#2 You are mistaken. I'd be the first to acknowledge I don't think much of the FBI, most of the FBI agents I've known were arrogant. BUT, they require a BA, and don't hire recent college grads either. They require additional experience in other professional fields. For a few years I recall they were recruiting ONLY experienced lawyers, accountants and computer programmers to become agents.

#44 I see, and I stand corrected, but to be clear, my link from FBI shows the requirements have not yet changed, your link says Patel is "planning to" do so. That is disappointing and I hope he does not follow through. Lowering requirements seldom results in positive outcomes.

That being said, if they must cast a wider net to fill the vacancies that they created, I'd rather they lower educational requirements than lower the bar for disqualifying bckground factors. A honest blue collar worker with a clean record. will make a better cop than a college grad with a history of "petty" crimes or "youthful" indiscretions. When selecting for positions where judgement and ethics are literally a matter of life and death, those qualities are more critical than college credits. I have seen that first hand.

Reducing training length is a bigger mistake. Very little of what I learned in college was applicable to my work in Federal Law Enforcement.(where I spent half my career) I learned everything I needed to know at FLETC. ALL Federal Agents regardless of branch, completed 18 week Basic training. it was very intense, and much like boot camp. We ran the perimeter every day (7+ miles) got beat up in boxing rings, sprayed with tear gas, memorized stacks of law books, studied Constututional Law, Criminal psychology, Forensics and a slew of other subjects for which I still have 6 boxes of manuals and books in my attic. We also got to drive really really fast on huge tarmac that used to be an airport, blow ---- up, defuse ----- trapped bomb houses, shoot on the most advanced life ranges and simulators in the world. Those of us that successfully graduated reported to our duty stations and did another 8 weeks specific to our particular agency, THEN did a few more months of field training. It was roughly a year of training before we were "on our own". I can't imagine shortening that.

There was one exception, the Border Patrol had a shortened program due to ongoing staffing issues. They were required to become fluent in Spanish before graduation. Many flushed out, and many more quit once they were assigned their duty stations. The pay was terrible, those that got stuck in San Diego were living 6 to an apartment. The best of them got scooped up by other agencies that cycled them back through FLETC.

I really doubt FBI will start making Special Agents out of non college grads, (unless they are "special friends" but they will poach the other "lesser" agencies and take their best people. That is where the true fallout will occur.

I apologize for going off on my own tangent. Back on topic to the headline. How was this investigation blundered? The linked article mentioned Patel,s poorly worded tweet, that "the subject" was in custody, rather than "a" subject. Other than that?

#51 #52 I'm not so sure they are trying to replace them at all, but if they do, I can't imagine why anyone would intentionally try to replace people with the "bottom of the barrel". I think they want younger, cheaper agents, but chances re their recruit class is mostly transfers from other federal agents that have already done the 18 weeks of agent training, looking for better hours and an easier ride. The real losses will come from those agencies.

I've worked on numerous task forces with the FBI so I'm a little biased. The culture is terrible and it is shrouded in secrecy, loaded with self important arrogance and absolute sloth. Inside the field office you see a bunch of guys playing games on their computers waiting to go home because there really isn't that much work for them to do. Most of what the public "thinks" they do is covered by other agencies. Their scope of responsibilities is actually really pretty limited.

to generate numbers, they like swoop in on local police investigations, tack on some federal charges then claim credit for the whole thing in a splashy news conferences. That is EXACTLY what they are doing now. The Charlie Kirk murder is a STATE crime. The FBI does not have primary jurisdiction, their role is just assistive. Utah can tell them to take their tiny little badges nd go home.

Sorry that was just 51 not 52.

They can't turn FBI into beat cops because they have no authority under the US law to enforce state laws, nor do they want to lower themselves to do that. They can't even make traffic stops except in exigent circumstances. They get the locals to pull over cars for them.

What they will do is turn beat cops into FBi agents, and most the ones who cross that line hate it when they realize the illusion is all --------. I went the opposite direction, from Federal to local and I never regretted it.