Australian Reporter Shot By Rubber Bullet While Covering Los Angeles Protests

Last Updated:
Nine News, in a statement, said that both Lauren Tomasi and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events.
An Australian Nine News reporter, Lauren Tomasi, was hit by a rubber bullet while covering Sunday's Los Angeles riots. She was struck in the leg, and the moment was captured on camera.
A police officer is seen on video footage aiming at Lauren Tomasi and her camera operator before shooting. Tomasi can be heard screaming in pain, clutching her calf, as a bystander angrily shouts, 'You just shot the f—— reporter!"
Australian journalist shot by U.S. police—caught on live camera. Yet, the West DS funded propaganda dares to lecture India on press freedom, citing biased, Western-funded 'indexes." pic.twitter.com/aMX0802E4w — Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) June 9, 2025
Despite being struck by the rubber bullet, Tomasi quickly reassured a bystander, saying, 'I'm good," as she and her cameraman moved to safety.
Although Lauren Tomasi hasn't issued a formal statement about the incident, she did post an update on the ongoing protests in Los Angeles. '8 pm. Dozens of police have just moved in. Another attempt to move people on. Flash bang grenades – then fireworks – going off," she said on X.
Meanwhile, Nine News, in a statement, said that both Lauren Tomasi and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events.
'This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information," the network said on Monday, according to a report by The Guardian.
The LAPD declared the entire Downtown Los Angeles area an 'unlawful assembly." 'You are to leave the Downtown area immediately," police said in a post on X.
Later, Trump ordered the immediate arrest of protestors wearing masks, as security force officials patrolled the streets on horseback and guarded federal facilities in riot gear.
The declaration followed two days of clashes, where federal agents used flash-bang grenades and tear gas against crowds protesting the arrest of dozens of migrants in a city with a sizable Latino population.
First Published:
June 09, 2025, 14:30 IST

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

4 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

Fumed Sen. Alex Padilla blasts ‘petty' JD Vance for mistaking him for convicted terrorist: ‘He knows my name'

US Vice President JD Vance sparked controversy by accusing California authorities of being involved in recent violent immigration riots and referring to Democratic Senator Alex Padilla as 'Jose Padilla,' a name linked with a convicted terrorist. JD Vance's comments about California's immigration riots and misnaming Senator Padilla sparked controversy.(Getty Images via AFP) Vance accused Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom of provoking violence by designating Los Angeles as a 'sanctuary city' while speaking on a tour of federal immigration enforcement operations during his visit to Los Angeles.'[They] have basically said that this is open season on federal law enforcement,' he stated. Vance also made fun of Alex Padilla, the first Latino US senator from California, who was just taken into custody during a demonstration. Jose Padilla, a convicted terrorist, was the moniker the Vice President used to allude to Senator Padilla. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question. I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't a theatre. And that's all it is,' the US VP remarked. 'They want to go back to their far-left groups and say, Look, I stood up against border enforcement,' the Associated Press reported him as saying. Also Read: Tulsi Gabbard fiercely reacts after Donald Trump rejects her Iran assessment as 'wrong' Senator Padilla's spokeswoman reacts to Vance's remarks In a strong response, Senator Padilla's spokesperson emphasized that Padilla and Vance had previously served together. Spokesman Tess Oswald stated, 'He should be more focused on demilitarising our city than taking cheap shots.' Vance's comment, according to Governor Newsom, was 'not an accident,' implying that the name of well-known terrorist 'Jose Padilla' was purposefully dropped. 'The Vice President's claim is categorically false,' he asserted. Vance also faced backlash from Mayor Bass, who called his remarks 'utter nonsense' and a 'stunt.' 'He knows my name', says Padilla Padilla blasted Vance for calling him 'Jose', stating that he was forcibly removed from last week's Department of Homeland Security news conference since he wanted to create "theater" amid the city's turmoil triggered by ICE operations. During an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday, Padilla stated, 'He knows my name. He knows my name.' 'Look, sadly, it's just an indicator of how petty and unserious this administration is,' he added. 'He's the vice president of the United States. You think he'd take the situation in Los Angeles more seriously. Vance spokesperson gives clarification Later, a representative for Vance asserted that it was just a 'mix-up between two people who have broken the law.' Federal immigration sweeps began on June 6 and President Trump's deployment of hundreds of troops and Marines sparked the demonstrations. Trump, however, insisted that Los Angeles 'would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years' if the federal government didn't step in. On X, Newsom encouraged Vance to concentrate on California's wildfire victims. 'We are counting on you, Mr. Vice President,' he stated.

