ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th July 2019, 10:49 PM   #201
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,188
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The guard doesn't guard the entrance. He hangs around the waiting room.
In the video we see a small entrance room. Beyond the door marked "Internal Revenue Service" is a lobby with blue chairs. Isn't know if that is technical an area leased by the IRs or if it is a general area of the building. But it does appear to be a waiting room for the IRS because the deputy said that there was an elderly couple waiting there.

The guard was not in that waiting room. As the deputy leaves, we see the guard come from behind the camera and follow the deputy into that area.

We see the deputy open the IRs door and walk into the IRS entrance where there is a stack of shelves with documents. The deputy walks up to a place where there are two posts where it looks like they can rope off the entrance to the rest of IRS facility.

On the bottom left of the screen, to the deputy's right, we can see the edge of a grey desk. The deputy walks up to that desk and talks to someone. We can see him mouth the words "I can't do that", which, according to the deputy, would have been directed at the guard.

That would mean that the guard was at the desk at the front of the IRS entrance (just past the door of the IRS office).

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And the answer is, a person does not need to check in at this particular IRS office. Obviously the guard saw the weapon which was after all, in plain sight.

You have no evidence people are screened entering this office.
The guard saw the weapon when the guard was at the front desk and the deputy walked in. We have video evidence of that.

I have presented evidence that visitors are required to check in the with the guard at this location.

1. There was a guard at the front desk in this particular circumstance as shown in the video.

2. Some IRS TAC offices have a guard at the front desk, as indicated in the IRM.

3. According to the IRM, when an office does have a guard, a visitor's record must be kept. I presume this is done by the guard, which would require visitors to check in with the guard.

4. The IRM says that visitors "may be subjected to screening of personal effects at facility entrance(s)". It describes the types of bags and such that may be subject to inspection. This implies that there are IRS locations where there is security screening.

5. I posted a link to a website that describes the different types of security used at different IRS locations. According to that website, visitors must present a valid ID card to "the security personnel". I would presume that the security personnel is the guard.

6. That website also says that "All public visitors are required to walk through multiple stages of electronic security equipment." That implies that there is screening at this IRS location.

Based on that evidence, I would assume all non-employees would be required to check in with the guard.


Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It is not the norm to screen people coming by the local IRS public office.
According the 2009 report that I posted, it was not the norm for most IRS TAC offices. I don't know what the norm is today.
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 11:03 PM   #202
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
All this arguing could have been sorted with actual information.

From the IRS site for Toledo.

Security

All public visitors are required to walk through multiple stages of electronic security equipment. Presenting a government issued valid ID card to the security personnel is required for identity and appointment verification.

Appointment

All public visitors are required to take appointments prior to visiting, by calling the number provided above.

ETA : from FAQ and Q&A sections, some centres do allow walk-in “appointments”, i.e., walk in, take a ticket and wait for your “appointment”.
Could have been except it was debunked.

That was the general information and even DA admitted it did not apply to the office in question.

No one is arguing against the appointment being needed.


And just to try one more time to address facts and not ad homs, if the Bellevue IRS office doesn't have a guard checking people in, what is being proposed? That's the only office in the US that the guard just hangs out in the waiting room?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th July 2019 at 11:04 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 11:07 PM   #203
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems like real cop, instead of a jerk who thinks putting on a badge and a gun makes him police, would have figured that out ahead of time. Seems like pretty basic police work, for non-wannabes.
It would help if you identified who you were referring to here.

But I suppose leaving it vague gives you the option of pretending you meant whatever fits.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2019, 11:19 PM   #204
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
In the video we see a small entrance room. Beyond the door marked "Internal Revenue Service" is a lobby with blue chairs. Isn't know if that is technical an area leased by the IRs or if it is a general area of the building. But it does appear to be a waiting room for the IRS because the deputy said that there was an elderly couple waiting there.

The guard was not in that waiting room. As the deputy leaves, we see the guard come from behind the camera and follow the deputy into that area.

