Boston Shooting response

F

frbank6

New member
I hope there is a sensible answer to my question. When these mass shooting events occur, especially in states that limit or forbid outright carrying a weapon, why aren't suits filed by survivors or relatives against the government for infringing the right to self defense? After all, that is what occurs in these circumstances; I'm sitting at my desk, with no way out, and someone enters the office and starts shooting. Nobody can tell me that I should not have the right to protect myself, or that the state has not impeded that right when they put restrictions on firearms.

I just feel the time has come to stop being acted upon, and become proactive in the face of these legal challenges to the second amendment. It's just as much a civil right as freedom of speech or the right to assemble, but nobody seems serious about asserting that right. I, for one, work in a quasi-government position that prohibits employees from bringing weapons to work. When I got my permit, I asked if it was permissible to have a weapon in my car...no problem.
But I also let a vice-president know that while his rule is designed to prevent office shootings or accidents, that he was assuming liability for employees' safety, especially those who would otherwise be armed, but feel they must comply with the rules. I could see that he had never thought of it in those terms, although the rule stands.

The liberals will be screaming all the louder to infringe our rights over this instance, and let's face it, human nature being what it is, it's only a matter of time till the next shooting. Why not start sueing the government for a change when civil rights are violated? It seems to work for everybody else.
 
OT, but, check the sierra times for their article on the Mass shooting. The guy was being harrassed by the IRS and the IRS went to his employer to get his wages garnished. IRS did this without so much as a court order in violation of the 4th amendment. The employer doesn't know any better so they comply. Apparently the folks in payroll weren't listening.

http://www.sierratimes.com/arvc122900.htm


Interesting read. Pass it on.


Rick
 
I don't see how being harrassed by the IRS can be used as justification for mass murder....

I agree, someone should file a wrongful death suit against the city, that might get their attention.
 
Apparently you can't sue the US gov't without it's permission. State and local gov't, I don't know, but it's an interesting idea.

A while back on the forum, there was a lawyer here in Mass who put up his website. He was available for all things like this and it would be good to get that perspective. Anyone remember? I'll have to do a search.
 
It is called "The Weak Canary." More an more pressure is put on the People. Most just grin and bear it. But eventually, one or a couple of people will begin to say, "enough is enough." Read the Declaration of Independence for your proof.

In 1770 it was the Boston Massacre. Things slowly began to heat up from there. I doubt that many would have predicted revolution then or after the Boston Tea Party. Even after Lexington Green many thought things could be patched up.

The IRS is acting illegally. They should expect some to act this way. The challenge for them is to keep it at a minimum as the agency increases the usurpation of rights.

Face it. The IRS is acting illegally. The internet company personnel employees didn't care. A lone man got very frustrated and angry. This stuff happens in a pre-police state. It will happen again.

Rick
 
It sounds more and more like this man tried to work within the system to fight the IRS and all he found out is that there is no system to fight the IRS. The law says that the IRS can take your money when they want it. The IRS tax laws are so confusing that you can get different answers to the same question when you talk with their "experts." If they give you wrong advice, it's your fault. You pay for their mistakes.

There is no limit to what they can take from you.

I've said it before: The gun is the only option when the law offers no justice.

He opened fire on the people directly responsible for taking his money. Sure, they were just following the orders of the IRS, but they took his money and sent it to them just the same. Their ignorance of the injustice (and they may not have been ignorant of his problem) does not make them immune from the consequences of participating in it. The company chose to side with the IRS not because they beleived the IRS was right, but because they feared the punishment of the IRS more than they feared this man. They miscalculated.

I don't see a reason to build a statue to this man, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where his money was being unjustly taken from him due to an IRS computer error (you don't want to know how old their software is) and no IRS agent or judge will hear his plea. What then? I think we all found out "what then." He shot the accounting people, the personnel people, the VP: only those involved with stealing his money. When the bodies were all laid out, he may have had one of those "my God, what have I done" moments and just sat and waited for the police. He could have tried to run or hide or fight, but he didn't.

I feel somewhat uncomfortable defending this guy, but if you take the point of view that the $2,000 the IRS said he owned them was a mistake and he had tried several legal avenues to correct the problem, the rest falls into place. If that IS what happened, what other option did he have?
 
Shoot the IRS people (preferably at the supervisory/decsion-making level). May have to stalk or ambush 'em, but IMHO, they're one who need shooting more than the dummies at the company. M2
 
The man committed murder and should be dealt with in an appropriate manner (which will not happen in Mass.).

The IRS is NO EXCUSE for killing anyone under any circumstances.

If the IRS is out of control (and I think it is), that is something to be taken up with your elected representatives. The IRS is a creature of Congress.
 
Get real. If you believe that, you should be in Washington, D.C. right now setting up a hide across the street from the platform where Bush will be confirmed. After all, he's the head of the government that took this poor victim's money.

The guy is a murderer. A mass murderer. His money was being taken in a legal way, but there ARE legal ways to get redress from the IRS. There is NO way he can use any illegal action of the IRS in this case to justify killing his co-workers. Those people probably had no inkling of any wrong-doing by the IRS or by their company--and all this discussion assumes that the IRS really did wrong him in the first place.

