DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote: He's a dirty cop and should be convicted of murder. If he isn't, it'll be another Rodney King incident all over again.

Curious that the parents of the slain man don't want Rev. Al at their sons funeral. They say they don't want another Ferguson.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Like the ordinary citizens I already gave you examples of? Ok, this won't take long did it?.

only two possible reasons for that.

they were A) not ordinary citizens [there goes your argument out the window] or B) you're lying by omission.

i'll wait for the requisite insults and gnashing of teeth now.

Too bad you're not a American citizen as you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If you owe the govt. money, the IRS will collect no matter how big or small you are and they will take it by the means Will has outlined.

Ferno wrote:I think you're confused will. This isn't a debate. And even if it was and you did win, what then?

You would finally learn to plays devils advocate toward your own thoughts before you posted them?





I know, I know, it's a crazy dream....

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: He's a dirty cop and should be convicted of murder. If he isn't, it'll be another Rodney King incident all over again.

Curious that the parents of the slain man don't want Rev. Al at their sons funeral. They say they don't want another Ferguson.

I respect their wishes, odd that some white guy from Michigan has to put his two cents in.......

woodchip wrote: Too bad you're not a American citizen as you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If you owe the govt. money, the IRS will collect no matter how big or small you are and they will take it by the means Will has outlined.

no, they will not. Barring a court order and several levels of failed mediation/redress, the IRS will NEVER use force on a citizen.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Too bad you're not a American citizen as you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If you owe the govt. money, the IRS will collect no matter how big or small you are and they will take it by the means Will has outlined.

no, they will not. Barring a court order and several levels of failed mediation/redress, the IRS will NEVER use force on a citizen.

What a steaming pile that is.
Courts don't issue permission to use force. Use of force is dependant on an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm or escaping violent felon. The decision is arrived at in real time in the field and rests with the armed agent.

In spite of your playing with words: IRS Agents can be armed and assets are often seized as I described...and linked examples of...

Your response is full of you and nothing substantive.

assets are NEVER siezed without hearing and court orders first. NEVER. Keep repeating the BS as often as you like, Will. Force is never used except to enforce a seizure order which has been ignored(ex Bundy case in Nevada) for YEARS. They simply do not roll in with guns drawn on regular citizens as you wish to paint it.

Who do you think has read what I said and thinks you have represented it accurately?
Do you really have that low of an opinion of the others here? Or maybe you think you have magic powers to convince them?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: He's a dirty cop and should be convicted of murder. If he isn't, it'll be another Rodney King incident all over again.

Curious that the parents of the slain man don't want Rev. Al at their sons funeral. They say they don't want another Ferguson.

Well, good for them. They have my utmost respect and condolences. About time someone kept Sharpton out of this whole mess.

Will Robinson wrote:Who do you think has read what I said and thinks you have represented it accurately?
Do you really have that low of an opinion of the others here? Or maybe you think you have magic powers to convince them?

not based upon whatever you wrote. I am stating the flat-out truth.
I repeat, the IRS does not use force to seize assets until FAR down the line of the process, which means years, so your insinuations that they are some sort of armed thugs raiding people for their personal assets are erroneous(to be charitable).

Slick I never said they use force to seize assets with guns out etc etc. I'm pretty sure they do that with an ID and leave the bank, etc with an official notice stating the customers assets are to be held until further notice.

I said they are authorized to be armed and some agents are. I said they can seize assets without the citizen having a day in court first. And those things are true. I gave examples of them.

Now I do believe if you tried to stop them and presented a physical threat you could be shot. That is why they arm themselves. So in theory they could have their guns blazing. Actually, from 2009 to 2011, the IRS had more accidental discharges of firearms reported than they had justifiable shootings.
So I guess maybe they could have a gun or two blazing even if you don't try to stop them!

But none of your word games are going to alter the reality of what I *actually said* nor what it was intended to imply.

well, before will gets it into his head that i've run off from a thread, there's something he needs to know.