We see the deputy open the IRs door and walk into the IRS entrance where there is a stack of shelves with documents. The deputy walks up to a place where there are two posts where it looks like they can rope off the entrance to the rest of IRS facility.
What? Where is this door between the shelves of forms and the waiting room further inside?

You see the guard entering the hallway the elevator is in.

Quote:
On the bottom left of the screen, to the deputy's right, we can see the edge of a grey desk. The deputy walks up to that desk and talks to someone. We can see him mouth the words "I can't do that", which, according to the deputy, would have been directed at the guard.

That would mean that the guard was at the desk at the front of the IRS entrance (just past the door of the IRS office).

The guard saw the weapon when the guard was at the front desk and the deputy walked in. We have video evidence of that.

I have presented evidence that visitors are required to check in the with the guard at this location.
No you did not. It's an office building. Nothing said the Toledo office had a entrance where people are screened

It's being conflated.

It's a federal building with a guard at the door?
No.
It's an office building with a guard at the door of the IRS office because supposedly that requires a guard at the entrance?
No, that has not been established.

Which is it? The link supposedly says all federal office buildings require screening at the front door?
It doesn't say that.

Nothing in the link is supported. All it says is you may have to leave your cell phone out.


None of the following is supported in the link. In fact, it's insane.



Quote:
1. There was a guard at the front desk in this particular circumstance as shown in the video.

2. Some IRS TAC offices have a guard at the front desk, as indicated in the IRM.

3. According to the IRM, when an office does have a guard, a visitor's record must be kept. I presume this is done by the guard, which would require visitors to check in with the guard.

4. The IRM says that visitors "may be subjected to screening of personal effects at facility entrance(s)". It describes the types of bags and such that may be subject to inspection. This implies that there are IRS locations where there is security screening.

5. I posted a link to a website that describes the different types of security used at different IRS locations. According to that website, visitors must present a valid ID card to "the security personnel". I would presume that the security personnel is the guard.

6. That website also says that "All public visitors are required to walk through multiple stages of electronic security equipment." That implies that there is screening at this IRS location.

Based on that evidence, I would assume all non-employees would be required to check in with the guard.

Quote:
According the 2009 report that I posted, it was not the norm for most IRS TAC offices. I don't know what the norm is today.


The Toledo IRS office is in an office building.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 20th July 2019 at 11:23 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 01:28 AM   #205
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,188
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What? Where is this door between the shelves of forms and the waiting room further inside?

You see the guard entering the hallway the elevator is in.
I'm talking about the space outside the door. Where the blue chairs are. It may be a hallway rather than a room. I don't know.

But now that you mention it, there must be a waiting room further inside. The deputy says that there was an elderly couple in the waiting room watching the exchange between him and the guard. The video doesn't show anybody in those blue chairs. So he must be referring to a waiting room inside the IRS office past the desk where the guard was.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No you did not. It's an office building. Nothing said the Toledo office had a entrance where people are screened
In post 173 I posted a link that says that says "All public visitors are required to walk through multiple stages of electronic security equipment." I refer to that as "screening" because I think that is what most people would call screening and because that is the term used in IRM 10.2.18.3.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It's a federal building with a guard at the door?
No.
It's an office building with a guard at the door of the IRS office because supposedly that requires a guard at the entrance?
No, that has not been established.
It is not a federal building with a guard at the door. Not all IRS offices in an office building are required to have a guard at the entrance. That is established in the IRM and the 2009 report, as I have stated several times.

Some do. Some don't. I have presented evidence that suggests that this one does.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Which is it? The link supposedly says all federal office buildings require screening at the front door?
It doesn't say that.

Nothing in the link is supported. All it says is you may have to leave your cell phone out.


None of the following is supported in the link. In fact, it's insane.
The link you refer to is a link that you posted in post #178. I have posted a number of other links in this thread.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The Toledo IRS office is in an office building.
Yes. It is.