They collect taxes you and I don't like, but that doesn't mean that they're demons or that people in any way deserve to be shot or should expect to be hurt for complying with the IRS.

Let's all take a few steps back and think about this. Think twice, post once. What will happen if this quote appears in the New York Times tomorrow "from an anonymous firearms enthusiast on the internet?"

I've said it before: The gun is the only option when the law offers no justice.

He opened fire on the people directly responsible for taking his money. Sure, they were just following the orders of the IRS, but they took his money and sent it to them just the same. Their ignorance of the injustice (and they may not have been ignorant of his problem) does not make them immune from the consequences of participating in it. The company chose to side with the IRS not because they beleived the IRS was right, but because they feared the punishment of the IRS more than they feared this man. They miscalculated. . . . He shot the accounting people, the personnel people, the VP: only those involved with stealing his money. . . . . I feel somewhat uncomfortable defending this guy, but if you take the point of view that the $2,000 the IRS said he owned them was a mistake and he had tried several legal avenues to correct the problem, the rest falls into place. If that IS what happened, what other option did he have?
Click to expand...
 
Don,

The whole point of the Sierra Times article was that confiscation of his wages without a warrant was ILLEGAL (unconstitutional). The fact that it's done every day in this country makes it no less illegal. If you believe there are "legal" ways to get redress (true and actual reversal of improper decisions) with the IRS, then you haven't dealt with the IRS. Legal arguments based on the constitution are not allowed. Appeals are financially impossible to the vast majority, under our legal system.

Mikul, you make some good points. The tax system is so complex that there are no "right and wrong" answers to tax questions. A whole industry exists just to play the infernal game, stretch it as far as possible. That in itself should signal most folks that the system is corrupt at its core. The accounting departments who follow these illegal mandates ARE guilty of theft, in their spineless ignorance.

That said, murder is not justified. The guy had mental problems and snapped. While I agree that the tax code (and ultimate responsibility) lies with congress, I don't think writing letters to congressmen is especially effective, either.

What I'm leading up to, is that there is one non-violent action that everyone who disagrees with the morality (if not the legality) of the system can take: STOP SENDING THEM MONEY! That's right, quit filing!

Right now, our govt. is like a bloated drug addict. The "high" is power and control, the drug is money. Money we keep sending them in the form of taxes. If you have a friend or relative who is an alcoholic, it's irresponsible, even criminal, to give him a gift certificate to the local liquor store. Yet thats what we do when we "comply".

I'm not naive enough to think that this action is risk-free. Every worthy cause in history has been risky.
Drug intervention often provokes an angry reaction from the addict. And, this powerful addict might take away you big-screen TV, or maybe your freedom. However, I cannot think of any other act of civil disobedience thats going to turn it around (though I'm open to other suggestions).

For those of you who are tightly imbedded in the "system", its difficult to back out, but not impossible. Lots of folks who felt "enough is enough" have taken this option. The ranks of people who have become self employed for cash money jobs is growing.

For those who disagree, please make the case that our personal freedoms and liberties are NOT shrinking under the present system.

Thank you.
 
The Lawyer

The lawyer is probably Darius DArbabi his email is DArbabi@aol.com. By the way my company does not allow firearms. I already told my wife if something happens to me to file a law suit.
 
His money was being taken in a legal way, but there ARE legal ways to get redress from the IRS.
Click to expand...

As was pointed out above, it was not taken in a legal way but in an extra-legal way. They had no court order, just some IRS administrator decided to do it.

He had no legal redress. As well, if the IRS decides to stick it to you for $2,000 are you going to spend $20,000 trying to get them out of your pocket? They put a "lien" on your house and charge you "interest and penalties" as you attempt to fight them. The clock ticks and you get in deeper.

That is why the income tax which is the only tax system that requires the government to spy on everyone who works must go.

A personal story, when I got out of college my two employers didn't give me a W4 form. They sold the businesses and the new owners couldn't find the records. Come tax time I called the IRS and asked what I could do. They told me "not to worry about it and they would notify me."

Two years later they told me I owed them $250 in back taxes, interest and penalties. I looked at their assessment, subtracted the interest and penalties and calculated what I thought I owed them, about $100. I sent them a check.

They cashed the check and then sent me an IRS check with an extra buck in interest. Then they sent me another letter saying that I now owed them $275, and counting.

I sent a letter telling my side of the story. They sent another letter with a new charge, $295 and counting. I called them repeatedly. I was eventually told that since I sent them a check (any check) I was admitting that I owed them money but not in the amount that they wanted. I said that I would appeal. They said that since I admitted that I owed money, there could be no appeal. The only question was how much I owed them and since they were the IRS, they had the say. $325 and counting.

Then the woman on the line said, "Do you know what fraud is? Do you know what the penalty is for committing fraud against the federal government?"

She wasn't accusing my, of course. No. Really. But you could imagine what kind of affect that might have on a person fresh out of college.

The IRS sucks. The 16th amendment must be repealed, etc, etc.

Read "Unbridled Power" by Shelley L. Davis. Davis is a liberal and the first (and last) historian hired by the secret society known as IRS.

