Hacker News Reader

Comment by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

Seems you’re committed to your interpretation regardless of what I clarify. At this point there’s nothing productive left to discuss regarding my perspective.

It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?

Seems you're committed to your misdirections regardless of what I point out. At this point there's nothing left to discuss regarding your failure of communication.

> If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?

If you'll notice, I've been trying to get you to explain what crime you think they're investigating. I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation. Instead, I'm doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.

None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections.

You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?

> None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime.

Well, this is not true. Yet again I simply must explain that writing the words "they're investigating a crime" is literally a point that hinges on there being a specific crime. Without that, and especially with the words "we want to ask you questions about a protest", it is not reasonable to say that. Minimally, when someone else asks for a source, they probably don't just need to be told what the FBI is.

I can, at least, assert with evidence that they are not investigating a crime. You've so far failed to assert with evidence that they are investigating a crime. You may not feel you need evidence to assert that but basic logic suggests otherwise.

This is getting ridiculous.

> ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation.’

Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.

> I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.

That's good for you but I am interested in this discussion. Language matters; saying they are investigating a crime does make it sound like a crime occurred.

I don't need to prove that FBI investigations are crime-related. That's the presumed norm, not a claim requiring evidence.

If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com