[fsociety999]

The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, but is unelected and unaccountable to them. This article is from 2013, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this behavior has changed:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-in...

The important part to consider:

> The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single year, according to newly disclosed documents that show just how often the nation's top law enforcement agency enlists criminals to help it battle crime.

I know this is talking specifically about informants, and you could make a case that that is necessary, but what reason is there to believe that this doesn’t extend to members of the FBI as well?

Here is a more recent article about this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/11/18/fbi...

[RetpolineDrama]

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them.

The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue.

This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly".

Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neighbor down the street. You're not the one under investigation, so what's the harm in talking to them right? Well officer friendly asks the innocuous question of if it was raining last Thursday. You tell them that it was. As it turns out, it was not raining last Thursday and your honest-but-wrong answer means you are now able to be charged with "lying to the FBI".

In practice, they knew it wasn't raining last Thursday and the question was a trap. By answering incorrectly officer friendly can then threaten to charge you at a later date, except there's an out! _You can become an informant!_. By agreeing to spy on your neighbor for the mafia they'll spare you federal inditement. You're now an "asset" that they can work for as long as they please and you have no legal recourse.

EDIT: To expand upon this, lets say it wasn't last thursday but was in fact 60+ days ago. They have a text message from you to your wife saying how beautiful/sunny the day was, because despite being "end to end encrypted" your iMessage private key is stored on Apple servers because you clicked the default CTAs during iCloud setup to enable iCloud backup. They _know_ it was not raining and have "proof" you knew it was not raining, because you texted your wife how nice and sunny it was. You honestly don't remember at the time you were questioned, maybe you think you're 100% telling the truth. Maybe you're confused, and are thinking of the thursday prior where it _was_ raining. None of that matters, they have you on a federal felony and you're their asset now.

[techwizrd]

I don't believe this is the case, but I am also not a lawyer.

The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements."

The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact is material to the case, that you knew it was false when you made it, and that it does not fall under the exceptions carved out by DOJ policy [1]. That is very different from what you're claiming.

In your example, the rain on Thursday must actually be important to the case and you must knowingly be attempting to deceive the federal investigators. Your honest-but-wrong answer does not mean you are now able to be charged with providing false statements to a federal criminal investigator under 18 USC § 1001.

0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

1: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-42000-fraud-against-the-gove...

[shiftpgdn]

I have personally been threatened by FBI agents with threats of being charged for "making false statements" to compel me to divulge information on an investigation. I believe it may be a common tool in their playbook based on how quickly they utilized it.

[notch656a]

Feds are shifty bastards. I had one come to my house. When I refused to speak, and I started shutting the door, they stuck their hand in so they could claim assault if I shut it. Fortunately I was using my hand to close it, rather than slamming it as I normally do, and I was able to stop it before it hit their hand. We stared at each other in silence for a solid minute and they left. Fucking weird.

[metadat]

That is creepy as hell, sounds like you had an encounter with Agent Smith from The Matrix, except for reals.

[RetpolineDrama]

Holy cow, that sounds terrifying. How did you handle it? Had you already made statements prior to the threat that (in hindsight) were bait/designed to trap you?

[RetpolineDrama]

https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...

Great writeup on the topic

[lp0_on_fire]

That's all well and good for the DOJ, which has virtually unlimited time and funding with an army of lawyers. No so much for regular Joe who is caught in the position OP discussed.

The threat of legal action alone is enough to scare _most_ people in this country because they simply can't afford it.

[sodality2]

By that logic, if the law doesn’t actually matter, a regular police officer could also simply threaten the same thing, and there’s nothing differentiating them with the FBI. In both cases it would scare most people because they can’t afford it.

[Supermancho]

That is the current state of the US law enforcement (2022). What's interesting about extortion by law enforcement, is that they are not held accountable for describing things that are not true. It's not extortion, if a hypothetical situation is presented as an investigatory method and goes no further.

[incahoots]

That's a risk not worth taking, by what measure can one gain by speaking with any LEO?

The folks who have do not carry a fear of prosecution because they can afford to remove themselves from any danger. However; those who do not, suffer under the obfuscated rules of law.

[techwizrd]

I did not make any claims that one should speak with LEOs. I was merely pointing out that the parent's claim was at best a misunderstanding of the law.

Beyond identifying yourself to LEOs, Don't Talk To The Police [0] without your lawyer present.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[aidenn0]

Martha Stewart was investigated for securities fraud, but only was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements. It is entirely possible that if she had just refused to talk to the feds she would have not been charged with anything.

