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.

top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 188 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Stop discrediting ways of protesting you dont like by making sruff up. The outside agitator trope is a counterinsurgency tactic to sow distrust in resistance movements.

    This already happened with the George Floyd protests and in the end no proof was ever shown for this being a relevant factor in any meaningful way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You are wrong, people are pissed and are willing to show it. Have you never felt serious about something in your life? He didn't initiate the violence, the raids in his community from masked fascist goon squads started the violence. He is defending the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 139 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 120 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's a sad day when someone can make the FBl Most Wanted List just by damaging some property and hurting some cop's delicate feelings. There are countless murderers, rapists, pedophiles and human traffickers out there, but this guy makes the list!? He's a priority!?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago*

    There are countless murderers, rapists, paedophiles and human traffickers out there, but...

    Are they orange, stupid, and obese? If so then maybe they should run for office...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh stone throwers go on the most wanted list? We on the fast track to protesters getting bulldozed and opened fire on now.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago*

    The same FBI that literally just confirmed they wouldn't be investigating Americans belonging to an international neo Nazi militia until they actually commit an act of terrorism, is now putting people that committed vandalism on its "most wanted" list. Priorities.

    Neo-Nazi group ‘actively seeking to grow in US’ with planned paramilitary training event

    In response to queries about the Base’s latest movements, the FBI told the Guardian that it only investigates people who have or are planning to commit a federal crime and pose “a threat to national security”.

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago

    OMG a rock! How horrible! Imagine if Jan 6 happened today.

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Dude, I know this guy!!!

    He was literally with me, thousands of miles away from this scene. We made ham sandwiches and drank iced tea.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago

    Jesus fucking christ. Most wanted. For disagreeing with the administration and throwing some rocks.

  • source
  • [–] 77 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Remember, kids: when everything’s a crime, nothing is.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This man got caught up in good trouble. No one knows this guy. And if you think you do, no, you fucking don't.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago

    Rewriting history. Replace Jan 6 with this and act like it's the same.

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    “Oh yeah! I saw that dude! Someone caught him on camera shooting a reporter from Australia”

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    That's "most wanted" material? I figured you had to at least kill a few people to qualify for that.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago*

    FBI must have hired all the murderers and rapists who used to be on the FBI most wanted list.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    ICE was lucky it was just rocks.

    A lot of gun owners live in LA

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Oh no! Would somebody please think of the government property.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    It was me. I did it from here in Canada. (I have a good throwing arm, but terrible aim. (I was aiming for L.A.))

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    So does that mean the cops who were busting out their own cruiser windows the other day are also on that list?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    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...

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Back in early 2000s I was working as an Internet cafe admin, selling services and managing computers on the outskirts of Kyiv.

    There was this one customer, a late 30..early 40s dude who showed every now and again. He had two giant mastiff dogs in a regular three room apartment in a typical Soviet 9 story panel building, and a serious hard on the whole FBI, CIA and secret operations thing. Internet was quite new back then and one day he came to me and said that he knows an address of the FBI web page with all the most wanteds listed there. And he was very specific in saying that there was that bearded Muslim Al Quaeda guy, probably Osama bin Laden.

    So I wonder, what would he say today? Like, there a most wanted guy who... burned a car?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    FBI is a bunch of clowns chasing after crust punks.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Nothing screams "horrible criminal" like property damage against fascists.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    shooting their own feet by escalating unnecessarily. if you are already on most wanted list, all stops go. What are they going to do, put you on most wanted list?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It doesn’t look like anything to me…

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    Violent protester. 75% chance it's an undercover agent of the state.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (26 children)

    Literal conspiracy seems more likely to you than someone responding to violence with violence?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    People like to believe in peaceful protests even if it does jack shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

    People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you're replying to

    Yes, but I don't understand what you're trying to communicate. What is your point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

    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.

    My argument is...

    I don't care. Basically everything else you wrote is arguing against something I never said or implied.

    Do you believe that during a protest, individual agency no longer exists?

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    came across as someone standing up for the noble police who would never stoop to trickery to find an excuse for violence.

    How did you get that? No, fuck the police and peace police too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Did you read your sources? They don't say what you think they do.

    • From the AP article you linked:

    Of more than 300 arrested, there are about 286 defendants ___ Some of those facing charges undoubtedly share far-left and anti-government views. Far-right protesters also have been arrested and charged. ___ But many have had no previous run-ins with the law and no apparent ties to antifa, the umbrella term for leftist militant groups that Trump has said he wants to declare a terrorist organization.

    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?

    • From the guardian article:

    Hunter would later post multiple messages on Facebook bragging of his actions in Minneapolis on the night of 28 May and morning of 29 May, writing, “I set fire to that precinct with the Black community,” and, “My mom would call the FBI if she knew.”

    “I’ve burned police stations with Black Panthers in Minneapolis,” he claimed in one message, and in another, “The BLM protesters in Minneapolis loved me.”

    He wasn't a lone actor trying to pin it on them, he was participating in an action with them.

    • From the KansasCity article:

    While Kansas City police haven’t made any arrests in the May 30 arson incident and say they haven’t seen direct evidence of extremists trying to disrupt the local protests,

    Tere are so many agendas at play that it’s hard to tell who’s on what side. In some cases, they say they’re seeing a bizarre alignment between those on the far right, such as militias and the Boogalooers, and Black Lives Matter advocates protesting the death of George Floyd, with anger at police and the government being the common thread.

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    That looks like President Trump how crazy

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Cripes who’s on the fucking Least Wanted? Crypto torture guy?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Take advantage of these news to learn more about the history of the FBI and who they work for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies

    EDIT: I posted the link before reading through it, people should be aware they might impersonate Press and spy on you..

    In 2007, an agent working in Seattle, Washington for the FBI impersonated an Associated Press (AP) journalist and unwittingly infected the computer of a 15-year old suspect with a malicious surveillance software.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    🧎‍♂️

  • source
  • Property damage is not violence.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    If the dude can he needs to bug out of LA for a bit, go camping in big bear or some shit.

  • source