Conor Friedersdorf walks us through the permutations of events leading up to the murder? slaughter? “justifiable homicide”? of Ibragim Todashev during his interrogation by the FBI. In the end, we are left with this … so far…
It is difficult to understand how, having shot the man dead, the multiple law enforcement personnel on scene could’ve gotten the details wrong. Discrepancies can creep into an account of a stressful situation. But how can there possibly be confusion about whether the suspect was a) wielding a knife, per the original story; b) unarmed, per subsequent versions; c) or lunging with or toward a samurai sword? We’re supposed to believe that multiple law enforcement personnel went to a man’s apartment, confirmed via his own confession that he participated in a triple murder with an alleged terrorist, and still left him within reach of a samurai sword? And that, after he lunged toward one agent with the sword, or else lunged toward the sword, or an officer’s gun, or something, there was so much confusion that it was reported for days that the suspect attacked with a knife? Come on. Law enforcement couldn’t get its story straight.
At best, an incompetently handled suspect was given access to a weapon so dangerous it justified using deadly force in response. Perhaps that’s all this is. Or perhaps it will turn out that Todashev was wrongfully killed. The facts known to the public are worrisome enough that an independent inquiry is justified. In addition, this case illustrates why the FBI ought to be required to record all of its interrogations, using video when possible and at least audio in all circumstances. ...Friedersdorf, The Atlantic
And not just the FBI. We know from the occasional views we have of our law enforcers dealing with suspects — Rodney King, Abu Ghraib, and more — that we don’t stand out in the modern world as a fair-minded source of “justice.” No interrogations — none, nowhere — should take place behind closed doors.