I can tell that the non-aggression principal and self defense could be used either way here with the proper mental gymnastics.

How is that again? How did the owner of that specific window they broke aggress against them and how did their actions represent a defensive use of force? I've wasted way too much time in AnCom/AnCap debate groups (that would be anarcho-communist / anarcho-capitalist) to bother with what I see to be truly ridiculous mental gymnastics bordering on contortionism.

I get how AnComs think property is theft and rent/wages lead to slavery, but when I directly engage them on their arguments using specific examples, I find quite a bit of ridiculousness. In a world beyond property and money, I think they have some valid points regarding how communities should care for each other more and how an unrestrained pursuit of profit can lead to short-term thinking, damaging the environment, and lowering the wellbeing of our species. That said, much of their larger views just don't make sense today.

What we see here by the so called "anarchists" are just assholes who want to destroy stuff. Destructive people can take on any label they choose, but that doesn't mean they properly represent the views of that tribe or community. Anarchy is about no rulers. AnComs think property creates another set of rulers, but I think the philosophy of liberty is more intellectually consistent:

From that view, destroying someone's justly acquired property is an act against their person. If these so called "anarchist" could make a valid claim for the specific property they are destroying as being unjustly acquired and what they are doing somehow leads to restitution (are we contorted enough yet?), then maybe I could understand... but none of that holds water. It's ridiculous to think destroying someone's property somehow brings restitution to a supposed victim.

This "anarchists are dangerous and violent!" narrative the media loves to highlight categories all anti-authoritarians with those who will create more violence in the world and disrupt John and Jane's peaceful life in the suburbs. The reality is the opposite. Those who believe in the NAP and see government as an unjustified use of force will more effectively bring about peace than any government program or ruler. Mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange is the bedrock of peace in our modern society. Governments instead use threats of violent force and monopoly creation to control and prevent this from happening. Over time, their attempts will fail (see the failing war on drugs) and voluntaryists will be seen for the peaceful people they are.

Thanks for asking the question and for being open minded enough to question the media narrative.