521
FBI adds LA protester to its ‘Most Wanted’ list for damaging government vehicles
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
521 points (98.9% liked)
News
30157 readers
4198 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
After saying over and over, you seem to have finally gotten it! Congratulations!
You vastly overestimate how much effort it takes to "wear jeans and a t shirt, go over there and throw stuff".
Up until now you haven't mentioned anything about any myths you're combating, so.... You kinda just came across as someone standing up for the noble police who would never stoop to trickery to find an excuse for violence.
When your argument consistently lines up with the actual fascists, people might mistake you for one when you give no other context. (Consistently arguing that it's protestors causing violence is literally the argument being used to justify violence). Doubly so when you respond to the hint that left protest organizers try to keep violence in check, so it's notable when it does happen with a "why do you think protest violence is impossible?".
Makes you sound like a bootlicker toeing the line.
I don't care. Basically everything else you wrote is arguing against something I never said or implied.
Do you believe that using strong language and massively over exaggerating the slightest wrong interpretation of what someone said, or what you'd rather they had said, makes you the literal second coming of rhetorical Jesus?
How did you get that? No, fuck the police and peace police too.
Not op, but that's is based on past events (both that the gov & various departments/agencies literally did that and that American protesters are relatively tame & opposed to violence, again, 'relatively').
So a reasonable guess/question (I take it that the "75%" is there for comedic reasons).
Yes, and if you read further into the actions/tactics of those various departments/agencies you'll discover that propogating the myth of the "outside agitator" is a core part of those tactics.
It's not a reasonable guess, it's propogating propoganda based on half truths.
People like to believe in peaceful protests even if it does jack shit
~~It prob doesn't even jack any shits.~~
They might jack some shit actually - people reading about it on the toilet getting exposed to the truth & joining in on the movement(s).
Oh guaranteed some significant shits will get jacked. Absolutely.
Given that most of the people arrested for violence during the George Floyd protests turned out to be right winger accelerationists ... It's not exactly a stretch
My dude, they were arresting random people and charging everyone with assault, obstruction, etc. Of the over 14000 people arrested at the end of June 2020 you really believe the majority were right wing accelerationists?
Jacob Fagundo, Timothy O'Donnell, James Massey and Lamar Taylor were all right wing accelerationists?
The random people they picked up had charges dropped after the arrest. I'm talking about the actual convictions.
My dude
Also, learn what the word most means. Finding a could other examples doesn't make me wrong.
You're right, you are the one making bold claims and so the burden of proof is on you. You got any?
Hope that rock you've been living under is comfy. My claims are not bold. They're quite well documented.
AP finds most arrested in protests aren’t leftist radicals
This one burnt down a police precinct during a BLM protest, trying to pin it on them
Boogaloo boys spotted at dozens of BLM protests as aggitators
Did you read your sources? They don't say what you think they do.
In the classic misguided "journalistic neutrality" it does put additional emphasis on the 6 instances of "far-right extremism" a incidence rate of 2.1%. Do you believe that 2.1% is a majority?
He wasn't a lone actor trying to pin it on them, he was participating in an action with them.
Which if you stopped to read for a second you would understand why the boogaloo boys specifically had real skin in the game with the protests against police brutality and why they wear Hawaiian shirts bearing the names of people killed in confrontations with police.
READ BEYOND THE GODDAMN HEADLINES
You cherry picked out of the fucking articles you dumbass. A few lines later they do enforce what I said. Holy shit
Quote it then.
This isn't kindergarten, I'm not reading to you. Go sealion elsewhere.
You won't because your sources do not say what you think they do.