News18

5 hours ago

• News18

What's Behind The Left-Islamist Contract?

The emergence of leftist ideology as a tool of political Islam is a phenomenon that has been widely observed around the world in recent years The shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in front of the Jewish Museum in Washington last month was an example of the threat Jews face around the world today. The attacker had shouted the slogan 'Free Gaza" as he opened fire, killing a young couple. Early this month, global media fondly reported how environmental activist Greta Thunberg sailed up on Israeli shores in a boat laden with just a truckload of aid supplies for the Gazans. But the ideological significance of these two events lies beyond the 'liberation" of Gaza. The Washington incident bore all the hallmarks of an Islamist terrorist attack. But the terrorist in this case was not an Islamist, but an activist from a far-left political party. Similarly, what lies beneath the delicate veneer of Greta Thunberg's activism is a stark portrait of the New Left politics. For the Left, all the problems in the world are caused by colonisation, imperialism, the Western capitalist system and, of course, the 'genocide" they accuse Israel of carrying out. The majority of those on board the 'Freedom Flotilla" boat with Greta Thunberg were either extreme leftists or those who openly support Hamas-Islamist terrorism. Prominent among them was Rima Hassan, a far-left French politician and member of the European Parliament, who praised the Hamas terrorist attack of October 7, 2023, and shamelessly called it legitimate. The emergence of leftist ideology as a tool of political Islam is a phenomenon that has been widely observed around the world in recent years. French researcher Pierre-André Taguieff coined the term 'Islamo-leftism" in 2002 to describe this. He said that political Islam and the Left are joining hands for some chosen common goals, and that this is a threat to republican values, Western culture, and secular norms. On the surface, this cooperation may seem impractical. The leftists see religion as a bane, but ironically jump into bed with the political Islamists who plan to install theocratic governments. These two ideologies are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, going by their stated missions, but they cooperate to fulfil their ulterior motives. This paradox might look intractable, but recent developments show that both these groups have no qualms about engaging in this opportunism. There are certain ideas that act as the catalyst for this convergence. Some of them include the hatred for Jews, blind opposition to the United States, hostility to Western culture, and, in India, the demonisation of nationalist politics. In fact, these two groups are birds of the same feather in their stance on democracy as well. The constraints on building a society based on Marxist-Leninist thought are nationalism, market capitalism, and a social system driven by religion and morality. Political parties that stand for strong nationalism are the thorn in the side of the Left all over the world. Similarly, for the Islamists, nationalism is the first hurdle in their attempts to establish religious state enclaves wherever possible in the world. Only nationalist movements and governments can stop them from skillfully using their demographic advantage to create the ultimate theocratic empire. The primary foe of all nationalist political movements around the world is Islamism. The next is the Left. And these two are the closest allies in fighting nationalist movements in democratic countries. This can be seen in India, France, Britain, the United States and elsewhere. In return for helping their causes, political Islam gives unconditional support to the so-called anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial policies of the Left. Beyond that, Islamists also implicitly, and perhaps deceptively, support the neo-liberal ideologies espoused by the Left. The contradictions that emerge from this cooperation can be glaring. For example, ultra-left feminists join Islamists in their pro-Gaza marches, turning a blind eye to the fact that the Islamists are the ones who have scaled the pinnacle of misogyny. LGBT people are coming under rainbow flags to fight alongside Islamists, who sentence homosexuals to death in countries where they have established their preferred social order. Such conflicts are no longer news to us. In Kerala, some years ago, an Islamist extremist movement held marches against the central government's Citizenship Amendment Act. The protesters held banners with the slogan 'Save the Republic" in a vain attempt to give a self-righteous afterglow to their conceited agenda. What an irony! 'Republic" is the cornerstone principle of democratic and secular statehood. Here, the very same forces that aspire to establish a religious state were using the perceived dangers to the republic as a campaign plank! What fate would befall the republic if these forces gained political power or if they achieved demographic superiority? You won't have to look far out into Afghanistan or Syria to know; just look at nearby Bangladesh. More shockingly, it was revealed later that the extremist Islamists who mobilised people under the slogan 'Save the Republic" had prepared a secret blueprint to abolish the Republic and establish a religious state in India within a few decades. Here, parallels can be drawn to how the Left treated Indian democracy soon after the country gained independence. The Marxists continued to harbour revolutionary ambitions, considered the Constitution and the democratic framework as a bourgeois system that needed to be overthrown, and believed limited participation in democracy would be an interim stage before class struggle was amplified to usher in revolution. Democracy is an interim arrangement for communists until they seize total power. For Islamists, democracy is merely a