7 ms·

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

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.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. I'm saying these officers are idiots who believe the words of liars because it is convenient for them and because the lies happen to match their preconceived notions. > ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. Right, it doesn't "imply", it states explicitly. > The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. They will say "events related to". Minimally, if they say "the protest", it is reasonable to think that is the subject in their own heads. The officers involved believe they're investigating speech and assembly. That is a reasonable observation. > As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. Regardless, they provide an accurate depiction of the actual subject of their investigation. > If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. I would, of course, think they are investigating people who organize and/or participate in the football team, the same as if they said "the protest". > Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification. Your interpretation is imprecise and credulous without justification.

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.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > If you’re claiming the investigation is part of some political intimidation effort rather than a legitimate criminal inquiry, you’d need actual evidence to support that. I'm saying these officers are idiots who believe the words of liars because it is convenient for them and because the lies happen to match their preconceived notions. > ‘We’re investigating a protest’ doesn’t imply the protest is the target. Right, it doesn't "imply", it states explicitly. > The reasonable interpretation is that they’re investigating criminal activity connected to it, not the protest itself. They will say "events related to". Minimally, if they say "the protest", it is reasonable to think that is the subject in their own heads. The officers involved believe they're investigating speech and assembly. That is a reasonable observation. > As I already explained, the FBI rarely specifies the exact crime during interviews. Regardless, they provide an accurate depiction of the actual subject of their investigation. > If they said ‘We’re investigating the football team,’ you would assume they’re looking into possible crimes related to the team, not that playing football itself is under investigation. I would, of course, think they are investigating people who organize and/or participate in the football team, the same as if they said "the protest". > Your interpretation is pedantic and paranoid without justification. Your interpretation is imprecise and credulous without justification.