zlacker

There's a very short list of what that person can be:

Either the video is fake or real. Let's pretend it's real.

Either the video is staged or not.

  * if staged, then this is a person trying to spread the idea that there are agent provocateurs
  * if not staged, then this is a real person that did this

If this is a real person that did this, then:

  * they either did it of their own free will, or 
  * there is a group of people encouraging them to do it.

If they did it of their own free will, then either:

  * they want to steal things
  * they want to break things
  * they want to get back at Autozone
  * they want to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
  * they want to _start_ violence in the protest at that location

If they did it as part of a group effort, then they were either coerced or not; but, in both cases, the intention of the group that caused it is what matters:

  * the group wanted someone to steal things / break things / get back at autozone
  * the group wanted to cause a suggestion that there is violence in the protest at that location
  * the group wanted to _start_ violence in the protest at that location.

Then you need to look at the probabilities of each of these situations, especially the person themselves and their attire.

I think it's reasonable to conclude either:

  * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves
  * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent
  * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs
    out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.

Did I miss any combination?

2 of that final set are especially bad, in my opinion; and, they're sufficiently likely as to not rule them, out.

( edit: formatting )

edit: sorry, I did miss one:

  * he's trying to cause an insurance claim for the autozone

>>t-writ+(OP)
>I think it's reasonable to conclude either:

> * this guy just wanted to do harm to the location for themselves > * somebody, acting alone or with others, is trying to either make the protests violent or make the protests look violent > * it's staged and the people staging the video are trying to make it look like there are agent provocateurs out there trying to either make the protests violent or make them look like they're violent.

This is not reasonable at all.

2/3 options assume that this is an agent provocateur, which, again, no evidence has been produced to support, which was the entire point in the first place.

Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.

>>chance+C2
What other options are in this list?

And, it has nothing to do with the number of the options, 1 2 or 3. It has to do with the percentages of probabilities of each option.

It could be there's a 90% chance of the first option and a 5% chance of the second and a 5% chance of the third.

What possible situation did I miss in the collection?

>>t-writ+K2
>Again, someone please produce evidence that this person was a cop or agent provocateur, or stop posting this rumor.

>>chance+fe
Is posting an attempt at the exhaustive list of all the things he could be posting a rumor?

Is my list non-exhaustive?