The unidentified demonstrator allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement and damaged government vehicles, the FBI said.
As tense anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles enter their fourth day, federal officers have ramped up law enforcement’s response – and have added one protester to the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted list.’
The unidentified demonstrator has been accused of assaulting a federal officer and damaging government property during Saturday’s protest in Paramount, a city 30 miles south of Los Angeles.
The suspect allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement on Alondra Boulevard around 3:30 p.m. Saturday, “injuring a federal officer and damaging government vehicles,” according to the FBI’s Los Angeles field office. It was not immediately clear whether the officer was injured or the extent of the damage.
So does that mean the cops who were busting out their own cruiser windows the other day are also on that list?
The FBI is asking the public for help identifying a man at the Los Angeles protests against ICE whom the agency has put on its ‘Most Wanted list. ‘ (FBI)
How about you go fuck yourself instead.
Even if they offer a cash reward, Luigi has taught us they won’t pay out
You know, for those people lacking a moral compass
they won’t pay out
They will always have a loophole to keep you from getting yours.
I’m just hoping they didn’t bring their phones. Btw, if you go to a protest, don’t bring your smartphone.
Throwing rocks, starting fires, and initiating violence? I’d say there’s a much better than 50% chance that this is someone who came to instigate violence rather that support the protest. If he’s ever arrested, I’d bet money that he turns out to have a pardon from Trump in his history or a ProudBoy tat or both.
Alright…
At least the violence is against the appropriate targets.
How about the cop who decided to pop a (right leaning apparently!) Australian reporter from close range with a rubber bullet, just for shits and giggles?
A vandal…on the most wanted list… a place for terrorists and serial killers. Kash’s FBI everyone.
Remember, kids: when everything’s a crime, nothing is.
So now we know, 9/11 and property damage are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the FBI. Makes a weird incentive to be more extreme in protests right? Like, if throwing rocks at a cop car and killing 3000 people plus demolishing the 2 largest buildings in the US and also a bunch of infrastructure and other buildings around it and 2 planes, lands you in the same list…
ICE was lucky it was just rocks.
A lot of gun owners live in LA
That is precisely the intent, they will use that to justify suspending Habeas Corpus and declaring martial law. That is why we have precious little time to prepare and act!
So who’s stopping them from declaring martial law anyway?
This man got caught up in good trouble. No one knows this guy. And if you think you do, no, you fucking don’t.
I know him. He was at my house at the time the alleged incident occurred.
And I saw him there, too.
FBI must have hired all the murderers and rapists who used to be on the FBI most wanted list.
O noes. He threw rocks
Quick shoot him in the face with less than lethal rounds!
“Oh yeah! I saw that dude! Someone caught him on camera shooting a reporter from Australia”
Oh no! Would somebody please think of the government property.
Violent protester. 75% chance it’s an undercover agent of the state.
Damn, turns out the state is the only thing capable of positive change.
Literal conspiracy seems more likely to you than someone responding to violence with violence?
It has been documented to happen, so it’s not incredibly outlandish. The regularity with which modern protest movements on the US left attempt to surpress violence to avoid giving an excuse to law enforcement makes it notable when it occurs. Again, far from unheard of, just not part of every instance.
So while it’s probably not the case that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be an agent provocateur, it would be unsurprising if it were that, someone there to push for escalation with no police affiliation, or just petty hooliganism. Last of which is significant only that it distinguishes someone who decided to do violence for a principled reason from someone who just wanted to throw rocks at cops.
Yes, ops and peace police exist. Why does that mean that it’s impossible for an individual to “do violence for a principled reason”? Is Luigi also an op?
I didn’t say that in the slightest, and in fact said the opposite.
It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that someone causing trouble came to the protest solely to cause trouble, for whom or why not withstanding.
The first two examples I gave, police and right wing accelerationists, have a political motivation. The third, holligans, are doing what they’re doing for it’s own sake.It’s obviously possible for someone aligned with the peaceful protestors to decide to throw rocks at cops. Neither I nor anyone else said otherwise.
There’s no need to put words in someone’s mouth or misrepresent what they’re saying.
The point of a protest is to cause trouble anything else is a parade.
It’s obviously possible for someone aligned with the peaceful protestors to decide to throw rocks at cops
The thing we are arguing about isn’t “possibility” it’s “probability”. To be fair, you have not directly stated you beliefs but the parent comment had stated their priors and they are completely divorced from reality.
Wait, you’re arguing with me because of what someone else said?
I said agitators aren’t a conspiracy theory. You asked why I thought the violence from the protestors was “impossible”. I said I didn’t think that, and it’s obviously possible and now you’re upset that I used the word “possible”?
The point of a protest is to cause trouble
🙄oh, go fuck yourself. If you’re getting to that level of nitpicking you aren’t actually doing anything but looking for argument, unless you’re actually so brain damaged that you think that all nonviolent protest is just “parades”. Just in case: in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean “undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it’s own sake”.
I said I didn’t think that, and it’s obviously possible and now you’re upset that I used the word “possible”
Not upset, and I do think I misread your list of reasons for why someone would be a ‘violent protester’ as an exhaustive list when you did not mean it as such. My point about priors still stands but you are correct that it is mostly directed at badbytes. What were you trying to communicate with your first comment if not re-enforcing badbytes message?
in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean “undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it’s own sake”
I appreciate this, however this definition runs opposite to your usage above about how police/accelerationists “came to the protest to cause trouble”. Your usage there was to communicate “directed violence perpetrated for political sake”.
The word “violence” is a bit murky here and I’m not sure I agree on it’s inclusion in the definition of “trouble” however with how obstruction and vandalism are considered “violent” by police I stand by the statement that:
The point of a protest is to cause “directed violence perpetrated for political sake”.
It doesn’t look like anything to me…
Property damage is not violence.
