federal funding or tax-exempt status. At the center of the proposed bill is an immigrants rights group based in L.A. that denies any wrongdoing and says the accusations are false. 'CONGRESSMAN KEVIN KILEY'S, 'NO TAX DOLLARS FOR RIOTS' legislation, should be passed immediately,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday. 'I am hereby instructing my Administration not to pay ANY money to these radicalized groups, regardless of the legislation. They get paid to incite riots, burn down or destroy a city, then come back to the trough to get money to help rebuild it. NO MORE MONEY!!!' The text of the bill has not been publicly released. Kiley framed the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a threat. 'The violence we have witnessed in Los Angeles is a threat to the safety of our communities and federal officers, and it undermines democracy by obstructing the policies of a duly elected president from being implemented.' Kiley said in a statement. 'We need better tools to deter and punish this lawless and anti-democratic behavior.' The anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles began this month in response to the Trump administration's campaign of worksite immigration raids and courthouse arrests, which is reportedly being conducted at the demand of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Authorities have used flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets, and pepper balls on protesters, who have largely been non-violent. Trump used the protests as the basis for federalizing and deploying thousands of National Guard troops as well as hundreds of Marines. 'We have the IRS here that's helping us track how these violent protesters are funded,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said. 'What NGO is out there? What unions? What other individuals may be funding these violent perpetrators?' Kiley argues the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) 'played a pivotal role in enabling the riots.' He alleges that the group broadcast federal officers' locations in real-time, and that several of the officers were assaulted with bricks and Molotov cocktails. Two people were charged with possession of Molotov cocktails, but there is no evidence they were tied to CHIRLA. 'They're saying the most vicious lies [about] who we are and what we do,' CHIRLA's Executive Director Angélica Salas told CBS News. 'My bill,' Kiley said Thursday on the House floor, 'will assure that an organization like this whose officers are convicted of assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers, or of organizing, promoting, and encouraging participating in or carrying on a riot… loses their nonprofit status and is ineligible for federal funding going forward,' Earlier this month, Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-Mo.), who is chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, launched an investigation into CHIRLA's 'alleged role in financing and materially supporting the coordinated protests and riots' in Los Angeles. 'While peaceful protest is a cornerstone of American democracy, these demonstrations have escalated into lawless mob actions,' he wrote in a letter to the organization demanding more information. He noted that CHIRLA reportedly 'received $34 million in state funding.' Their 2023 tax return shows they received this amount in government grants. The organization previously had a $450,000 contract with the Department of Homeland Security for 'citizenship education and training.' DHS said it terminated this contract and intended to withhold $101,000 in funds that had not yet been paid to the group. 'Credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive actions,' Hawley said. 'Let me be clear: Bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct.' Salas, who leads CHIRLA, was a speaker at a press conference on June 6, when the first protests against ICE began, but that seems to be the extent of the group's involvement. 'Our community is under attack and is being terrorized,' she told the crowd. 'These are workers, these are fathers, these are mothers, and this has to stop. Immigration enforcement that is terrorizing our families throughout this country and picking up our people that we love must stop now.' She remains steadfast. 'We categorically reject any allegation that our work as an organization now and during the past 39 years providing services to immigrants and their families violates the law,' Salas said in a statement. 'Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values. We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our First Amendment rights.' More from Rolling Stone Trump Admin Says ICE Agents are the Real Victims Amid Violent Immigration Raids Trump's Military Birthday Parade 'Illegally' Used Hit Song: Cease-and-Desist Letter Florida GOP Hawks Merch for Brutal 'Alligator Alcatraz' Migrant Detention Camp Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi fires three DOJ prosecutors who were involved in prosecuting January 6 rioters, report says
The Department of Justice has reportedly fired at least three career prosecutors who worked on cases against January 6 rioters. The prosecutors included two supervisors who oversaw the sweeping DOJ case against the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol in early 2021, as well as a third attorney, the Associated Press reports. The attorneys were fired on Friday in a letter signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi informing them they were 'removed from federal service effective immediately,' NBC News reports. The Independent has contacted the Justice Department for comment. The reported firings come after the administration axed about a dozen lower-level DOJ officials who worked on the January 6 cases, and pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted in Capitol riot cases, including violent offenders. Separately, earlier this year, the administration removed more than a dozen prosecutors involved in prior criminal investigations into Donald Trump, including several who worked for Jack Smith, the special counsel bringing a now-dismissed election subversion case against the Republican. 'You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,' a letter to these officials, obtained by CNN, said. The White House has also sought to penalize law firms tied to perceived opponents of the president, including Smith and prominent Democrats, attempting to strip their security clearances and punish federal contractors that did business with them. On the campaign trail, Trump referred to the mob that stormed the Capitol to overturn the certification of his 2020 election loss, injuring about 150 police officers in a riot that ultimately led to at least seven deaths, as 'hostages.' The January 6 case was the largest in Justice Department history, netting over 1,500 convictions and requiring scores of federal attorneys, many of whom remain with the government. Despite erasing this prosecution against mass disturbance from the books, since taking office, the Trump administration has sought a firm response to civil unrest targeting his policies, deploying federal agents, Marines, and the National Guard for a nearly unprecedented civil law enforcement role in response to Los Angeles protests against immigration raids.