[stjohnswarts]

It is the case. They weaponize "lying" to the FBI and can get you several years in federal prison just for that. It is a common tactic in banana republics and the USA (something we are quickly approaching). They then use this as leverage to get what they want out of you.

[jstarfish]

Do you have any credible examples of any of this actually happening?

The only times I've ever seen this card played is as punishment for deliberately misleading agents and wasting their time, not getting inconsequential facts wrong.

...like the high-profile Gabby Petito murder case, where Brian Laundrie's parents lied to investigators to conceal their son's whereabouts after the murder. Or that other recent one where a woman faked her own kidnapping and started a national manhunt for herself and her nonexistent kidnappers.

[kodyo]

Gen. Flynn was prosecuted for something the FBI claimed he said in an FBI investigation that he didn't say, and the FBI slow-walked producing the exculpatory evidence.

[CamperBob2]

Then again, Gen. Flynn is a threat to civilization. Is there any way they can both lose?

[RetpolineDrama]

Sure, they use this shady and clearly unconstitutional tactic to nab someone you don't like once or twice.

But how many times do they use it to control/ruin/subjugate people you and I have never heard of? Who speaks up for them?

[Natsu]

Read some of Ken White's older writings, he's been complaining that there's no materiality requirement to 18 USC 1001 for years and that it's been used to manufacture new charges via questioning.

There's also the matter that FBI policy is NOT to record interviews, so there's only an FD-302 saying you lied and nobody can see what you actually said, only what the FBI heard.

[jstarfish]

Thanks. Found this: https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-plea...

One of the comments points out that Martha Stewart was convicted for a basket of charges completely unrelated to the securities fraud that she was indicted for in the first place. Among them: two counts of lying to federal agents.

The FD-302 thing is nothing new; anybody adjacent to CPS or domestic violence will have seen the equivalent take place in therapists' offices. Client and/or therapist can rehearse abuse stories with no accountability whatsoever.

[AustinDev]

The 'best' part about this power is they don't record their interrogations. All of the 'truth' from the interview is recorded on paper by the FBI agents.

[landemva]

Except when FBI does a sham interview to protect an insider. Then no oath to tell truth and no notes. Makes for an easy white-wash of serious crimes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton...

[thatguy0900]

Give it a few years and the audio recordings won't be any more trustable, if they are even right now. The piece of paper is just as good.

[Natsu]

Yes, via an FD-302

[mmsimanga]

I understand your point. I am undecided about the overall impact. I have spent my life in two countries. One is a dictatorship where the culture is basically to tell the cops the truth to avoid trouble. Not great but the net effect is the country has less crime. Less murders, less armed robbery and it is a pretty safe. Just don't say anything about politicians. The other country has a culture of not cooperating with the cops. Basically someone can be shot in a street full of people and not a single witness will come forward. The net result this country is far more dangerous and you need to be careful when out and about. None of them are perfect because humans are not perfect.

[threatofrain]

In general you shouldn't talk to law enforcement because they're allowed to lie and lying to them is a crime, whether we're talking about police or FBI.

[bambataa]

Is any judge going to convict someone of lying to the FBI for getting the weather wrong? I find it ridiculous that the FBI are going around developing assets by tripping up people with inane questions like this.

[notch656a]

You can beat the charge, but sorry your life got ruined, you lost your job due to federal charges, lost your security clearance, your wife left you because it's impractical to raise children with dad in jail and siphoning all the family money to lawyers, you have an arrest record, and now you're on the top list for officers to fuck with at every oppotunity they get.

Remember, they only have to 'win' once, you have to 'win' every time.

[thatguy0900]

"Send us an email about your neighbor once a week or we drag you through the court system as slowly as we can" will work on 90% of people id bet even if everyone involved knows Noone is actually going to prison

[incahoots]

How much does it cost to convince the judge that you simply misremembered the weather that day?

[scarface74]

Everything you said is true for local law enforcement also

[RetpolineDrama]

Is it? On what charge, "obstruction of justice" perhaps?

[scarface74]

Perjury or giving false statements

[RetpolineDrama]

Not a lawyer but I thought perjury was false statements under-oath, like in a trial. That's a very different matter than being wrong in a casual interview with the cops/feds.

Do you have any examples of laws about "giving false statements" to local police? Seems like a rather blatant 1st amendment violation.

[scarface74]

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/false-statement-to-pol...

