Insane Clown Posse and ACLU sue FBI

[Forever_frost]

No, it didn't. It explicitly stated that it was a sub-group of Juggalos. At worst, it labels them a gang, under a definition that does not fit the legal one rendering it a non-criminal term.



It's not calling them a gang in the legal sense, as the report has defined the term differently than the legal term. Even if it wasn't, by the definition, the label could only be applied to the people who are within the group of the "many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence."

Then you have an FBI report labeling individuals as a gang who do not fit the definition of a gang, in violation of the law. If they are labeled as a gang, according to a report by the FBI, whether that is the 'legal definition' or not, that is THE federal law enforcement agency saying individuals exercising their 1st amendment rights are a gang. When a federal agency labels you as something (domestic terrorist, gang) it means that they aren't playing and are looking at reasons to bring the hammer down on you.

[Maddhattter]

You have yet to show proof.

You are the highest authority on your intentions. So, you are valid proof because you are the authoritative source.

I am asking you to show the same type of proof you asked for earlier, except for a different topic.

And, unlike what you did, I did provide valid proof.

All you have shown is simple "he said" comments.

As you are the highest authority on your intentions, that is sufficient proof.

I am using the exact same logic in asking for your proof as you did earlier in this thread, and you have yet to do it.

Stevo

No, your not.

[stevo]

There is no federal statue that says that you didn't make a thread, that you didn't make a thread and change the topic, nor that you made a thread and stayed on topic.

So, your request is as nonsensical as asking someone to prove to you that a square is a circle.

That being said, while I am unable to produce federal statutes, you said it yourself...



To have the discussion, you must first investigate and understand the terms being used and the methodology being used. Otherwise, there is no means to communicate. Which means the terms the FBI is using, and whether they are utilizing the legal definitions in the label is of utmost important because it it is what defines the terms it is using and it's methodology.



The law was not being discussed, if your previous quote is accurate. The FBI report has not bearing in the law because it does not use legal terms.

Also, when I entered into the conversation, your incredulity over the total number of gang members in the US was being discussed.

Cited sources?

- stevo, DFW Mustangs forum, http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=52461 (accessed 1/10/2014)

You have yet to show proof. I am asking you to show the same type of proof you asked for earlier, except for a different topic. All you have shown is simple "he said" comments. I am using the exact same logic in asking for your proof as you did earlier in this thread, and you have yet to do it.

Stevo

[Maddhattter]

He has asked me to prove why the FBI reached the conclusion that they made, when no proof exists.

Incorrect. I provided a link to the proof you claim does not exist.

It was a decision they made based on opinion, an opinion that doesn't follow the law.

The results do not follow the law, that is correct.

I have repeatedly told him this discussion is about that label not fitting the letter of the law

I stated the exact same thing. Except, I went a step farther and stated that the FBI haven't done anything illegal because they didn't label the group as a gang in any legal sense.

and what is happening because of that label.

No, you stated what is being claimed happened as a result.

He refuses to admit it that he went off on a tangent, attempting to change the topic of the discussion.

Because I didn't.

[Maddhattter]

Yes. I want you to prove me wrong that I did not make this thread to discuss the topic that was intended before you arrived in it. Use proof. No "he said it, so it must be so!", use factual proof.

And be sure to list your sources.

Stevo

There is no federal statue that says that you didn't make a thread, that you didn't make a thread and change the topic, nor that you made a thread and stayed on topic.

So, your request is as nonsensical as asking someone to prove to you that a square is a circle.

That being said, while I am unable to produce federal statutes, you said it yourself...

This thread and discussion has been about the lack of the ability of the FBI to prove that they are a gang.

To have the discussion, you must first investigate and understand the terms being used and the methodology being used. Otherwise, there is no means to communicate. Which means the terms the FBI is using, and whether they are utilizing the legal definitions in the label is of utmost important because it it is what defines the terms it is using and it's methodology.

The law is being discussed here.

The law was not being discussed, if your previous quote is accurate. The FBI report has not bearing in the law because it does not use legal terms.

Also, when I entered into the conversation, your incredulity over the total number of gang members in the US was being discussed.

Cited sources?

- stevo, DFW Mustangs forum, http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=52461 (accessed 1/10/2014)

[stevo]

Wait. Wut?

He has asked me to prove why the FBI reached the conclusion that they made, when no proof exists. It was a decision they made based on opinion, an opinion that doesn't follow the law.

I have repeatedly told him this discussion is about that label not fitting the letter of the law, and what is happening because of that label. He refuses to admit it that he went off on a tangent, attempting to change the topic of the discussion. At this point, I want him to prove something that is about as relevant as his stray tangents.

Stevo

[racrguy]

Yes. I want you to prove me wrong that I did not make this thread to discuss the topic that was intended before you arrived in it. Use proof. No "he said it, so it must be so!", use factual proof.

And be sure to list your sources.

Stevo

Wait. Wut?

[stevo]

...so you guys can't even figure out between yourselves what you're arguing about anymore? lol

I'm still waiting for him to actually address the topic in the discussion. He has jumped track so many times it is hard to figure out just what the fuck he is blabbering about at this point.

Stevo

[stevo]

Using federal statues?

Yes. I want you to prove me wrong that I did not make this thread to discuss the topic that was intended before you arrived in it. Use proof. No "he said it, so it must be so!", use factual proof.

And be sure to list your sources.

Stevo

...so you guys can't even figure out between yourselves what you're arguing about anymore? lol

[Maddhattter]

Sorry, I just figured out what you meant- I want him to prove that this thread, and the discussion in it before he arrived, was not what I said it was about.

Stevo

Using federal statues?

[stevo]

In what regard?

Sorry, I just figured out what you meant- I want him to prove that this thread, and the discussion in it before he arrived, was not what I said it was about.

Stevo

[stevo]

Stevo. What exactly do you want hattter to prove?

Me wrong.

Stevo

[Maddhattter]

Prove me wrong.

Stevo

In what regard?

[Maddhattter]

I believe the issue is that it's the FBI's report that calls these individuals who have engaged in no crime and are exercising their right to assemble and associate calling these people criminals.

No, it didn't. It explicitly stated that it was a sub-group of Juggalos. At worst, it labels them a gang, under a definition that does not fit the legal one rendering it a non-criminal term.

It's a federal law enforcement agency releasing a report they funded that labels people who are doing nothing wrong as a gang.

It's not calling them a gang in the legal sense, as the report has defined the term differently than the legal term. Even if it wasn't, by the definition, the label could only be applied to the people who are within the group of the "many Juggalos subsets exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence."