Insane Clown Posse and ACLU sue FBI

[stevo]

Nowhere in the article, or any article on the topic that I can find, does it say that the FBI is stating they are a gang by the legal definition. So, in this context the legal definition is irrelevant.

This thread and discussion has been about the lack of the ability of the FBI to prove that they are a gang. You have repeatedly attempted to change it.

Right. The report, which is based on the FBI's findings, declared then a gang, which the report defines as a criminal organization. That same report also explicitly states that the Juggalo gang it's referring to is a subset of the larger Juggalo community, with their criminal activity being the only way to identify them among the group.

The FBI's findings are not conclusive to the law. The law is being discussed here.

No where does this report grant the FBI, or any other organization, the legal authority to do anything other than state that the group is a gang under the definition put forward by the report.

Actually, the classification allows law enforcement to bypass many of the civil liberties based around search and seizure, etc. If you read the story, you would have found one example of it.

So, again, you've not actually rebutted anything I've said. You've not even attempted to counter any point that I've actually made.

You have yet to make a retort about the core of the discussion, which is the illegal classification of them as gang members as stated by the law. I will not be addressing ANY of your MANY spin-offs since you refuse to discuss what the thread is about.



Stevo

[LANTIRN]

You SHOULD have a problem with it. Identifying a group of people as 'gangsters', and then by logical extension, 'domestic terrorists' is a way for the government to sidestep citizens' rights and treat them any way they want. These are the inevitable first steps of tyranny.

If it was just about any other group of people I am sure I would care, but we are talking about Juggalos, here.

[Maddhattter]

This thread and discussion has been about the lack of the ability of the FBI to prove that they are a gang. You have repeatedly attempted to change it.

If that's the case, then all of my statements have been on topic, as the report does not define gang using the legal definition. However, within the context of the report, they have demonstrated that they meet the stated criteria within the report.

It would be the same if I wrote a report and defined the color green as blue. When my report declared that grass is blue, it would be accurate within the context of the report because the report is using the terms it defined in the way it defined them (contracts do this all the time).

Does that mean it's accurate outside of it's own context? Of course not. Blue and yellow are demonstrable different colors in the same way that the definition of gang the report is using is demonstrable different than the legal definition.

The FBI's findings are not conclusive to the law.

Nor did I ever state that they were. In fact, I'm confident that I, not only, previously stated that the report wasn't using the same definition the law uses, I posted the exact definition that the report did use.

The law is being discussed here.

Then my statement that it has not been shown anywhere that nowhere in the article, or any article on the topic that I can find, does it say that the FBI is stating they are a gang by the legal definition is completely relevant and makes the entire first post completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually, the classification allows law enforcement to bypass many of the civil liberties based around search and seizure, etc.

Actually, the report is being used by law enforcement to bypass many of the civil liberties based around search and seizure, etc. Never once does it allow law enforcment to do so anymore than me using a gun to murder and entire room full of people allow me to do so.

If you read the story, you would have found one example of it.

I did read the article. I did see one alleged example of it. I mean, if we're discussing the law, you can't just assume the allegation is true just because it was made.

You have yet to make a retort about the core of the discussion, which is the illegal classification of them as gang members as stated by the law.

That's because there is nothing to discuss in that regard, as the FBI never classified them as a gang members in a legal capacity.

I will not be addressing ANY of your MANY spin-offs since you refuse to discuss what the thread is about.


Stevo

Again, if the thread is about the FBI illegally classifying Juggalos as a gang, then the thread is pointless because the FBI didn't. The FBI released a report that stated that there is a Juggalo gang, which constitutes a subset of the Juggalo community, based on the definition of gang as defined in the report. That is not classifying the Juggalo community as a gang by any legal definition. How local authorities used that report is not the responsibility of the FBI, nor does it mean that the FBI stated that all Juggalos are gang members, nor does it mean that the FBI stated that Juggalos are gang members in any legal capacity.

[stevo]

Once again, I'm not going to address yet another one of your wall o' text posts, but I will address the below.