[tarboreus]

Let's be real. If they want to mess with you, they don't need to play weird games with you. They're not genies, and they're mostly unaccountable to anyone not their bosses or highly connected individuals. They can not pass go, collect $200 anyway, and mess with you directly.

[RetpolineDrama]

For sure they could. My only real defense is that I'm just not that interesting I think.

It sure would be nice to live in a country where we could have reasonable certainty that agents of the people's collective will (government) would act in good faith, and were bound by reasonable laws ensuring so.

[pclmulqdq]

Governments are basically the mob, except that they figured out that they can exert more control over a longer period of time if they have documents that "constrain" their powers and they offer you a say in some matters.

Every year, I pay the US government protection money at a higher rate than the mob demanded (~35% vs ~15%). They mark their territory, control who enters and exits, and demand compliance with their rules. If you are under their protection, they give you a little document that tells other gangs not to screw with you.

They back all of this up with guns and threats of violence, held by unelected thugs. They give you a process to prove your innocence, but the process itself is a punishment, since it is a huge resource drain to go through.

The FBI are the most visible thugs.

[yummypaint]

This takes me back to conversations in the middle school cafeteria. When was the last time you had to bribe a US official to get basic tasks done like register your car? In places that actually have criminal governments this is the norm.

Do some research about what it's like in places where there is truly no mechanism for people to remove those in power. Look at russia and the mechanisms by which decisions are made and what means there are for the public to change them, and contrast that with all the NIMBYism which often dominates the process in the US.

A democratic government is the means by which the population prevents the monopoly on legal violence from falling permanently into the hands of any individual. It isn't perfect but it's the best option we have. Pretending we would be equally well off with a despot is nonsense.

[pclmulqdq]

Even in places that have reasonably good and democratic government, officials take bribes. This happens in Italy, Greece, Spain, India, and many more (almost all of South and Central America). The US and UK are pretty unique in that they aggressively prevent low-level corruption.

[notch656a]

Stopping low-level corruption while allowing high-level corruption to pass through (i.e. with high-dollar lobbying) is IMO less democratic than at least letting those with less money buy off at least their small part of government to let them do what the high-dollar people tried to outlaw.

[bigbacaloa]

There is no routine bribe paying in Spain. What occurs is similar to what occurs in the US - bribes to get government contracts. Day to day bribes are unheard of and Spain is no more corrupt than the US in that sense (in fact, probably less so - I know of people having to pay small "fees" at a county sheriff's office to get some routine document processed).

[jstarfish]

Fees paid for document processing are annoying and regressive but are not bribes.

They are there to stop you from wasting department resources with requests for 500,000,000 copies of an incident report whose content you disagree with.

[bigbacaloa]

I said "fee" not fee ... This was a cut and dried under the table twenty dollars to get someonw to do something ...

[williamcotton]

Motte: All governments are like criminal organizations.

Bailey: Even some Western governments have issues with low-level corruption.

[pclmulqdq]

Umm... those are two completely different statements, not a Motte and Bailey fallacy. I am happy to defend my position that governments use force the same way mobs do, but they give you more of a say in how the force can be used and they give you some written protections (that they are happy to infringe when convenient).

Also, I never said that we would be better off with a despot or a gang or anything of the sort, as the original reply tried to claim.

[scarface74]

> A democratic government is the means by which the population prevents the monopoly on legal violence from falling permanently into the hands of any individual

That would be nice if we had a “democracy”. Because of both gerrymandering and the design of the constitution - 2 senators per state, and the electoral college - we don’t have one.

The “majority” doesn’t care as long as law enforcement is used unfairly against “them”. There is a reason that during the protests in the US, protestors started using “White shields”. They knew how fast the population would turn against law enforcement when the local news showed them beating up on white people.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/white-protesters-form-human-...

[landemva]

The Constitution had the House grow with increase in population. Congress stopped that growth so now lobbyists have the access.

Two Senators per State worked ok when appointed by State because Senators would get recalled and replaced if they voted against State's interests. Now the people vote on Senators and the lobbyists have the access and control.

[scarface74]

So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic.

You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?

[landemva]

Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?

[bell-cot]

> I pay the US government protection money at a higher rate than the mob demanded (~35% vs ~15%)

Does your mob allow a bunch of deductions, tax dodges, "carried interest" rates, IRA's, and other tricks to cut what the well-to-do actually pay them down to half (or less) of their headline "rate"?

