"No True Protester" Fallacy?

No True Scotsman is a generalization expecting attitude of conformance, and Biden's blurt about a voter who could not be black unless he supported Biden is of this sort.

Here, the right of people to peacefully assemble is what makes for a protest and those who do so are "protesters".  Their behavior, not their heritage or presumptions about their background is the basis for being protesters and not looters or arsonists.  It is thus a valid statement to describe protesters as being "true" protesters, so not a fallacy.

In an age where misinformation and disinformation are so readily and easily spread, the agent provocateur is probably more effective than ever. Did you see the video of protestors telling a man to stop breaking windows and when asked if he was police be refused to answer and skulked off? This guy was very surveillance aware with an umbrella to stop identification and tracking by drones with the simple use of an umbrella, which otherwise was completely out of place. 

That's one type of person who really isn't protestor and who is actively working against them by trying to cast them in a bad light. Then there are opportunists who see an opportunity for a bit of looting, or maybe they're just bored delinquents who decide to go along for something to do, then get up to no good. So those might not be protestors at all.

However, another way of looking at it is that just coming out in numbers isn't enough, waving sign isn't going to motivate people who look at you with contempt to change anything. These people might think that there's no more effective method than causing loss of money to the wealthy. 

And you could argue that the most effective protest so far was burning buildings in Minnesota and Saint Paul, which resulted in the quickest arrest of a police officer ever (possibly excluding one who did something to be rich and powerful, at least for their behaviour towards the public). 

So yes, there is a problem of dismissing people who don't protest quite how you choose to do or approve of it, and that would be fallacious, but there are also people who simply aren't protestors. There's no one size fits all answer really. 

A protester is someone who attends a demonstration ("protest"), usually for political reasons, in order to send a message to some sort of authority indicating their stance on an issue. Right now, BLM are protesting police brutality.

A looter is someone who enters property to deprive it of material value, e.g., by stealing from it. An instance of this is entering a Target to relieve it of a TV.

These groups aren't mutually exclusive, so to deny that someone is a protester because they looted is to commit a False Dilemma fallacy.

However, not all looters are protesters. So while it's not mutually exclusive, it's not synonymous either.

As for "true" protester, well, this is up for debate. On one hand, you get the argument that rioting and looting is necessary to bring attention to the cause, and, when it targets larger players like big firms (e.g...Target), there is a socially justice consequence ("punching up"). On the other, you get the argument that protesting must be done peacefully in order to win public sympathy, and that looting merely vindicates the police, who will use it to attack the wider movement (which is a form of Stereotyping (the fallacy)).

Simply put, protesting can be peaceful or non-peaceful. "True" is thus relative only to the group making the remarks (e.g. a group of ideologically peaceful protesters referring to a rogue looter in their midst), and not an objective remark. So it is a No True Scotsman.

This seems a little different to me. The "no true" fallacy is about an identity, and how it is presented. Protesting is not an identity. One could be a peaceful protester or a professional thief. A protest could start peacefully but turn violent, turning peaceful protesters into opportunistic looters. I don't think protests have identities. This seems like more opinion than argument.