The linked article has basically no useful information.
Here is an article with more information about use of force investigations related to state vs fed, including the use of vehicles.
https://www.startribune.com/are-federal-immigration-agents-h...
Edit: why disagree? I'm adding more information about the process of accountability for fed vs state use of force than the original article even has.
"The head of Minnesota's state investigations agency says the U.S. attorney's office has cut off its access in the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent" seems like very important information.
That's interesting information, but it's not important/useful without additional context. As it stands right now, the claim that it is important seems more like conspiracy theory unless you have more information to share.
> That's interesting information, but it's not important/useful without additional context.
Ironically, that describes your link.
> As it stands right now, the claim that it is important seems more like conspiracy theory unless you have more information to share.
The head of Minnesota's state investigations agency seems to publicly think it's important.
I suppose, if you just want to take someone's word for what is important rather than understand the underlying concepts and mechanisms. HN has historically been about learning new and interesting things. It feels different when people attack you for sharing additional information in a higher quality article than the OP. I guess that's why the post got flagged - low effort political flame bait that doesn't actually explore a topic.
> seems more like conspiracy theory
This is a very good demonstration of the epistemic purpose of this term and the uses it is put to.
What was the point of sharing this?
To provide background on use of force investigations, including differences between federal and state actors. It even has some background targeted towards vehicles, albeit from a different incident.