EDIT: Examples so far seem to be limited, one-off "if you're patting the right guy's back" situations. Vs. the US gov't allows an unlimited number of sleazy Wall Street types to launder unlimited amounts of money through various tax dodges. This might be good evidence that the mob is smarter about collecting "taxes" than the US gov't...but it sounds like the answer to my question is "basically, no".

[pclmulqdq]

My wife's family paid almost nothing to the Italian mafia a hundred years ago because they gave the right people free shoes. I would say "yes."

Edit: To be clear, this was not a unique situation. A lot of businesses generally got sweetheart rates from street gangs and mobs because they helped the mob and mob bosses in other ways. The same way Wall Street financiers get a sweetheart deal because they manage the politicians' money and employ their children.

[themitigating]

If you have a problem with the Italian Mafia can you take them to court or have your elected representatives do something about it?

What a ridiculous comparison

[pnemonic]

As an individual citizen, that comparison isn't quite that ridiculous.

[notch656a]

The average person can do more to influence a local mafia boss than they can to influence the federal government. Hell if you have a few dozen friends with guns you can actually stop the mafia from fucking with you for as long as they stick around.

* Edit since I'm spent on replies : Sure you can name that one favela somewhere where a few dozen were beheaded by the mob. The idea isn't that you'll win 100% of the time, the idea is you have some chance. I raise your one unnamed favela with several unnamed Mexican pueblos where cartel was run out by campesinos w/ break-action shotguns and rifles. And the mere fact you actually have a chance at winning is often enough to get a counterparty to back off.

[arcticfox]

> Hell if you have a few dozen friends with guns you can actually stop the mafia from fucking with you for as long as they stick around.

Go try this in the favela near me and report back. The last group of locals that tried that were beheaded.

I'm beginning to think there's a time limit on relatively fair and effective states, as citizens slowly begin to become almost unbelievably blind to what actual criminal states are like and start dismantling their own institutions.

[themitigating]

So instead of lobbying with a group of citizens to get someone elected it's easier to start an armed attack on the mob leadership?

If you lose your dead, that's not the case in a democracy

[themitigating]

Yet in areas where the mob is in control does that happen. Look at Mexican drug lords

[scarface74]

How often do “elected officials” do anything against law enforcement? Every politician in any city knows not to go against the local police department.

[eternalban]

Someone didn't watch Godfather.

[jollyllama]

I would think so. Ex. bar owner gives some free drinks and use of the bar to the mob probably doesn't have to pay the same protection fee.

[jancsika]

> Governments are basically the mob

In exactly the same way that monads are like burritos. If thinking that makes it easier to start learning more about the concept, that's great. If instead it stands in for learning, that's bad.

On the other hand, I do have this strange desire to learn Spanish by claiming that Spanish is exactly the same as English. Then I'd take all the critiques as edge cases until I'm able to argue the same point in Spanish.

[jason-phillips]

> Governments are basically the mob...

Governments are institutions. Considering the anarchic alternative, what we currently have is preferable. People as a group, the actual mob, cannot be trusted. They are irrational and are therefore potentially dangerous.

The trick is to safeguard against institutional rot.

[bitwize]

> Governments are institutions.

So's the mob. It's why they call it "organized" crime.

[yamtaddle]

> Governments are basically the mob, except that they figured out that they can exert more control over a longer period of time if they have documents that "constrain" their powers and they offer you a say in some matters.

God is love.

Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind.

Ray Charles is God.

[Eupraxias]

Thank you, Hegel.

[nelsondev]

Yup exactly. Our default social contract gives governments a monopoly on violence, of course they’ll use it.

[Eupraxias]

"Right of Force". At some point, freedom is restricted at gunpoint. Government works this way because it is logical that it do so.

This is why it is critical to have government established "of, by, and for" the constituency - because even in a best-case scenario, corruption will get in the cracks and make them bigger, etc.

[pclmulqdq]

I'm going to expose my political bias here: I think the only way to prevent the corruption and expansion is to keep the government small by limiting the amount of resources that are under its direct control. Just offering "of, by, and for" won't do it if there are millions of people on the payroll.

Of course, the Somali government is very small and Somali people are very free, and they aren't doing very well either.

[Eupraxias]

Agreed. Thank you for calling me out here - I also disagreed with myself when I chose "of, by, and for", and was going to use more generic words, but thought more interesting ideas may come out with the extra salt.

[themitigating]

Would you consider the EU to have a large amount of regulations but those countries are generally doing well.