There will be more weak canaries.

Rick
 
defensive arms and IRS

frbank6:

I might be wrong, but as to sueing "the government", as you mention or suggest, is a non starter. I believe that you will find that they are "immune" from action. I do not think that this is right, merely that this is the way the thing is.

As to the IRS, mentioned by others, I have had a couple of "discussions" with them. They asked questions, some of them were really stupid questions, defined as having been PREVIOUSLY answered. Never paid a nickle in interest or penalties. Last time was last year. Paid my accountant for his time, nothing to IRS, accountant's charge was significantly less than what IRS was looking for.

As to arms, my take is as follows. Given that some governmental unit denies the individual the right to defensive arms, which in effect some do, then they bare ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY, to the individual, for their safety. I doubt that you will find anyone "in government" who will agree with that theory, but that is my take on the matter. I have no idea whatever concerning whether or not this theory would stand up in court.
 
That doesn't justify what he did

We still have the right to vote, if we want to correct the injustices of the IRS then we should vote in people who will have that orginization abolished.
 
Government agencies have been sued in the past, i.e., the judgement against the FBI in favor of Randy Weaver, the reparations paid by the government to Japanese Americans fo rwartime abuses, and the "civil rights charges" against the police in the Rodney King case, even after they were acquitted of criminal wrongdoing. There are countless cases brought against local government agencies for malfeasance or deriliction of duty, and sometime, the plaintiffs win.
I feel the local rules that violated the citizens' right to self-protection should be challenged.
 
Furthermore, this kind of action is what I had hoped the NRA and other supposedly pro-Second Amendment organizations I am a member of would do with my money, instead of churning out endless direct mail gimics to try and get more of my money. Those of you here that are NRA know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not averse to helping, but these mailings occur so frequently, and are so expensive, that I am beginning to lose interest if that's all they intend on doing. It would be better spent on litigation against those who seek to infringe my civil rights. In many respects, we have the lack of action by the NRA to thank for the situation we find ourselves in. Remember when, under LaPierre's leadership, the NRA was almost forced into bankruptcy? It wasn't that long ago. If cities, states and the Feds can sue gun makers for crimes committed with their products, why can't victims of crimes sue the government(s) for malfeasance in not prosecuting criminals? This nut in Boston had no excuse for his behavior; the IRS didn't make him take innocent lives. Prosecute HIM not the 80 million gun owners that lead responsible lives.
 
Excellent question.

There is actually a theoretical civil remedy under which one could sue and attempt to make stick, that of (I think title 42) U.S.C. section 1983, or a so-called "section 1983 claim", which makes actionable any deprivation of civil rights "under color of law", meaning by a government or its agent. The gov'ts (state, fed, local) have been sued many times successfully under this statute for things like police brutality. Don't know if it's been tried for deprivation of RKBA, but it seems to fit squarely within the parameters of the law (depriviation of a fundamental right, the RKBA, by a gun-control law, resulting in serious harm) - just a matter of getting the courts to buy that the RKBA is an individual, fundamental right, which is hard to do in liberal places like that where the strict laws exist. That is why a precedent in an excellent test case like Emerson is so incredibly important - it sets a precedent for so many things such as this. If Emerson goes to SCOTUS and wins on RKBA grounds, you'd probably see a flood of lawsuits on this basis. I sure hope so.
 
if we want to correct the injustices of the IRS then we should vote in people who will have that orginization abolished.
Click to expand...

What if even the few Congressmen who want to do something about the IRS, fear the IRS as well?

How do you put the Genie back in the bottle?

Checkmate.

Rick
 
fear for what, their pocketbooks?

If that's all we got is a few then the problem is a little tougher. That said if the ones in their have no guts then lets get in there people with some guts and intregrity. Actually I think that the chance of us booting out the IRS is much better than some of things we hope for on this forum. I don't think getting rid of the IRS peacfully is insurmountable. I think if we we got some politicians with guts and raised the public awareness we could go a long way towards correcting the wrongs of the IRS.We are not to a point as of yet were killing your co workers could even be considered to be justifiable.We still have some power to change these things, and we sure as heck aren't going to change it if our heroes are madmen who unjustly take the lives of other people. Going by some of the logic I have seen on this one were the coworkers are as equally responsible as the government that's ordering them to take his money, then would the citizens of this country be equally responsible since they too are allowing this to happen and have the power to change it through their votes but haven't? Should they be killed as well? I'm not saying that that is what everyone here meant, but it sure comes out like that to the antis (fuel for there fires) and to the fence sitters. Remember we still have the right to vote, the right to speak of things such as this as we please without the government leaning over our shoulder and telling us what to write. We aren't to the point yet, (though were heading in that direction)that violence is the only recourse to salvaging our freedom.
 
Waitone...

The IRS is NO EXCUSE for killing anyone under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

Thank God our Founding Fathers didn't think like this. We might be paying 75+% instead of 50+% in all forms of taxes.

My, but we do have it good! :rolleyes:

When we compare ourselves with the worst possible situation we always look good, unless we are the worst possible situation.

Let's start comparing ourselves to what the standard should be that was set by our Constitution.

If I had been him...:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top