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.
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.
Agitators by definition are conspiritors, by definition making it a conspiracy. Try reading the actual words I wrote, I never said conspiracy theory which i understand has the connotation of false/crazy/unsubstantiated belief and I think you’re confusing that with what was actually said.
Yes, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to communicate. What is your point?
I believe this is the third or fourth time I’ve clearly stated my point, so I’m going to start copying from previous comments to save you the trouble of scrolling.
In the context, conspiracy theory seemed the more likely meaning, since being pedantic about the word would mean most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.
Asking incredulously if someone really thinks the police are more likely to conspire to violence than people there under guise of peaceful protest is a level of naivete that I didn’t assume.
But you are correct, I didn’t interpret your words strictly literally, and assumed you didn’t know about agitators rather than reading your comment as the naive defense of police it otherwise appeared to be.
If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.
The distinction I’m making is the “secret/secretly” part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.
Why do you perceive combatting the myth of ‘police as tactical geniuses who are highly adept at infiltrations’ as defense of police?
My argument is simply that an individual demonstrating agency in a stressfull moment seems far more likely than an elaborate 5d chess tactical trap set by police. Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?