Again, if the thread is about the FBI illegally classifying Juggalos as a gang, then the thread is pointless because the FBI didn't.

You keep parroting that, you are wrong. It states the classification in this story, and in every story that you obviously read online yesterday while attempting to find details to spin for your many failed arguments.

I'll await your next novel...

Stevo

[racrguy]

Once again, I'm not going to address yet another one of your wall o' text posts, but I will address the below.



You keep parroting that, you are wrong. It states the classification in this story, and in every story that you obviously read online yesterday while attempting to find details to spin for your many failed arguments.

I'll await your next novel...

Stevo

Well, now that's just lazy.

[Roscoe]

Lots of faggotry going on up off in herruh....

[Maddhattter]

You keep parroting that, you are wrong.

Then show where the FBI stated that Juggalos fall under the legal definition of a gang. It never says that in the article you posted.

It states the classification in this story, and in every story that you obviously read online yesterday while attempting to find details to spin for your many failed arguments.

It does state that the FBI classified them as a gang. However, the FBI's classification if them as a gang was the report I posed earlier, which the article you posted doesn't even mention because this is the third lawsuit ICP has submitted (First one was in 2011 after the report was released, second was in 2012 over the same report, and the article you posted states that this new one is following after the suit files in 2012) over the same report. Which, as stated repeatedly, does not classify them as a gang using the legal definition. It only classifies them as a gang by the definition presented in the report.

[BP]

So if I listen to crappy rap/metal, wear clown makeup, drink Faygo and smoke pot at concerts (outside of Washington, California and Colorado) does that mean I'm in a gang by the definition used by the FBI?

What if I shave my head and get lightning bolts tattooed on my chest but don't participate in criminal activities?

I'm just trying to fit in.

[Maddhattter]

So if I listen to crappy rap/metal, wear clown makeup, drink Faygo and smoke pot at concerts (outside of Washington, California and Colorado) does that mean I'm in a gang by the definition used by the FBI?

What if I shave my head and get lightning bolts tattooed on my chest but don't participate in criminal activities?

I'm just trying to fit in.

According to the FBI report, you're in the Juggalo gang only if you're within one of the "many Juggalos subsets" that participates in "criminal activity and violence".

From a legal perspective, no. The definition for gang used in the report is not the same definition used by the law. Both the definitions used in the report and the legal definitions are posted earlier in this thread.

[Forever_frost]

Then show where the FBI stated that Juggalos fall under the legal definition of a gang. It never says that in the article you posted.



It does state that the FBI classified them as a gang. However, the FBI's classification if them as a gang was the report I posed earlier, which the article you posted doesn't even mention because this is the third lawsuit ICP has submitted (First one was in 2011 after the report was released, second was in 2012 over the same report, and the article you posted states that this new one is following after the suit files in 2012) over the same report. Which, as stated repeatedly, does not classify them as a gang using the legal definition. It only classifies them as a gang by the definition presented in the report.

Question: So if I dress like this but engage in no criminal activity but law enforcement, after reading this report decides I look suspicious as this report has labeled me as a gang member, do they have probable cause to detain me?

[Maddhattter]

Question: So if I dress like this but engage in no criminal activity but law enforcement, after reading this report decides I look suspicious as this report has labeled me as a gang member, do they have probable cause to detain me?

No.

[BP]

Question: So if I dress like this but engage in no criminal activity but law enforcement, after reading this report decides I look suspicious as this report has labeled me as a gang member, do they have probable cause to detain me?

That'd depend on the situation. They could probably pull the PC card if you are at a concert, however you'd likely give consent to search anyways by the contract on your ticket.

Just driving down the road, sippin on some Faygo with clown makeup isn't justification for pulling someone over and detaining them though.

[stevo]

Then show where the FBI stated that Juggalos fall under the legal definition of a gang. It never says that in the article you posted.



