4 ms·

s/federal law enforcement agency/part of the federal security apparatus/ doesn't really change the argument, does it?

• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > s/federal law enforcement agency/part of the federal security apparatus/ doesn't really change the argument, does it? Since there is no argument actually made, just a recitation of supposedly-relevant facts designed to create an emotional response, the argument can't actually be changed. But, yes, I think that the given that this is a non-security-related law enforcement issue, the change even in the fuzzy emotional appeal the reporter is making with that paragraph is radically transformed without the implication that he Hartes' have a background in law enforcement specifically giving them a notional advantage in dealing with this kind of law enforcement action.
  • brazzledazzle 11y ago
    The far simpler interpretation is that they're likely vetted far beyond what the local PD is capable of. Which doesn't change if you swap out the description of the agency. It should have been a huge red flag for the detective or their management.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      The context in which it is mentioned is not about why the police should have done more vetting of the information, but of supposed advantages they have in legally fighting a poorly-justified police raid in the legal system that other targets of such raids would not have; material resources, being white, and a law-enforcement employment background are the three given examples -- the first is quite real advantage, the second is a real feature, though how much of an advantage it is in the contextay be debatable, and the last is simply false, based on the misidentification of the CIA as a law-enforcement agency.