(This is a long way to go just to establish whether or not visitors have to check in with a guard at a particular office, which doesn’t even seem to be relevant to the story.)
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 06:37 AM   #206
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
I am happy to be corrected on this distinction.
Was he in his assigned patrol district? What is his agency policy on personal errands while on duty? Was he available for dispatch at the time?
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 07:39 AM   #207
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The guard doesn't guard the entrance. He hangs around the waiting room.
You know that there isn't a security checkpoint there because there is a waiting room? That he just loiters there?

Quote:
Why is that so difficult?
Because it's not likely true. While there is a waiting area, there is also a checkpoint you have to cross to get into the areas that the employees work. If there wasn't that would mean that people could just loiter up next to the cubes in which employees and taxpayers are discussing issues. That isn't going to happen.


Quote:
And the answer is, a person does not need to check in at this particular IRS office. Obviously the guard saw the weapon which was after all, in plain sight.
He has to get past the security guard to get to an IRS employee. Call it checking in, call it being screened. Either way.

Quote:

You have no evidence people are screened entering this office.

It is not the norm to screen people coming by the local IRS public office.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part10/irm_10-002-018

It is absolutely the norm for the general public to be screened.

I really don't see why this office would deviate from the norm. So I'm playing the odds and saying that facility is as guarded, since it has a guard, as any other facility.

It's not walmart. They aren't there to act as armed greeters. They are there to serve a function. And that includes screening the general public. both by IRS policy and the CFR.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 07:58 AM   #208
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Quote:
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
And here is subsection d.

Quote:
(d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1)the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
He was on patrol, available for dispatch. Anything else?
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 08:12 AM   #209
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
He was on patrol, available for dispatch. Anything else?
It's still not permitted. He doesn't have a business purpose for being in a secured area. Simply put, he is not on patrol inside an IRS facility as he doesn't have the jurisdiction. He does not patrol the IRS office. It's not his beat.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 08:30 AM   #210
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
DevilsAdvocate has presented some evidence that it can vary a bit.

Uniformity is just such a bitch on large scale that I doubted the IRS was actually pulling it off. Especially in leased office space. I am not at all questioning your experiences or honesty.
Yeah, but there are steps being taken to standardize it.

https://www.dhs.gov/isc-policies-sta...best-practices

Here is a fun fact, my campus is one being affected by the reduction in paper returns. There is some debate on how we are going to handle it. We "own" the submission processing building, technically lease it from the GSA, but that's quibbling. We lease a number of other buildings in the area since we can't all fit into the same building.

Where this gets interesting is that the costs to retrofit the paper processing area with the bandwidth to put in phones and LAN, and switches and whatnots isn't any cheaper than keeping the leases on the other buildings. I'm still thinking, however, they will move everyone they can into the submission processing building, just because?

While there are likely some variance between a field office and a full out campus, it's not a free for all like a SSA office. You can't just walk into the waiting area with a friendly wave to the guard. You are, at the very least, going to walk through a metal detector if you aren't an employee.

One of the buildings I've worked in has a metal detector and X-ray for bags and it's not open to the public at all. It's there to screen contractors, such as HVAC and others. So to think that a walk-in center, open to the general public would be less secure than an obscure, leased building is somewhat absurd. With the exception of signs posted at the doors about the no weapon policy, you'd never know it's a federal building.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 10:02 AM   #211
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I'm talking about the space outside the door. Where the blue chairs are. It may be a hallway rather than a room. I don't know.
It's the hallway the elevator opens up to. If that was the waiting room, how did the cop get past wannabe who chased him back to the elevator?

Quote:
In post 173 I posted a link that says that says "All public visitors are required to walk through multiple stages of electronic security equipment." I refer to that as "screening" because I think that is what most people would call screening and because that is the term used in IRM 10.2.18.3.
All right, I give. The only question then is, where are these "multiple stages" and how did the cop get as far as he did with his gun?

