Was the ICE protest death in Tacoma a DHS sting/false flag operation?
I want to start off by saying that I am not a journalist or investigator, and I don't have access to any information about what happened in Tacoma than any of you do. What I will try to do here is look at the MSM/MIC narrative that has been created around this incident, and put this in the context of surrounding events. So what follows is strictly speculation. If it has the ring of truth, and if others with more access to the facts on the ground are moved to investigate further, then I will have done my part.
I have to wonder whether Willem Van Spronsen's alleged attack on a Tacoma ICE privately run concentration camp, and his subsequent death from police gunfire was not the creation of the FBI or other law enforcement agency. Several things may point in this direction.
First, if his attack was actually intended to cause maximum damage to the camp's operations or harm to the uniformed perpetrators, it appears stunningly ineffective. Van Spronsen is described by the MSM stenographers, who all seem to be reading off the same official communique, as throwing "Incendiary Devices". "Incendiary Devices"? Is that as descriptive as you can get? Not firebombs? Not Molotov cocktails? Not a flamethrower? The lack of detail, of strong descriptors, suggests to me that these "incendiary devices" might have been pretty harmless and pathetic. If the communique wanted to make us scared of the big bad terrorist, and if it was true he was hurling firebombs, Molotov cocktails, grenades or the like, they would have said so. Tiny little firecrackers kids would set off of the 4th of July are "incendiary devices". Matches are "incendiary devices".
I am also struck by the lack of damage Van Spronsen is alleged to have caused with his matches or firecrackers. No number of vehicles set aflame is mentioned, no dollar estimate of damages is given. Only that he have been trying to set off a propane tank. Which is odd, if he were truly trying to harm the facility or its equipment while sparing its inmates. It a commercial propane tank had in fact exploded, it would likely have caused at least as many inmate casualties as among the perpetrators.
Likewise, the involvement of firearms. The reports said he "was armed", not "fired his weapon", brandished it, pointed it at anyone. Just that he was armed. Also that he had a rifle, not a handgun. His own communique said he had an unregistered AR-15. A machine gun meant for mass death. If you hold such a gun ready to fire, you cannot also do anything else, like throw matches. The stenography does not say he was told to drop his weapon. It does not say he lifted it to take aim. I am left with the impression that the police treated Van Spronsen, an old white guy, in the way usually reserved for young black men: the very presence of a gun, nay even the imagined sight of a gun, is enough to justify death in a hail of police bullets.
It is well known that the FBI infiltrates activist groups. I am almost certain that the Tacoma anti-ICE activist group was already infiltrated by undercover law enforcement. Van Spronsen was not a lone wolf. He was not a quiet sleeper in this group, keeping his views to himself until he was ready to act. He already had a record as someone easily angered, perhaps less stable, ready to move beyond non-violent protest:
Van Spronsen was accused of assaulting a police officer during a protest outside the detention centre, the News-Tribune reported. According to court documents he lunged at the officer who was trying to detain a 17-year-old protester on 26 June 2018.
Van Spronsen pleaded guilty to the charge of obstructing police and was given a deferred sentence in October, the News-Tribune reported.
So he was a visible member of several Left groups and already had been charged with an offense. I have to believe for all these reasons, that the police and the FBI likely had him under surveillance. If he gathered his "incendiary devices", if he purchased the parts for his modified AR-15, I strongly believe that the FBI was aware of his comings and goings. They monitored his social media activity.
Which brings me to the next phase of what may have happened. The FBI has a long history of conducting "sting" so-called anti-terrorism operations in which they manipulate and coerce a less stable individual into planning and attempting to execute some act of terrorism that the subject never would have conceived of on their own. Then they swoop in as heroes for having prevented a terrorist attack. This has happened dozens of times in Muslim communities since 9/11. The FBI send undercover people into mosques, or cooperating criminals, to seek out a befriend some vulnerable, disaffected, often mentally ill young man. The informant over a period of time works to radicalize this vulnerable boy, to manipulate them into working with the informant to carrying out some terrorist attack. The FBI then gives this person fake explosives or fake weapons, helps them execute their plan, and than arrests this hapless young man as a hardened terrorist.
I have to wonder if something similar was at work here. Were there undercover members of the local Occupy group that befriended him over time, tried to push him towards radical action, perhaps even supplied him with his ineffective "incendiary devices", with his modded AR-15-- did he ever fire it? The difference being here that Van Spronsen was articulate, educated, if arrested live would speak, would testify, might inspire sympathy throughout a public trial, and so, his assassination would have to be engineered. Why were the police body cams all turned off? How many minutes did it take for the police to arrive?
Aside from typical "law" enforcement methodology, we have to look at the outcomes. The likely aftermath is this event is that the whole fasco-authoritarian complex will now pronounce peaceful demonstrators against concentration camps to be a "threat" to "our hard-working men and women", justifying violent responses to peaceful expression of our First Amendment rights, the creation of far distant safety perimeters demonstrators must remain beyond, outside of earshot of those imprisoned, beyond the zone where embarrassing footage can be taken. In other words, if I wanted to create an event that created maximum pretext to stifle and criminalize protests against ICE/CBP and their concentration camps, with minimum danger and loss of property, I couldn't have done a better job than the final act of Willem Van Spronsen.
The other telling point is the extent to which discussion about this are being censored by the corporate social media. For example, this from /r/Anarchism on Reddit:
None of this takes away from the reality is that any healthy person should be as deeply outraged by the evil that is being done under the American flag as Van Spronsen was. He may have been manipulated into doing what he did. I fear, unless we can gain control of the narrative, his death --ultimately suicide by cop-- may have the opposite effect of what he intended.