I have a life outside of this board and it clearly drives him mad that I don't respond to him when he wants me to (yay, a person won a debate on a bb because the other party forfeited, have a cookie; no one gives a ★■◆●). He does not control my life whatsoever, so as far as I'm concerned; he can take that notion and stuff it. Grow up, get over it, get a life, just relax already, it's not worth getting worked up over.

BTW: I had a wonderful weekend, filled with friends, flying and fixing.

As for the "innocent citizen", there's a federal stipulation about civil forfeiture, where it states that the government has to have reasonable proof that they can take an action AND the property in question can be siezed under civil forfeiture. Also, they wouldn't commence any action if they didn't suspect him of any tax-related crimes in the first place. Third, no behind-the-counter agent can carry, only a criminal investigator can. It's important to realize that, otherwise people get this funny notion that ALL agents can carry, not just specially trained ones [that's called a composition fallacy].

Here's the passage in question:

The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes...
—Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007

Are we done yet?

likely not

You haven't refuted the points I made, the comments I made, etc.
What you two have done is promoted what is called a red herring fallacy.

So, in spite of your declaring yourself to have 'done' anything of substance, my original two assertions:

*IRS Is authorized to carry weapons. They clearly are.

*The IRS can seize a citizens assets without any prior notice and without the citizen having a day in court to try and stop the seizure. Instead he must try to prevail after the fact. - This too is proven.

You also have tried to suggest the example I gave doesn't qualify because they aren't ordinary citizens which is untrue on your part.

And you now have lied by implying the seizure only happened because they suspected him of criminal activity beforehand. Also untrue on your part.

All he did was make cash deposits and that triggered the actions of the FED. He was not a prior suspect in any crime.

So, 'are you done?'
Done what? Done obfuscating trying to misrepresent my statement so you can try to attack the falsehood you constructed? Done lying? Done dodging the truth? Done making fools of yourselves?

I doubt it.

back to the subject from the outset:
OOPSIE!!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/okl ... ar-AAaWfd8

I'm sure that black folks in the greater Tulsa area are feeling oh-so-secure with the local law enforcement. Let's hand a stun gun
and a handgun to a senior citizen and set him loose to fight crime. What could possibly go wrong, huh? No different than losing
a basketball game, right?

hmm.

first question that popped into my mind was "how did the 73 year old think a handgun was a taser?". And then I looked at the designs of both weapons. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect they feel almost identical in the hand.

Perhaps a redesign of the grip is in order?

oh, at that age, I'd be lucky if I could discern the difference between a nightstick and a Glock.......part of my point is why they are pressing geriatrics into 'reserve' officer status?

callmeslick wrote:oh, at that age, I'd be lucky if I could discern the difference between a nightstick and a Glock.......part of my point is why they are pressing geriatrics into 'reserve' officer status?

So now you are preaching the virtues of age discrimination. Better not let that become common knowledge when you work on someones campaign.

call it 'age discrimination', but NO, I do not wish septugenarians in policing roles, nor active firefighting, while we're at it.

callmeslick wrote:back to the subject from the outset:
OOPSIE!!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/okl ... ar-AAaWfd8

I'm sure that black folks in the greater Tulsa area are feeling oh-so-secure with the local law enforcement. Let's hand a stun gun
and a handgun to a senior citizen and set him loose to fight crime. What could possibly go wrong, huh? No different than losing
a basketball game, right?

I know I am going to regret asking but I just can't stop myself.
How is that 'back to the original subject'?
I see you mention the basketball game loss and apparently you think the behavior of rioting after a loss is a 'black thing'....
I don't agree with that but whatever, I'll play along with it.
How is the old guy making a terrible mistake something only black people would be concerned with?

There are just too many ill concieved assumptions in there to ferret out any sense at all...nonsense or otherwise!