But it's a moot point.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 21st July 2019 at 10:04 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2019, 05:46 PM   #212
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
It's still not permitted. He doesn't have a business purpose for being in a secured area. Simply put, he is not on patrol inside an IRS facility as he doesn't have the jurisdiction. He does not patrol the IRS office. It's not his beat.
You are incorrect. He was on duty and available for dispatch. You know he was outside of his patrol district how?
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 03:19 AM   #213
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This

The officer was leaving, as instructed by Wannabe Mall Cop, and yet Wannabe Mall Cop still pulled his gun and pointed it the Officer's back.

Wannabe Mall Cop was rightly arrested and charged.
Yea that kind of power with out consequence is limited only to cops.

What kind of private security was this, as that covers a huge range from mall cop to nuclear reactor guard after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 03:21 AM   #214
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Neither was the cop visiting the building. Maybe it's a bit naïve to expect the security guard not to over-react.
Hey he was just acting like a real cop would. So why is this suddenly a problem?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 03:54 AM   #215
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Hey he was just acting like a real cop would. So why is this suddenly a problem?
What I'm happy about is that the deputy acted as a real cop should. He kept his cool, didn't get into a gunfight around bystanders; he got backup, came back and arrested the guard. No one got hurt and a dangerous person is likely never going to be allowed to have a firearm again.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 04:33 AM   #216
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
What I'm happy about is that the deputy acted as a real cop should. He kept his cool, didn't get into a gunfight around bystanders; he got backup, came back and arrested the guard. No one got hurt and a dangerous person is likely never going to be allowed to have a firearm again.
I will care if the next time a cop pulls his gun on someone for no justifiable reason they actually face any consequence. Of course we have enough trouble getting cops to face any consequence for killing people against police policy so that might be far to high a bar for the police to get to.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 04:41 AM   #217
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,584
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
It's mainly because the government uses the tax code to encourage or discourage certain behaviors (e. g., having children, getting and staying married, or owning a home), and also to favor certain industries <cough>crony capitalism<cough>.

When I was going back to school to be an accountant, Congress passed a law establishing separate marginal tax rates for capital gains, further broken down by the length of time the sold asset had been owned, and with additional complicating factors, making the calculations extremely complex. A couple of my professors derisively referred to this as the "Accountants' Full Employment Act."
Sounds horrendous. I do my own tax in a leisurely afternoon, but I only have to because I have additional income/expenses from writing, in addition to my pre-taxed salaried employment.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 04:58 AM   #218
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,584
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Complex yes; how is it archaic? I've never compared it to anything else.
The very fact that so many Americans have to file a tax return in the first place. In the UK employees pay tax as they earn (PAYE), and the employee has to do literally nothing. The system is highly automated, and errors or deviations are corrected on the go.

Example: Someone paid monthly pays tax on their earnings after the deduction of one twelfth of the total tax-free allowance (currently £12,500). If they don't work for a month or two in the middle of the tax year, the TFA accumulates and is applied in full when they start working again, whether that's in the same tax year, a subsequent one. This all happens without any need for the employee to actually contact the tax authorities, or even their own payroll. If a person has more than one employment, the TFA is automatically and proportionately split across them (i.e. someone earning £20k from one job and £5k from another would have the TFA split 80/20).

Quote:
Probably not. When I was single with no dependents, living in barracks (or at home) with zero investments, it was simply a matter of filling out the 1040a form with my income; most of it was left blank, I filled in the standard deduction then looked up the tax from the tax table. I sent in the form then waited for the small refund, if any.
Well, that's one form more than the none that average Brit has to deal with