hiding place until complete religious rule is implemented. Both of these groups use the principles that are the cornerstones of democracy as needed and then abandon them by the wayside. The left-wing and progressive parties in Iran helped Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini establish a fundamentalist religious state. Islamists, who accepted the help of the Left as much as they could, persecuted leftists and expelled them from the country after the establishment of the religious state. In India, the Left and the progressives boosted Islamist radicalism by converging with their pseudo-fight for the republican fundamentals of the Constitution. The progressives were too dumb to realise that the CAA was the only remedy to protect the republican rights of the minorities who are persecuted by Islamist radicals in the neighbouring theocratic countries. Yet, they would shamelessly walk under a banner raised by the Islamists. History is witness to the fact that such contradictions have not caused any kind of psychological conflict for the leftists and Islamists. They are merely united in their struggle against nationalist politics. Some left-wing political organisations in Germany and France decided to cooperate with Hitler's Nazi party for certain specific political goals. Similarly, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem nursed a desire to exterminate the Jews of Israel in the early 1940s with Hitler's help. This cleric went to Germany and directly requested help from Hitler to annihilate the Jews. Germany has, thankfully, parted with its Nazi past, but the Islamist bigots have not. They still seek the annihilation of the Jews. And they have an able and trusted partner in the Left and the so-called progressives, who blindly demonise Israel. And, these two ideologies, which have not hesitated to cooperate with the most evil fascist forces in world history, now say that democratically elected nationalist governments are fascists! Because the concept of nationalism and the system of democracy are the ultimate obstacles to the goals that both these groups chase. Political Islam and the Left are strategically aligned to disparage, disrupt, and destroy the concept of nationalism. They help each other in this endeavour. Elijah Muhammad, who carved out Islam's identity in America as a religion for blacks and the oppressed, called white Americans 'blue-eyed devils". The Americans, who implemented the 'exploitative" system of market capitalism, are the same devils in the eyes of the Left. Elijah, who created the massive movement called the 'Nation of Islam" to promote his religion, had the stated goal of establishing a separate, ultra-religious Muslim state in the United States. Elijah's follower Louis Farrakhan described Hitler as a great leader. The accusation of racism or racial discrimination is a formula that can be used to oppose whites, Jews, and capitalists all at once. Elijah used the slogan of liberation from racial discrimination to foster the Islamist movement. This is the very foundation of the New Left, which argues that the Western world order and its cultural, economic, and political systems are based on racial and communal discrimination. Social justice is an aspirational goal, but for the far Left and the Islamists, it's only a false, delusional and deceptive vanguard that can be jettisoned at will at a later point. We saw this Left-Islamist collaboration later during the 'Black Lives Matter" movement. The leaders of this movement were those who described themselves as trained Marxists. This movement also used the same style and tactics as Islamist street revolutions seen in various countries in recent times. The BLM, which tried to overthrow the 'racist" American system, was appealing to the Islamists who were eager to destroy the 'Judeo-Christian" Western system. A handful of extreme left-wing members of the US Congress representing the Democratic Party were the most vocal supporters of this neo-Marxist anarchist movement. Not uncharacteristically, they are also the ones who support fundamentalist Islamists in America and fan the flames of anti-Semitism. In Kerala, radical Islamist parties used sweet left-wing and progressive slogans to recruit non-Muslims who were at the bottom of the socio-economic system. The tactic was to use secular-social justice slogans in the interim to gain momentum for movements that were formed with the ultimate aim of building a religious state. In a bizarre paradox, the Left, which professes to eradicate religion, joins hands, as a temporary measure, with those who seek to build a religious state. The ultimate victims of this alliance are democracy, true secularism, individual freedom, and economic prosperity. Another stark irony of this Left-Islamist alliance is that those who seek to implement religious dictatorships also praise communist dictators. Osama bin Laden and the communist autocrat of Venezuela are equally heroes for them. In India, the Leftists and Islamists lead the campaign to oppose the ruling nationalist party on all fronts. In a recent controversy in Kerala, it was the Leftists who took the lead in mocking the concept of 'Mother India" on social media with astonishing aggression. That campaign started after the governor of Kerala garlanded the Bharat Mata portrait at a function at the Raj Bhavan, and one of Kerala's communist ministers boycotted the event over the niceties relating to the depiction of Mother India as a goddess. The concept and idea of ​​Mother India is something that Islamist fundamentalists find hard to digest. The Left knows that by making fun of that concept and image, they would win the votes and hearts of the Islamists. Their grandstanding on secularism is a smokescreen; there is no idealism that they would not hesitate to surrender at the altar of Islamism for crass political goals. It is curious to note that the Left and Islamism began to fly the same flag at a