American Military News
7 hours ago
- American Military News
Have 34 felony counts against Trump been dropped after US presidential election?
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. Manhattan District Attorney's Office dropped the case against President-elect Donald Trump in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts involving falsifying business records, following his presidential election victory. But the claim is false. Documents released by the court on Nov. 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump's impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the case. The claim was shared on X on Nov. 22, 2024. 'Donald Trump's sentencing for 34 criminal charges in the state of New York abruptly adjourned by Judge Merchan without explanation. All charges have been dropped,' the claim reads. Former President Trump secured a second, non-consecutive term by defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5. In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The indictment accused Trump of orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to suppress information about a sexual encounter that she says they had aiming to influence the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies any sexual encounter with Daniels. The payments were purportedly disguised in business records as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose. The claim that the felony accounts against Trump were dropped following the election is incorrect. Charge vs account Chinese social media users appear to have confused the terms 'charges' and 'counts.' A 'charge' refers to a specific crime someone is accused of committing, while a 'count' indicates the number of times the person is accused of committing that crime. In Trump's case, he was accused of one crime – falsifying business records – but was charged with committing it 34 separate times. To be proceeded The Manhattan district attorney offices' charge against Trump has not been dropped. Documents released by the court on November 19 show that the prosecution intends to proceed with post-trial sentencing and denies Trump's impending presidency is sufficient grounds to dismiss the felony counts against him. However, the prosecution noted that it will consider a stay of proceedings, which would pause sentencing until after Trump leaves office after his second term ends in four years. It stated this would allow the court 'to balance competing constitutional interests.' Uncertainties On Nov. 22, the presiding judge Juan Merchan postponed sentencing to receive more arguments from both sides. Trump's lawyers were ordered to file their arguments for dismissal by Dec. 2, while the prosecutors were given until Dec. 9 to submit their arguments for proceeding with the conviction. Given the unique situation of a president-elect awaiting criminal sentencing, the exact outcome of the case is still unclear. While the prosecution has signaled its plans to continue forward with sentencing at some point in the future, Trump's lawyers are still attempting to have the case dismissed. U.S. constitutional law expert Robert Mcwhirter said in an interview with the American broadcaster CBS that any sentencing against Trump would likely be enforced after leaving his second term in office. However, Mcwhirter noted there is 'a slim chance' that he could impose a short prison sentence on Trump before his inauguration in January 2025 or probationary measures during his time in office. Other cases In addition to the Manhattan court case, one other state-level criminal case in Georgia and two federal criminal cases have been brought against Trump . Following Trump's election victory, the Department of Justice dismissed the two federal cases against him on Nov. 25. The case in Georgia is stalled in pretrial procedures and its progress is unclear. A Supreme Court decision from July 2024 ruled that Trump was ineligible to be prosecuted for acts that fall under the president's 'core constitutional powers.' The president's 'unofficial acts' share no such immunity.