It does state that the FBI classified them as a gang. However, the FBI's classification if them as a gang was the report I posed earlier, which the article you posted doesn't even mention because this is the third lawsuit ICP has submitted (First one was in 2011 after the report was released, second was in 2012 over the same report, and the article you posted states that this new one is following after the suit files in 2012) over the same report. Which, as stated repeatedly, does not classify them as a gang using the legal definition. It only classifies them as a gang by the definition presented in the report.

I feel an "omg, I've been trolling you lulz!!!111" statement coming on, because no one can be so stupid as to make these comments, directly contradicting themselves and validating the statements they are arguing against.

You keep refusing to admit this whole discussing is about the law and the FBI's failure to apply the law to this situation, you keep trying to spin it into an "it wasn't in the report" argument. Everyone else has spoken about it being against the law, you keep trying to go off on some bullshit tangent. You were wrong, you are still wrong, get over it.

So if I listen to crappy rap/metal, wear clown makeup, drink Faygo and smoke pot at concerts (outside of Washington, California and Colorado) does that mean I'm in a gang by the definition used by the FBI?

What if I shave my head and get lightning bolts tattooed on my chest but don't participate in criminal activities?

I'm just trying to fit in.

Question: So if I dress like this but engage in no criminal activity but law enforcement, after reading this report decides I look suspicious as this report has labeled me as a gang member, do they have probable cause to detain me?

Yes to both of these posts. They can because you fit the description of people that have been classified as a gang. If you dress like them, have tattoos like them, show emblems of the band, etc, they have legal grounds to search your person and vehicle at any time without a warrant in the name of combating organized gang activity.

That'd depend on the situation. They could probably pull the PC card if you are at a concert, however you'd likely give consent to search anyways by the contract on your ticket.

Just driving down the road, sippin on some Faygo with clown makeup isn't justification for pulling someone over and detaining them though.

This has happened already, as you can see.

Stevo

[Maddhattter]

I feel an "omg, I've been trolling you lulz!!!111" statement coming on, because no one can be so stupid as to make these comments, directly contradicting themselves and validating the statements they are arguing against.

They are not contradicting statements. On states that the FBI has not declared Juggalos a gang by the legal definition. The other states that the FBI has declared Juggalos a gang by a different definition. It's not difficult to comprehend, I've no idea how such a basic concept escapes you.

You keep refusing to admit this whole discussing is about the law and the FBI's failure to apply the law to this situation

There is nothing for the FBI to apply a law to. The FBI has not labeled Juggalos as a gang based on the legal definition.

you keep trying to spin it into an "it wasn't in the report" argument.

No, I'm saying that the FBI never claimed Juggalos are a gang in the legal sense of the word and, because of that, there is no legal standing for the label to have any legal bearing. If the label is being applied in the same way the legal definition is applied, the wrong is on the law enforcement agency misapplying the FBI's claim because the claim does not use the legal definition of what a gang is.

What the report says is at the very core of this discussion because it's what labeled the Juggalos as a gang and gave the definition of gang that they are applying to the group. There's no spin involved here at all.

To lay it out in simple sentences, since complex ideas don't seem to be getting across...

1. FBI commissions report.
2. Report defines gang with a non-legal definition.
3. Report identifies a subset of a larger group, that calls itself by the same name as the larger group, as a gang using it's definition.
4. Report has no legal authority because it's not using the same terms as the law.
5. Larger community makes the claim that it was defined as a gang in the legal sense at #3.
6. #3 did not define larger community as a gang in the legal sense.
7. FBI violated no laws because of #6

Everyone else has spoken about it being against the law

Argument from popularity? Surely you can do better than that.

you keep trying to go off on some bullshit tangent. You were wrong, you are still wrong, get over it.

Stevo

Then demonstrate it, rather than just going "Nuh-uh!! Other people agree with me too, so I must be right!!!"

You could end this entire discussion by showing where the FBI declared the Juggalo community as a gang in the legal sense of the word instead of pointing to nothing and going "SEE!! IT'S THERE!!".

[talisman]

Couldn't you guys pick a better dumb argument to have than this?