I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average

[pclmulqdq]

> I would say there's a correlation between less government and worse living conditions on average

I think this is true, but I don't think the correlation is causal. Rich countries throughout history have tended to grow their governments after becoming rich by adopting social programs and trying to flex their muscle internationally. Most of Europe followed this model, as did the US.

[mcguire]

Somalia demonstrates exactly the problem with that approach: power vacuums don't last any longer than any other vacuum, if there's something around to fill it.

[tonmoy]

I don’t know why people are surprised by this. Sociology has the concept of Monopolization of Violence. In feudal times violence was undertaken by many institutions, but we as a society decided to monopolize it to reduce overall amount of violence a single individual is expected to face

[CabSauce]

Except for that whole voting thing. The "government", in a functioning democracy, is us.

[notch656a]

Wait until you find out about the DHS. Unlike interactions with the FBI, it is illegal to record them*. They do not wear body cams. You have no right to a lawyer when interacting with them. They can jail you without charging you or accusing you of a crime. They can search you without probable cause or a warrant. They can put you in cuffs, take you to a hospital, and lie to doctors that you have drugs up your ass, all without a warrant, and then you'll be sent thousands in medical bills for medical services you didn't consent to**. They can stop you on the road without reasonable suspicion / PC / a warrant. They consistently have the among the worst human rights record and hire the lowest quality candidates, and arguably have the least oversight of any of the large federal law enforcement agencies.

*at the border, where most people have this interaction with their child organization CBP.

**Actually happened to me.

[cryptonector]

> They can stop you on the road without reasonable suspicion / PC / a warrant.

If you're within 100 miles of the border or the oceans. That covers something like 2/3rds of the U.S. population.

[bell-cot]

Um, yes - bad cops are bad, and there are plenty of bad cops. Very bad.

Might anyone point to an example (current or historical) of a large, complex, socially diverse society which has managed to tightly control actually-serious crime, while also managing to keep the "bad cop stuff" well below the level which America has been stuck with in the past ~half of a century?

[iudqnolq]

A randomly selected citizen has a smaller chance being abused by the police in any rich country and nearly any poor country.

People can point to horrible police misconduct cases in other countries, but you need an immense amount of police misconduct to reach American levels.

Here's a list of the top ten countries ranked by police killings per year. Note this isn't adjusted by population. Note also that the other countries on this list aren't the sort you'd expect to produce good statistics.

    Philippines — 6,069+ (avg 2016-2021—includes only deaths during anti-drug operations)
    Brazil — 5,804 (2019)
    Venezuela — 5,287 (2018)
    India — 1,731 (2019)
    Syria — 1,497 (2019)
    El Salvador — 1087 (2017)
    United States — 946 (2020)
    Nigeria — 841 (2018)
    Afghanistan — 606 (2018)
    Pakistan — 495 (2017)

[arcticfox]

Why did you specifically select the non-population adjusted list?

Top 10 Countries with the Highest Rate of Police Killings (per 10 million residents — U.S. ranks 33rd):

  - Venezuela — 1829.9 (2018)
  - El Salvador — 1703.8 (2017)
  - Syria — 819 (2019)
  - Philippines — 556.5 (2016-21 avg)
  - Nicaragua — 522.7 (2018)
  - Jamaica — 472.7 (2018)
  - Trinidad and Tobago — 339.7 (2014)
  - Brazil — 276.2 (2019)
  - Bahamas — 275.7 (2018)
  - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — 181.8 (2018)

[iudqnolq]

Why did you specifically select the portion of that list that doesn't include the US? It shows the US is far worse than any rich country, as I claimed.

Mexico, Rwanda, Sudan, and Mali rank 34-37

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-ki...

Edit: The closest rich countries are

- Malta, at ~2/3 the US

- Luxumberg, ~ 1/2

- Canada, ~1/3

Malta is notably an anomaly: I can't think of any other rich democracy where journalists reporting on on government links to organized crime get killed by car bombs.

[mcguire]

As an aside, I find many of these numbers to be very untrustworthy. For example, India has the note, "Includes 1,606 deaths listed as occurring in "judicial custody," but not due to police, military, or intelligence agency activity." Out of 1,731 deaths in 2019. Syria, "Syria is involved in a civil war".

Malta and Luxembourg had one (1) killing each. Statistical outliers, and all that.

[iudqnolq]

I agree completely, and thought it important enough to note up top.

As a general principle I believe this kind of data should either be rigorously analyzed in depth or analyzed as little as possible. That's why I originally posted raw numbers: I think raw numbers are the only responsible way to do this kind of internet forum surface-level analysis. It's too easy to trick intentionally or unintentionally with statistics.