Quote:
When I got married, had kids, bought a house, invested in tax deferred accounts and accumulated interest income everything changed. The percentage of my income that I paid went down as I got older; I had more kids and bought the house and increased the size of my tax deferred investments. With the kids grown and moved out and the mortgage paid off, that percentage then increased a bit.
When I got married, nothing about my tax changed - we're still taxed separately at source. When we had our first child, nothing changed about our respective taxes. If or when we buy a house, nothing will change. When we opened tax-free saving accounts, we didn't have to inform the tax authorities ourselves, either individually, for the one for our first child, or the one linked to a future house purchase.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 22nd July 2019 at 05:10 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 05:02 AM   #219
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,584
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Interesting, I'd understand if a cop would be punished for drinking in public while in uniform but punishing the guy that sells/gives him the beer seems......unfair.
It doesn't necessarily mean the cop wouldn't get investigated, as well.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 22nd July 2019 at 05:10 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 05:10 AM   #220
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The very fact that so many Americans have to file a tax return in the first place. In the UK employees pay tax as they earn (PAYE), and the employee has to do literally nothing. The system is highly automated, and errors or deviations are corrected on the go.
Well most employers do that as well with withholdings. Hence the getting money back from the government with a tax refund as you mostly pay more in than you need to. Now certainly the US tax code is not designed to benefit the average citizen but accountants and those with political influence but this isn't entirely a fair criticism.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 08:08 AM   #221
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,584
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well most employers do that as well with withholdings. Hence the getting money back from the government with a tax refund as you mostly pay more in than you need to.
The point is that Brits in salaried employment generally don't pay more tax in the first place, and even when they do, they don't have to wait around for a refund - let along have to ask for one - as it generally gets adjusted in their next salary payment.

Quote:
Now certainly the US tax code is not designed to benefit the average citizen but accountants and those with political influence but this isn't entirely a fair criticism.
I can believe that.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 08:29 AM   #222
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The point is that Brits in salaried employment generally don't pay more tax in the first place, and even when they do, they don't have to wait around for a refund - let along have to ask for one - as it generally gets adjusted in their next salary payment.
How does this relate to things like deductions? Ie in america certain things like mortgage interest and charitable giving are deductible so it is as if you never earned that money and are paying it with pre tax dollars. This is to incentivise certain behaviors and is not unreasonable though certainly abused by special interests
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2019, 09:36 AM   #223
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Was he in his assigned patrol district? What is his agency policy on personal errands while on duty? Was he available for dispatch at the time?
I'm unaware of the policy in his agency, but in mine, uniformed officers were allowed to do personal business while on a break.

For the period of the break, an officer would not answer routine calls but was required to answer emergency calls.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 12:38 AM   #224
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
I'm still quite unsure what the guard did wrong. I'm assuming he was armed as his job required? If so and given the number and percentage of homicides by gun in the USA why shouldn't he seek to deal with someone carrying a firearm where they were not allowed to do so?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 01:06 AM   #225
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm still quite unsure what the guard did wrong. I'm assuming he was armed as his job required? If so and given the number and percentage of homicides by gun in the USA why shouldn't he seek to deal with someone carrying a firearm where they were not allowed to do so?
I'm kinda in agreement here. If we are expected to believe the "in fear for his life" line trotted out by the LEO's stateside, then surely the officer concerned would understand why he was drawn down on?

He was asked to remove and stow his sidearm and refused indicating a remote, possible intention to use it presently.

As has been said, if things had been reversed the guard would have been smoked with a minimum of 6 rounds.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 01:18 AM   #226
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm still quite unsure what the guard did wrong. I'm assuming he was armed as his job required? If so and given the number and percentage of homicides by gun in the USA why shouldn't he seek to deal with someone carrying a firearm where they were not allowed to do so?
Chasing the cop, pointing his gun at the cop's back, trying to stop the elevator and arrest the cop? And you don't see anything wrong?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 01:19 AM   #227
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,119
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
I'm kinda in agreement here. If we are expected to believe the "in fear for his life" line trotted out by the LEO's stateside, then surely the officer concerned would understand why he was drawn down on?

He was asked to remove and stow his sidearm and refused indicating a remote, possible intention to use it presently.

