4 ms·

It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent t

It’s implied by their function that they’re investigating a crime. They have no obligation to explain which one, and it’s usually a bad strategy for the agent to do so. Revealing details risks compromising the investigation or tipping off potential subjects. "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.
- mycodendral 1y ago
  Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. So just to be clear, I know this. I'm not acting like the government did something illegal, I'm acting like someone told me a crime is being investigated necessarily because the FBI is doing the investigating. No shit, dude, I know what the FBI does. If someone asks for a source when you say the FBI is investigating a crime, they're not asking what the FBI is, they're asking what the (potential) crime is. If you don't know, don't answer; certainly don't answer with something you know is unhelpful. Answering like that makes it seem like you think they're investigating because they can, not because they should. So, to clarify with this particular case, they're investigating assaults that occurred at the protest, which they should do because that's a crime (and trying to tie it to aNtIfA because they're morons, assuming it isn't malice). One should not trust that the FBI are working within the bounds of the law, one should verify that they are. Hope that helps.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to verify it yourself.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. The only thing the officers told the guy is "We're investigating the protest that happened". Then they asked him questions about the protest organizers and if/how he knew them. It's unreasonable to then say "they're investigating a crime"; they're obviously investigating protected speech and public assembly. They even claim they are investigating such. At that point it's actually reasonable to expect a source for the (counter-)claim that they're really investigating a crime. > I’m not making a specific allegation Well, except "they're investigating a crime". They are not investigating a crime. They are investigating. Whether or not they are investigating a crime comes down to whether or not a crime was committed. To say they are investigating a crime means you know what they are investigating.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> You're acting like they said, "We came out here to ask you questions regarding the crime of protesting that happened on the the 11th of June" which is not what happened. Actually, I'm acting like you said that, which you have. You've claimed that it is necessarily the case that the FBI is investigating a crime by virtue of the fact that they are criminal investigators investigating something. The thing the FBI said they're investigating is a protest. Ergo, you are saying the FBI is investigating the crime of protesting. Going back a few comments, you wrote > They're investigating a crime That's not true. You have no reason to believe they're investigating a crime. In fact, there is reason to believe they are not investigating a crime because they said they are investigating something that is not a crime. > "We came out here to ask you questions regarding a protest that happened on the the 11th of June" -- Sounds like textbook investigative work to me. Investigative work, yes, but not of a crime.

mycodendral 1y ago
Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. If the police ask you about the restaurant you were at last night, it doesn’t mean you’re being targeted for eating dinner. This whole reaction is performative victimhood, like saying ‘Oh, I guess I can’t even go out to eat anymore because of government tyranny.’ That’s absurd. The FBI’s legal mandate confines it to investigating potential criminal activity. Assuming otherwise without evidence implies they’re operating outside their authority, which would be a serious breach. If that’s what you believe, show proof, it would be front page news.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Asking about the protest as part of an investigation doesn’t imply the protest itself is the crime. So just to be clear, I know this. I'm not acting like the government did something illegal, I'm acting like someone told me a crime is being investigated necessarily because the FBI is doing the investigating. No shit, dude, I know what the FBI does. If someone asks for a source when you say the FBI is investigating a crime, they're not asking what the FBI is, they're asking what the (potential) crime is. If you don't know, don't answer; certainly don't answer with something you know is unhelpful. Answering like that makes it seem like you think they're investigating because they can, not because they should. So, to clarify with this particular case, they're investigating assaults that occurred at the protest, which they should do because that's a crime (and trying to tie it to aNtIfA because they're morons, assuming it isn't malice). One should not trust that the FBI are working within the bounds of the law, one should verify that they are. Hope that helps.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Requesting a source for that is pointless. It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. I’m not making a specific allegation, I’m describing routine investigative behavior. If you doubt it, you’re free to verify it yourself.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > It’s not an extraordinary claim that needs evidence, it’s standard procedure. The only thing the officers told the guy is "We're investigating the protest that happened". Then they asked him questions about the protest organizers and if/how he knew them. It's unreasonable to then say "they're investigating a crime"; they're obviously investigating protected speech and public assembly. They even claim they are investigating such. At that point it's actually reasonable to expect a source for the (counter-)claim that they're really investigating a crime. > I’m not making a specific allegation Well, except "they're investigating a crime". They are not investigating a crime. They are investigating. Whether or not they are investigating a crime comes down to whether or not a crime was committed. To say they are investigating a crime means you know what they are investigating.