CMV: There should be third party/watchdog investigators for any federal shootings, and the FBI should NOT be allowed to
I just recently read that the FBI is stopping local Minnesota investigators from investigating the shooting that occurred. So the FBI will be investigating the DHS, while both are pushing agendas in unison.
I believe that this should not be legal whatsoever. I think it's akin to police departments investigating themselves and finding no evidence of wrongdoing. (I personally saw this happening in New Orleans during Katrina).
I also believe there should always be a third-party investigator or team to handle these types of events, given the risks of internal corruption.
By having a third party work in conjunction with a watchdog organization, I believe justice would prevail, yielding more transparent and conclusive results for citizens like you and me.
Change my view
UPDATE: This should be implemented in the real world, and here is a brief concept of how it could be feasible.
A non-profit could be started and via donations, attract investigators, forensics specialists, legal aids/lawyers/advocates, and security. This would bypass the need to bend to political pressures. That organization would be created with the sole ability to respond to these shootings, where ethics would be questi
Looking at this, this depends heavily on what happens next which explains why reactions are split That’s just how it reads to me.
Reaction: If I were them, Id hurry up.
On the surface, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s what people are responding to That’s just my read on it.
From a neutral view, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here which makes the reaction pretty predictable
Trying to be fair, the wording alone shifts how people read this Curious how this plays out.
Reaction: me_irl
On the surface, this comes across more reactive than planned That’s what changes the context. At least from my perspective.
Reaction: Please do not the gun!
If we’re being honest, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that friction is hard to ignore That’s what changes the context. Interested to see the follow-up.
this depends heavily on what happens next which turns this into more of a debate That’s what changes the context. Hard to say where this lands long term.
At this point, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome Time will tell. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
this feels rushed rather than thought through Let’s see what happens next. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
From where I sit, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which is why the comments look the way they do That’s the key detail here.
I get the idea, this solves one problem while creating another Curious how this plays out.
Just reading this, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome which explains why reactions are split That’s the impression it gives me.
From my side, the way this is presented changes how it lands which is why this is getting picked apart At least from my perspective.
From the outside, this depends heavily on what happens next and that tension shows up immediately We’ll see how people react over time. At least from my perspective.
From a practical angle, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s the part people are stuck on We’ll see how people react over time. That’s the impression it gives me.
To be fair, the wording alone shifts how people read this which is why the comments look the way they do Interested to see the follow-up. That’s the impression it gives me.
Stepping back, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why the comments look the way they do At least from my perspective.
Reaction: the collection of colorful pens
Not gonna lie, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so Time will tell.
the way this is presented changes how it lands
Bluntly speaking, this reads stronger on paper than in practice so the response doesn’t surprise me
From where I sit, this feels more about execution than intent
From where I sit, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that’s why opinions are all over the place That part stands out.
the follow-through is what will decide this At least from my perspective.
At this point, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s what changes the context. Feels like there’s more coming here.
From a neutral view, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so which makes the reaction pretty predictable Others will probably see it differently.
Trying to be fair, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that friction is hard to ignore We’ll see how people react over time. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Trying to be fair, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage That’s the key detail here. That’s the impression it gives me.
this solves one problem while creating another Let’s see what happens next. At least from my perspective.
the direction makes sense but the details are messy At least from my perspective.