As has been said, if things had been reversed the guard would have been smoked with a minimum of 6 rounds.
Wasn't leaving sufficient?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 01:22 AM   #228
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Wasn't leaving sufficient?
Good point. Gonna watch that clip again as I obviously need to refresh my memory.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 01:27 AM   #229
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,584
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How does this relate to things like deductions? Ie in america certain things like mortgage interest and charitable giving are deductible so it is as if you never earned that money and are paying it with pre tax dollars. This is to incentivise certain behaviours and is not unreasonable though certainly abused by special interests
Mortgage interest relief was abolished a few years ago, but it was applied at the lender's end, so the mortgage-holder didn't need to do anything. Relief is still available on investment property mortgages, but mortgage-holders would be filing in a tax return for the rental income from them, anyway.

The Gift Aid scheme allows charities to claim additional money from the tax authorities based on pre-taxed donations from basic rate (20%) taxpayers. Effectively, if I want to give £100 to a charity, I give them £80 as a Gift Aid donation and declare it to them as such, and the charity claims the other £20 from the authorities. Higher rate tax payers (i.e. 40% for earnings more than £46,350 above the £12,500 tax free allowance) can claim the difference back themselves.

The bottom line is that, certainly for basic rate taxpayers, they're aren't deductions. Incentives - if they are counted as such - are handled differently. For example, since my wife and I both earn less than £50k individually, we get £1,076 per year in Child Benefit for our first child (and will get an additional £716 each for any additional ones), but that was applied for directly after she was born and is paid to us in-year, rather than being something linked to our tax that has to be claimed back at the end of each and every tax year.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 23rd July 2019 at 01:34 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 02:34 AM   #230
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,188
Putting together information from the two primary news stories, additional video footage, the 911 call, and the information in the lawsuit, here’s what happened:

On May 31, 2019, Deputy Alan Gaston went to the IRS office at 4 SeaGate, 422 N. Summit St., Toldeo, Ohio, to get a phone number to call regarding a letter he had received in the mail. He was in full uniform and carrying his gun.

The deputy went to the second floor of the office building where the IRS office is located. He went into the door of the IRS office. He walked up to the desk and talked to the security guard, Seth Ecklund.

The deputy said that he was there on personal business. The guard told the deputy that he would have to leave and put his gun in the car and come back. The deputy said, “I can’t do that.”

The deputy refused to leave and continued to discuss the matter with the guard for about another minute and a half.

The guard told that deputy that he wasn’t allowed to have his gun on him, regardless of his status or position, if he was there on personal business. The deputy told the guard, “Relax.” The deputy told the guard he had been allowed in the office with his duty weapon by other guards in the past.

The deputy asked if there was a locker where he could put his gun. The guard told him that there was not and that he would have to lock his gun in his car.

The guard became angry and raised his voice. An IRS employee in the office threatened to call the police if the deputy continued to give the guard a hard time. The employee called 911 and reported that, “We’ve got a taxpayer…that has a gun and won’t leave the premises.”

During that call, the guard shouted at the deputy, “Get your hands off your gun!” And it sounds like, “Get your hands up!” The guard drew his gun and pointed it at the deputy. The video shows that at that point the deputy’s left hand was grabbing something on his belt (I’m not sure if that is his gun or not; it looks like it could be, but it might be a taser gun). We can’t see exactly where his right hand is, but it is near his right hip.

The deputy turned and walked out the door. The employee on the phone with 911 reported that, “He’s leaving…He’s heading downstairs now.”

The guard followed the deputy out the door, pointing his gun at the deputy’s back, yelling, “You better stop!”. The guard told the deputy, “You had your chance. You’re not going anywhere. I’m detaining you.”

The deputy continued on to the elevators and pushed the elevator button. The guard stood in the doorway, holding his gun pointed down.

The elevator door opened and the deputy walked into the elevator. The guard briefly grabbed the deputy’s arm. The guard blocked the elevator door from closing, hold his gun down. It appears the guard put away his gun at that point. The deputy was unable to leave.