time when democracy faced the greatest threat in history. The Communist International (Comintern) was formed in 1919 under the leadership of the Soviet Union to unite the world's communist forces and implement global revolution. At the 1920 Comintern conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, Vladimir Lenin described Islam as the religion of oppressed countries. He said the communists, who were inherently anti-religious, should give privileges and special consideration to Muslim religious sentiment. Going a step further, Comrade Grigory Zinoviev, a prominent Bolshevik and Lenin's confidant, called for a 'jihad" against the Western capitalist powers. That announcement was the first sign of the Left and Islamism joining hands in the name of anti-imperialist sentiment. This is the jihad that was carried out by a radical leftist activist in Washington last month. A man who once worked for a Marxist-Leninist movement, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, shot and killed two innocent people. He said he did it for the liberation of Gaza. How could someone who worked for a party that sought to overthrow the capitalist economic system and the Western system have the motivation to support Hamas and shoot innocent people dead? History offers more ample clues to solving this seemingly intractable question. In 1994, the leader of Britain's far-left Socialist Workers' Party wrote an article explaining the connection between the Left and Islamism. In this article, titled 'The Prophet and the Proletariat", he argued that Islamism can fill the void where the Left is powerless or absent. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, a radical leftist thinker from Latin America, became a terrorist in the 1970s and led the attacks on the French embassy in The Hague and the OPEC headquarters in Vienna. Born in Venezuela, he became a dyed-in-the-wool leftist after his education in Moscow. This staunch Marxist-Leninist later converted to Islam and praised Osama bin Laden as an 'immaculate martyr". Ramirez, who carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world, said during his trial in France that no one else had killed more people than he for the liberation of Palestine. If his claim is taken literally, Hamas would be ashamed of the fact that it was a leftist 'fellow traveller" who killed more Jews than they did. Michel Foucault, a prominent figure in the 20th-century left-wing intellectual movement, was an ardent admirer of the Iranian religious revolution. Foucault, who visited Tehran twice in 1978, saw the revolution only from a Marxist perspective and said it was a revolt of the underclasses. When Iran, a secular country with civil liberties and women's freedom, was conquered by the Islamists, this leftist thinker gloated that 'politics was regaining spirituality". In Kerala, some mainstream television channels and newspapers described the 2021 takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban as a 'wonderful" moment. The Left offers unbroken ideological brotherhood to the Islamists who flaunt a merely pretentious and deceptive use of democratic, secularist, and civil rights slogans. The Left-progressive alliance doesn't even have any qualms about stitching up electoral partnerships with the extremists. As the Left supports the Islamist hardliners, a large number of people who sympathise with the broader leftist ideology fall into the trap and end up amplifying Islamism. This Left-progressive ecosystem lends pseudosecular-republican cover to the Islamists, and mainstreamises, legitimises, and intellectualises their bid for sabotage. top videos View all In Foucault's philosophy, the Western world lost its revolutionary verve after the French Revolution. Surprisingly, Foucault said he found the heights of revolutionary heroism and 'political spirituality" in the Islamist street revolution in Iran that created a religious state, replacing a secular one. In Indian college campuses, Foucault-esque 'political spirituality" finds its voice only when there is an Islamist cause to be upheld. Let's try to see why the Left's revolution is intertwined with the religious revolution of Islamism. We know what the cornerstones of Marxism-Leninism are: materialism, class struggle, struggle against the powers of capital and imperialism, revolution, and so on. But what happened to these ideologies? Did the Marxists create the beautiful communes they promised? The ideology that imposed bloodshed, poverty, and chaos in several countries for decades, and denied religious and personal freedom, later dumped the lofty goals and chased new ones. When the wheels of revolution stopped turning and those who were in the vanguard established dictatorships and farcically turned the followers into slaves, victims, and fools, fundamental leftist thought disappeared or became irrelevant. Today, the hard Left's main planks are anti-semitism packaged as anti-zionism, the theory of institutional racism, support for gender anarchy in the name of feminism and the like. The New Left throws into this heady cocktail their time-worn platitudes of colonialism, apartheid, imperialism, capitalism, climate activism, and, not to mention, genocide. The Left accuses Israel of all these, dramatically conjuring up the image of a perfect enemy in the Jewish state. The Islamists also do the same thing; in their blinkered view of Palestinian exceptionalism, all other problems in the Muslim world can be simply ignored and all venom directed against Israel. This mutually beneficial narrative is the glue that keeps the Left-Islamist contract in its place. The author is a senior journalist who has worked in India and abroad, and is currently a financial journalist in Europe. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : gaza Islam israel jew Left Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 21, 2025, 23:02 IST News opinion Opinion | What's Behind The Left-Islamist Contract?