I'm with Will. It was more of an old fart thing in Tulsa this time Slick. The local blacks will probably see different however, given the rash of deadly police shootings lately.

yes, I'm sure the African American community in Tulsa will see and accept the subtle differences in sending armed old white guys out into their community as 'reserves'.......

callmeslick wrote:yes, I'm sure the African American community in Tulsa will see and accept the subtle differences in sending armed old white guys out into their community as 'reserves'.......

Ahh, so that's the race card to be played huh?
You anticipate African Americans can be convinced this was a ploy to endanger them specifically because they are black.
The old send-over-aged-armed-deputies-into-their-midst trick to cause accidental shootings of black targets.

I guess you know the manipulation of African Americans better than I do so I'll refrain from challenging you on a subject you are master of.

didn't really pay much attention to the discussion thus far, huh?

callmeslick wrote:
didn't really pay much attention to the discussion thus far, huh?

I paid attention to your suggesting black people will perceive the old guy to have been 'a danger sent into their community'.

Why wouldn't they see him as having been a danger to the whole population he served instead of singling out a less-than-10% of the population as the targeted segment?
Why the need to frame it the way you did? Or, why is framing it that way correct?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
didn't really pay much attention to the discussion thus far, huh?

I paid attention to your suggesting black people will perceive the old guy to have been 'a danger sent into their community'.

Why wouldn't they see him as having been a danger to the whole population he served instead of singling out a less-than-10% of the population as the targeted segment?
Why the need to frame it the way you did? Or, why is framing it that way correct?

because, as several of us have laid out, violence and unrest are but byproducts of fear and distrust caused by decades of problematic behavior, and that anything that reinforces those fears is perpetuating the problems.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
didn't really pay much attention to the discussion thus far, huh?

I paid attention to your suggesting black people will perceive the old guy to have been 'a danger sent into their community'.

Why wouldn't they see him as having been a danger to the whole population he served instead of singling out a less-than-10% of the population as the targeted segment?
Why the need to frame it the way you did? Or, why is framing it that way correct?

because, as several of us have laid out, violence and unrest are but byproducts of fear and distrust caused by decades of problematic behavior, and that anything that reinforces those fears is perpetuating the problems.

Wow! So much low hanging fruit there!
One, you need to outline how hiring this old guy, or not firing him at some point, is a reinforcement of racially specific problematic behavior.

If any bad thing that can happen to a black person must be presented as reinforcement of racial bias then we are absolutely doomed. Doomed by the hyperbolic narrative you seem to fall back on. Or fear mongering as you call it....

And that is exactly the kind of thing you just complained about.
'Anything that reinforces the fears is perpetuating the problem'

It's funny, in a sad way, how you can acknowledge that tactic can be a problem but are in denial of your own use of it. Probably not a state of denial though. More likely purposeful hypocrisy.

callmeslick wrote:yes, I'm sure the African American community in Tulsa will see and accept the subtle differences in sending armed old white guys out into their community as 'reserves'.......

But they would accept an old black guy instead...

callmeslick wrote:yes, I'm sure the African American community in Tulsa will see and accept the subtle differences in sending armed old white guys out into their community as 'reserves'.......

Oh, come on Slick. Watch the video. He reserve officer sure sounded like he knew he'd effed up and shot the man, accidentally. I'm sure the African American community will see otherwise, but I do believe, this time, the old guy grabbed the wrong weapon in the heat of the scuffle. It was an accident waiting to happen because a 73 year old retired reserve officer didn't have the proper training, shouldn't have been on such a call anyway, and probably didn't enough good brain power, although he sure had the legs to catch the guy, to make the right split second weapon grab from his proper holster. Us older people DO tend to lose a few brain cells over the years.

you're missing the point of both my using that example and the whole point we've been expounding on in this thread. I am CERTAIN the old fella was remorseful, and that the events that day were simply tragic accident. HOWEVER, to go back to how such accidents and the civic carelessness of even allowing 73 year olds to patrol the neighborhoods as 'reserves'(this dude was an insurance guy by training and career), when regular Tulsa cops cannot pass 63 and stay on the force, triggers past memories of more overt issues, that speaks to this discussion. Decades of anger, frustration and resentment come bubbling right up when another black man dies senselessly, whether accidental or not, whether the victim was 'out of line' or not, etc. As I understood it,a few of us here have been making that observation as a perfectly valid reason with NO outside forces needed for violent community kickback.

