The Associated Press @AP
AP deleted two tweets that erroneously reported that the father of the NY bombing suspect contacted the FBI in 2014. The FBI contacted him.
6:12pm · 22 Sep 2016
during the domestic dispute incident and then the FBI reached out to him to follow up. Both the father and the FBI acknowledge the father was interviewed as part of the FBI's investigation.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action. Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
Yes, sounds like the media report had details wrong but was also correct about the contact between the parties
I would hardly call that a major media fuck up. Sounds more like the FBI covering their asses.
And it is kinda ironic on a thread calling out the media for jumping the gun, most of the posters did the exact same thing in regard to the media report.
RE: It sounds like the father spoke with local law enforcement Â
during the domestic dispute incident and then the FBI reached out to him to follow up. Both the father and the FBI acknowledge the father was interviewed as part of the FBI's investigation.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action. Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
Actually there is a difference. While the father may have alerted LE about the domestic violence issue and the FBI thought that it was worth following up based on something popping up in the radar, the FBI will have different approaches to how they investigate this individual based on what the father says. They can only go so far based on authority and time/resources, so if the father was concerned that the son was involved in extremism, then the FBI may go a bit farther in their investigation. He the father isn't cooperative, then they may at a certain point feel that this isn't really worth pursuing beyond what they have already found out.
RE: RE: It sounds like the father spoke with local law enforcement Â
during the domestic dispute incident and then the FBI reached out to him to follow up. Both the father and the FBI acknowledge the father was interviewed as part of the FBI's investigation.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action. Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
Actually there is a difference. While the father may have alerted LE about the domestic violence issue and the FBI thought that it was worth following up based on something popping up in the radar, the FBI will have different approaches to how they investigate this individual based on what the father says. They can only go so far based on authority and time/resources, so if the father was concerned that the son was involved in extremism, then the FBI may go a bit farther in their investigation. He the father isn't cooperative, then they may at a certain point feel that this isn't really worth pursuing beyond what they have already found out.
I agree there's a difference, just not the difference that the OP and subsequent posts seem to suggest.
The issue is that the media made the FBI look like a bunch of assholes, who didn't do enough as many people interpreted the situation. It also made this seem far more like a ripe opportunity missed when it wasn't anything close to that.
Fucking bullshit.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action.
Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
and the biased media outlets are even worse
I would hardly call that a major media fuck up. Sounds more like the FBI covering their asses.
And it is kinda ironic on a thread calling out the media for jumping the gun, most of the posters did the exact same thing in regard to the media report.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action. Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
Actually there is a difference. While the father may have alerted LE about the domestic violence issue and the FBI thought that it was worth following up based on something popping up in the radar, the FBI will have different approaches to how they investigate this individual based on what the father says. They can only go so far based on authority and time/resources, so if the father was concerned that the son was involved in extremism, then the FBI may go a bit farther in their investigation. He the father isn't cooperative, then they may at a certain point feel that this isn't really worth pursuing beyond what they have already found out.
Quote:
during the domestic dispute incident and then the FBI reached out to him to follow up. Both the father and the FBI acknowledge the father was interviewed as part of the FBI's investigation.
The error that the father did not contact the FBI directly is not significant to the tenor of the main concern that the father alerted law enforcement of some (disputed) concerns about his son, serious enough that the FBI followed with an investigation that included an interview with the father and that the investigation was later closed without further action. Summary from NYT - ( New Window )
Actually there is a difference. While the father may have alerted LE about the domestic violence issue and the FBI thought that it was worth following up based on something popping up in the radar, the FBI will have different approaches to how they investigate this individual based on what the father says. They can only go so far based on authority and time/resources, so if the father was concerned that the son was involved in extremism, then the FBI may go a bit farther in their investigation. He the father isn't cooperative, then they may at a certain point feel that this isn't really worth pursuing beyond what they have already found out.
I agree there's a difference, just not the difference that the OP and subsequent posts seem to suggest.