Elpidio Reyna, 40, allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement and damaged government vehicles, the FBI said.

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.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    2 months ago

    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.

    You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They’re not, which was the point of my comment.

    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.

    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.

    • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      If your point is just that agent provocateurs are not in the same vein as little green men then we are in agreement.

      most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.

      The distinction I’m making is the “secret/secretly” part of the definition. A protest is not meant to be secret, infiltrating one is.

      naive defense of police

      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?