The police arrived. The police told the guard, “You know he’s a uniformed deputy sheriff, right? We can go anywhere in this building we want.”

The guard was later arrested for aggravated menacing. (I don’t know when the arrest was made.)

The deputy and his wife filed a lawsuit against the guard and his employer on June 26, 2019.
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 23rd July 2019 at 02:53 AM.
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 02:35 AM   #231
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Chasing the cop, pointing his gun at the cop's back, trying to stop the elevator and arrest the cop? And you don't see anything wrong?
Depends on what the guard's job is. Plus as we had evidenced above lots of police equipment is stolen so the guard couldn't be sure this was a genuine police officer. Perhaps the guard thought he seemed suspicious, and again given the number of gun related homicides in the USA and the mass killings isn't it better if a guard errs on the precautionary side?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 02:36 AM   #232
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,188
This site has the video and 911 call:

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/po...es/20190717118

Here's the lawsuit:

http://lcapps.co.lucas.oh.us/PublicA...rideFormat=PDF
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 02:43 AM   #233
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,810
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Putting together information from the two primary news stories, additional video..snip..


The guard was later arrested for aggravated menacing. (I don’t know when the arrest was made.)

The deputy and his wife filed a lawsuit against the guard and his employer on June 26, 2019.
Thanks for taking the time to put that together. Assuming your reconstruction is accurate at worse we have a guard who wasn't adequately trained. I'm really not trying to be contrary for the sake of it but I'm still not seeing an issue with how the guard acted, I do see an issue with how the police officer acted.

Finding this interesting on a "meta" level as also trying to understand why we have such a spectrum of responses.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 23rd July 2019 at 02:44 AM. Reason: Sniping post and snipping
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 02:58 AM   #234
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Putting together information from the two primary news stories, additional video footage, the 911 call, and the information in the lawsuit, here’s what happened:

On May 31, 2019, Deputy Alan Gaston went to the IRS office at 4 SeaGate, 422 N. Summit St., Toldeo, Ohio, to get a phone number to call regarding a letter he had received in the mail. He was in full uniform and carrying his gun.

The deputy went to the second floor of the office building where the IRS office is located. He went into the door of the IRS office. He walked up to the desk and talked to the security guard, Seth Ecklund.

The deputy said that he was there on personal business. The guard told the deputy that he would have to leave and put his gun in the car and come back. The deputy said, “I can’t do that.”

The deputy refused to leave and continued to discuss the matter with the guard for about another minute and a half.

The guard told that deputy that he wasn’t allowed to have his gun on him, regardless of his status or position, if he was there on personal business. The deputy told the guard, “Relax.” The deputy told the guard he had been allowed in the office with his duty weapon by other guards in the past.

The deputy asked if there was a locker where he could put his gun. The guard told him that there was not and that he would have to lock his gun in his car.

The guard became angry and raised his voice. An IRS employee in the office threatened to call the police if the deputy continued to give the guard a hard time. The employee called 911 and reported that, “We’ve got a taxpayer…that has a gun and won’t leave the premises.”

During that call, the guard shouted at the deputy, “Get your hands off your gun!” And it sounds like, “Get your hands up!” The guard drew his gun and pointed it at the deputy. The video shows that at that point the deputy’s left hand was grabbing something on his belt (I’m not sure if that is his gun or not; it looks like it could be, but it might be a taser gun). We can’t see exactly where his right hand is, but it is near his right hip.

The deputy turned and walked out the door. The employee on the phone with 911 reported that, “He’s leaving…He’s heading downstairs now.”

The guard followed the deputy out the door, pointing his gun at the deputy’s back, yelling, “You better stop!”. The guard told the deputy, “You had your chance. You’re not going anywhere. I’m detaining you.”

The deputy continued on to the elevators and pushed the elevator button. The guard stood in the doorway, holding his gun pointed down.

