That author’s take is the same kind of thing to me. If this was a poker game, this was not a one-round game. This was, to me, an experiment by the Feds in regard to what reaction they could produce. I would not be surprised if almost all of the protesters have been identified and received increased monitoring (and even targeting).
The reality is that challenging armed government agents can go very poorly for the challengers. That point seems to be completely ignored in the comments of the story that you sent me. I am sure that he has knowledge of protests getting demolished in places like Ohio (in 1970 when 4 college students were shot by the US National Guard), the Ukraine, Africa, Cambodia, Israel, Arabia, or Teinanmen Square (and note that the photographed incident below actually was notable because it was so unusual that the civilian was not simply killed).
The central point of George Orwell in the book 1984, which so many seem to miss, is that governments may occasionally set up events to draw out “protestors” to identify themselves to the government. Many “anti-government” authors are funded by governments (even if the actual source of the funding is hidden from the author). Some anti-government groups are started by the government (or inflitrated and then co-opted).
Anyway, here is what he said to glorify the actions of the protestors (and the text in bold is his emphasis, not mine):
BLM showed up with “lawful orders” backed up by two different (federal) courts. But the People did not perceive those order as being morally justified. Therefore, they chose not to recognize those orders as being lawful. As was the case at Bundy Ranch, Americans can and do think for themselves in such scenarios, and at any moment, they may decide that YOUR actions as a federal agent are grossly unlawful, immoral or unconstitutional. If enough people arrive at the same conclusion, you will sooner or later find yourself surrounded and possibly arrested by the People at gunpoint.
This concept does not compute with many federal agents because they were not taught the real roots of power in a free society. They are taught that a law written on a piece of paper is an absolute, irrefutable power which can never be questioned by lowly “civilians.” In reality, a law is nothing more than mutual consent of the governed. That consent, it turns out, can be invoked at any time if those who apply the law do so in a way that is egregious or unreasonable. All government power comes from the People, after all, and can therefore be revoked by the People if government becomes abusive or overreaching in its exercising of that power.
Laws mean nothing, after all, if they are not based on a sense of justice which can be recognized by the Common Man (or woman).
Keep in mind that some times when a group assembles to protest the actions of the US as unlawful or unjustified, the US (for instance) does not stop. Did the US stop occupying Germany or Japan because of protests? No: 70 years later, troops are still there.
Did the US continue to the invasion of Vietnam even though some Vietnamese shot back at them? Yes, for many years.
What about Iraq? Did people really believe “we will pull out the troops as soon as I am elected” when some politician said that? Some people may be very naive. Some of the most naive may be some of the most vocal.
Anyway, with new technologies like social media, information (and photos or videos) CAN travel quickly. Those who USE that mechanism or at least RESPECT that mechanism may have a reduced reactivity to “social media” hysterias started by others.