Hindustan Times

6 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

'Hybrid model': How Pakistan minister Khawaja Asif described military's interference

Pakistan's defence minister, Khawaja Asif, on Saturday, attempted to gloss over the country's army's influence on governance, claiming the nation is being governed under what he called a 'hybrid model'. This is the second time this week that Asif, a prominent member of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's cabinet, admitted to the so-called hybrid model. Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif (C) arrives at the Parliament House in Islamabad.(AFP file photo) Since Pakistan's inception, the army has dominated the politics, foreign policy, and economics of Pakistan, with many generals becoming the head of state. Asif, known for his embarrassing admission of Pakistan's involvement in fostering terrorism at the behest of Western powers, made the remark during an interview with Arab News aired on Friday evening. His comments are being considered as an admission that the Sharifs' Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has the blessings of the powerful military establishment in Pakistan. Speaking about the military's involvement in power, he said: 'This is a hybrid model. It's not an ideal democratic government. So, this hybrid arrangement, I think it is doing wonders. This system is a practical necessity until Pakistan is out of the woods as far as economic and governance problems are concerned.' Also read: In Parliament, Khawaja Asif says 'madarsa students are Pakistan's second line of defence': Watch The minister claimed that 'the only realistic option' for the PML-N and the Sharifs is 'to compromise with the military.' The Pakistani government has been erroneously praising the military of late, claiming it had an upper hand in the recent conflict with India. The claims were made even as the Indian military crippled Pakistan's strategic air bases with precision strikes. After losing face in the conflict, Pakistani army chief Asim Munir was promoted to the post of the field marshal of Pakistan. On Thursday, a day after Asim Munir met US President Donald Trump at the White House, Asif described the meeting as "the most important turning point in the 78-year history of relations." 'Not mixed, fixed government' 'Khawaja Asif and others now have to seek some legitimacy to praise the merits of the hybrid model, which doesn't mean a mixed but a fixed government to serve subsidiary interests,' said senior analyst Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais. He said the current setup is, in fact, the third 'hybrid regime' since the ouster of Imran Khan in 2022. 'Today the difference is that while Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf created political fronts by cannibalising major parties, this time around the two major parties – PMLN and PPP – have willingly served as political facade,' he said, referring to the past two army generals who later became presidents. Senior journalist Matiullah Jan described his remark as a "fall from grace" "What a fall from grace for a politician. This defence minister takes oath to defend the constitution, which makes no mention of the so-called hybrid form of government," he wrote on X. With inputs from PTI