The elevator door opened and the deputy walked into the elevator. The guard briefly grabbed the deputy’s arm. The guard blocked the elevator door from closing, hold his gun down. It appears the guard put away his gun at that point. The deputy was unable to leave.

The police arrived. The police told the guard, “You know he’s a uniformed deputy sheriff, right? We can go anywhere in this building we want.”

The guard was later arrested for aggravated menacing. (I don’t know when the arrest was made.)

The deputy and his wife filed a lawsuit against the guard and his employer on June 26, 2019.
As I suspected (and thanks for the sleuthing) the deputy was being an entitled ******* and seemed to be considering going for his going/taser. He didn't "just leave".

That would take it way downfield on the "feared for my life" defence so often used by LEO's.

I'm back on the side of the guard.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 03:11 AM   #235
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,333
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Thanks for taking the time to put that together. Assuming your reconstruction is accurate at worse we have a guard who wasn't adequately trained. I'm really not trying to be contrary for the sake of it but I'm still not seeing an issue with how the guard acted, I do see an issue with how the police officer acted.

Finding this interesting on a "meta" level as also trying to understand why we have such a spectrum of responses.

The guard was put in an extremely difficult position all because this deputy was expecting to be treated in a special and privileged manner from the moment he decided to enter the building.
Like I stated in a previous post - I would have immediately suspended the cop and recommended that he be charged under the RCMP Code of Conduct if he was working under my command. Police officers like this jerk give the entire profession a bad reputation.

I think the problem is that many see police officers as heroes rather than as ordinary people with a pretty easy job that is far less dangerous than many other jobs. As a matter of fact - the most recent info I could find on the most dangerous jobs in the United States reveal that policing is 18th on the list.
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/these...JG6m0P4SCrXuN/
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 03:19 AM   #236
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
The guard was put in an extremely difficult position all because this deputy was expecting to be treated in a special and privileged manner from the moment he decided to enter the building.
Like I stated in a previous post - I would have immediately suspended the cop and recommended that he be charged under the RCMP Code of Conduct if he was working under my command. Police officers like this jerk give the entire profession a bad reputation.

I think the problem is that many see police officers as heroes rather than as ordinary people with a pretty easy job that is far less dangerous than many other jobs. As a matter of fact - the most recent info I could find on the most dangerous jobs in the United States reveal that policing is 18th on the list.
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/these...JG6m0P4SCrXuN/
3 people have died due to accidents whilst at work in my company this year. No police have died in a similar timeframe. Where's my medal?
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 03:21 AM   #237
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Chasing the cop, pointing his gun at the cop's back, trying to stop the elevator and arrest the cop? And you don't see anything wrong?
Yea he is a security guard and as such held to vastly higher standards than a cop.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 03:26 AM   #238
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yea he is a security guard and as such held to vastly higher standards than a cop.
Another very good point.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 03:30 AM   #239
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
The guard was put in an extremely difficult position all because this deputy was expecting to be treated in a special and privileged manner from the moment he decided to enter the building.
Like I stated in a previous post - I would have immediately suspended the cop and recommended that he be charged under the RCMP Code of Conduct if he was working under my command. Police officers like this jerk give the entire profession a bad reputation.

I think the problem is that many see police officers as heroes rather than as ordinary people with a pretty easy job that is far less dangerous than many other jobs. As a matter of fact - the most recent info I could find on the most dangerous jobs in the United States reveal that policing is 18th on the list.
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/these...JG6m0P4SCrXuN/
Of course security guards are also a high risk profession and has a very high risk of homocide. But of course when they get killed by cops it is all good because it was an honest mistake by those heroic cops who risk their lives.

http://snallabolaget.com/us-more-sec...illed-on-duty/

Which is why they clearly need to be treated like cops when they pull their guns for no reason and kill someone with out good reason. It is needed to keep the people safe.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2019, 07:04 AM   #240
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
I think the guard overreacted, possibly due to poor training. The deputy was in the wrong. Craig4's argument that the deputy was there on official business is of course absurd.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.