It's obvious the US is an outlier from the raw numbers, there's no need to get fancy.

I chose the metric of police killings carefully. In a non-tiny democracy with a police violence problem there are enough that it's not dominated by outliers, but few enough that it's feasible for a few reporters to spot check the data. They're also notable enough a large portion of the incidents generate some publicly available commentary, often in local press.

(In non-tiny democracies without a police killing problem it might be dominated by outliers, but the raw numbers make the fact killings are rare obvious)

In the US, for example, the FBI collects statistics even they acknowledge are poor quality. The Washington Post has a project to monitor publicly available information and enter police shootings into a database, and they generally find publicly available proof of about twice as many shootings as are entered into the FBI database.

The main takeaway I wanted people to take from the data I posted is that there's nearly no country like the US close to it. Either way you read Malta & Luxembourg that's true, so there's no need to get fancy (and I think further analyzing that single stat without country-specific expertise would be questionably responsible).

I thought about saying I expected underreporting from the less democratic poorer countries but I decided I didn't want to spend the time reading their methodology to be confident in that. It's possible they've already attempted to correct for that, possibly even too much in the other way. The definition of police is also complex: Whether a unit is police or military is often historical chance.

[Tozen]

> ...the other countries on this list aren't the sort you'd expect to produce good statistics.

But those expecting the U.S. to produce good statistics, will just as likely be disappointed (or happy... depending on point of view). Dare we wonder why that is so?

"Black Americans were 3.5 times as likely to be killed by the police..." (oops, that looks "inconvenient" for accurate reporting).

"...the initial findings of coroners or medical examiners downplayed or omitted the role of the police when a Black man was killed..." Dare we wonder if under full reporting, if that 3.5 times more likely to be killed would go even higher.

More Than Half of (U.S.) Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-underc...)

[cauefcr]

Literally every other country?

[hericium]

> The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers, but is unelected and unaccountable to them

This kinda reads like a description of the CIA. How many of these have you got there?

[firmnoodle]

I think he's talking about the domestic operations. I would agree that the CIA and their sister organizations who operate internationally fit the description as well. Can't torture someone, well, take them to a friendly place where your buddy can torture them. Need to plant some FUD on a person? "an anonymous source in the intelligence community said that X did Y in Z." Unelected, Unaccountable and unchecked in every way.

[hericium]

Frank Olson's[1] death is an example of possible/alleged CIA's internal operation. There are numerous other cases like this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson

[virissimo]

Discrediting Joseph McCarthy is another example of a CIA internal operation: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/48603/did-the-c....

[RetpolineDrama]

>Can't torture someone, well, take them to a friendly place where your buddy can torture them.

That reminds me of the technical equivalent with five eyes, and I've never managed to figure out how that is _not_ treason.

Oh, domestic organization X can't spy on you because of that pesky constitution, but they can "allow" a hostile agency from another country to do all the spying (and vice-versa) then "share" information.

Seems pretty clearcut, our domestic agencies are conspiring with a foreign power to defraud US citizens of their constitutional rights. People should go to jail for that, but somehow it's all considered legal

[the_only_law]

They can also dose US citizens with psychoactive substances without their consent or knowledge, start destroying the evidence and get away with it.

[scarface74]

> The FBI is more or less a legalized criminal organization that is funded by U.S. taxpayers,

How is this any different than local law enforcement?

I’m not saying you are implying this. But it’s strange that the same people who “back the blue” locally, want to “defund the FBI”.

[Tozen]

I guess it depends on who is the one getting F'd over. If it's "them", then support. If it's "us", defund.

[exq]

Strange, these same people loved when the fbi in 2016...

[coldtea]

That's just about explicit permission. All kind of shit also happens via implicit permission (nobody does anything about cops doing it and so is normalized) or no permission.

[droptablemain]

As bad as the FBI is, it pales in comparison to the international terrorist activities of the CIA.

[yieldcrv]

Just in case stories like this dont negatively affect your view of law enforcement, think of it this way:

There is a fixed number of people who can have their rights violated before the population doesn’t have confidence in law enforcement.

And thats what we are seeing now.

[tmaly]

You just got added to the list for saying that out loud.

[dclowd9901]

If you could make the case that it’s necessary then what are we even talking about here?

[dekken_]

Make whatever case you want, doesn't mean anyone has to accept it.

[15155]

Do the ends justify the means?

[socialismisok]

This is cops in general, and not unique to the FBI.