'Decades of anger etc' certainly will be kept fresh if your narrative is allowed to frame accidents as more than just an accident.

I'm not the one creating the 'narrative' as you neatly describe some folks' day to day reality. It is for others to react to 'accidents'(a lot of so-called accidents have led to deceased black people in this nation) or incidents of any kind within their personal histories. That seems to be a fact that you fail to accept, preferring to blame their feelings on outsiders agitating. It just is NOT so.

callmeslick wrote:I'm not the one creating the 'narrative' as you neatly describe some folks' day to day reality. It is for others to react to 'accidents'(a lot of so-called accidents have led to deceased black people in this nation) or incidents of any kind within their personal histories. That seems to be a fact that you fail to accept, preferring to blame their feelings on outsiders agitating. It just is NOT so.

Lol, in a denial that you are contributing to the narrative you made sure to inject it to keep it alive!

seeing as how it is rather unlikely that any African Americans from Tulsa are reading, let along acting upon my comments, the above is beyond silly.

callmeslick wrote:seeing as how it is rather unlikely that any African Americans from Tulsa are reading, let along acting upon my comments, the above is beyond silly.

Seeing as how you know quite well the narrative I'm referring to isn't confined to this BB and instead a major plank in your political party's platform....as we have discussed before...your comment above is just one more example of your dishonest character at work in a discussion.

quit transposing your fears of a political party onto me. That simply doesn't fly. Exactly the same as CUDA seeing something simple and turning it into a web made of his own misgivings and fears. You do likewise, and frankly it borders both the hilarious and pathetic.

callmeslick wrote:quit transposing your fears of a political party onto me. That simply doesn't fly. Exactly the same as CUDA seeing something simple and turning it into a web made of his own misgivings and fears. You do likewise, and frankly it borders both the hilarious and pathetic.

So now your denial is so weak it rests on the assertion that the Democrat Party doesn't fear monger race in a voter harvest from the black community!

When you don't vote, you let another church explode...

Lol, the great slick has spoken! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great slick has spoken!!

Will Robinson wrote:So now your denial is so weak it rests on the assertion that the Democrat Party doesn't fear monger race in a voter harvest from the black community!

ummm, no. It rests on the fact that I don't speak for a given party, and that it would be up to you to prove the assertion to them. I find it laughable, but I'm but an individual.

When you don't vote, you let another church explode...

sort of true, in some locales. What is the point?

Lol, the great slick has spoken! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great slick has spoken!!

got a Wizard of Oz fantasy going there, Will? You must look spiffy in those ruby slippers...all the while playing the role of the Scarecrow impressively.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So now your denial is so weak it rests on the assertion that the Democrat Party doesn't fear monger race in a voter harvest from the black community!

ummm, no. It rests on the fact that I don't speak for a given party, and that it would be up to you to prove the assertion to them. I find it laughable, but I'm but an individual.

You are an individual who is spouting that party's rhetoric/narrative like a fountain. We have all seen you express that party's line numerous times and seen you rush to defend it no matter how ridiculous your argument needs to be to take that position. An individual operating proudly as a cog on a wheel in the Party machinery.

See your next comment for some more evidence of your role in perpetuating the hyperbolic narrative you say doesn't happen. You just can't help yourself. Lol

callmeslick wrote:

the democrat party wrote:When you don't vote, you let another church explode...

sort of true, in some locales. What is the point?

that is the summary of why voting matters, using a single, sad example. Nothing partisan, merely reality.