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.
Violent protester. 75% chance it’s an undercover agent of the state.
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.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendment
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.
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”?
🙄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”.
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?
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:
You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They’re not, which was the point of my comment.
People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you’re replying to.
Instead of assuming what I’m saying based on where it is in the thread you might try reading the actual words.