# The FBI's unprecedented attack on civil rights \[2012 FBI vs Juggalos\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141 "2012-08-11T01:38:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/81 "2012-08-12T15:09:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > On the contrary. It lays out my position on the “debate” rather clearly: I have made my points; you and Snowboarder have made your points; your points have failed to persuade me of your position; reading your comments, I doubt that I have persuaded you. Unless you have some clear new evidence that might persuade me of your position, I see no point in continuing the discussion. > What is uninformative about that? Since it was already to be assumed, it was completely uninformative. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/82 "2012-08-12T15:39:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So what? First, you go to Nizkor, (a nice outfit, but not the FBI), only to find them describing Skinheads in pretty much the same way that the FBI report describes Juggalos: It uses an all-encompassing word that does not come close to describing the the totality of the subculture. However, unlike the FBI report, Nizkor remarks on only the portion of the subculture that it finds threatening. There are and always have been Skinhead groups that have been anti-racist, yet your Nizkor essay only addresses the racist ones. > > The FBI report at least goes to the trouble of noting that Juggalos have only been identified as gangs by four specific states and further notes that “subsets” have been identified as engaging in criminal behavior in 21 states. You, following the Nizkor report, do what you are accusing the FBI of doing. So, because you and Nizkor are sloppy and use the the overall word to discuss subsets of a group without clarifying your points, you are assuming that the FBI–that does take the time to point out that they are only discsussing some portion of the group–has made the same error that you are pursuing. The Nizkor report was only quoted to show that my assertion (I’ll repeat it again: there never was a single gang called Skinheads) was correct. Had your post not attempted to dodge the issue, it wouldn’t have been necessary. The FBI has a list of groups that include criminal activity. In order to create the list, they employ names for the groups on the list. Within the list, they point out specifics–specifics that demonstrate to anyone reading the actual text that the accusation of “gangs” does not apply to all people identified by the name Juggalos. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Really? You have a list of incidents where Deadheads and bankers have engaged in anti-civil behavior as Deadheads and bankers, (and not by simply engaging in unethical business practices)? I’d like to see that. My list is just as long as the list that LEO and the FBI have of anyone engaging in anti-civil behavior as Juggalos. Do you really think these people put on clown make-up and then committed crimes? :dubious: > [@tomndebb](#): > > And, of course, you still have provided no evidence that anyone’s civil rights have been violated. > As for an “unprecedented attack,” you clearly have no grasp of U.S. history. The violations of civil rights by the FBI that have been launched against various groups over the decades is pretty long and includes far more egregious behavior than putting a name on a list and then describing actual anti-civil behavior reported by local police agencies. > > As I first noted, this is Recreational Outrage–and a pretty weak grade of it at that. As for me making a claim that this violated anyone’s civil rights, or that it constitutes an “unprecedented attack”, you clearly have no grasp of my posting history in this thread, since I never made those claims. Could you answer my last question, please? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If the same report were issued saying that Straight Dope Message Board members (aka “Dopers”) were a gang, based on the fact that 4 people who posted here had committed crimes together, you’d think that was an accurate label? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/83 "2012-08-12T17:38:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The Nizkor report was only quoted to show that my assertion (I’ll repeat it again: there never was a single gang called Skinheads) was correct. Had your post not attempted to dodge the issue, it wouldn’t have been necessary. I am not dodging the issue. You think there is some big deal about there never having been a single gang called skinheads. I repeat: So what? There is no claim that there is a single gang of juggalos. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > As for me making a claim that this violated anyone’s civil rights, or that it constitutes an “unprecedented attack”, you clearly have no grasp of my posting history in this thread, since I never made those claims. Since you have made no effort to distance yourself from the hyperbole of the OP, there was no reason to believe that you did not hold those views. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Could you answer my last question, please? What, whether four Dopers committing crimes would justify referring to Dopers as a gang? No. Again, so what? That is not the claim of the FBI, either. There have been several instances in which people who did claim to be Juggaloes committed crimes in the context of their being Juggaloes. This would include a dozen people injured by face-painted idiots wielding a machete and clubs in Seattle, a kid in Colorado who murdered his girlfriend’s mother with the help of his girlfriend and two others, who all made a point of proclaiming that they were Juggaloes, multiple attacks by people wearing makeup and proclaiming themselves Juggaloes in Utah, where police claim that about 1 in 6 of the group are criminals, and several other similar situations in Arizona. If you can get a few dozen or so Dopers to go on multiple crime sprees across the country while proclaiming their loyalty to Cecil or announcing that they are Dopers, then I would think that the police could refer to a gang called Dopers, even if they needed to tailor the definition to note that it did not include all Dopers. The FBI may be guilty of overstating the case, (although you have failed to demonstrate it), but this seems more Recreational Outrage. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/84 "2012-08-12T17:39:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Since it was already to be assumed, it was completely uninformative. I see that Recreational Outrage has now been extended to polite discussion on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/85 "2012-08-12T17:41:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I see that Recreational Outrage has now been extended to polite discussion on the SDMB. At that point, it’s more like Pastime Outrage. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/86 "2012-08-12T17:53:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I see that Recreational Outrage has now been extended to polite discussion on the SDMB. I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m not exaggerating for effect–I mean I literally have no clue what your comment here means. It’s an “I know each word, but what they mean in that order…?” moment for me. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/87 "2012-08-12T17:54:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not dodging the issue. You think there is some big deal about there never having been a single gang called skinheads. I repeat: So what? There is no claim that there is a single gang of juggalos. It’s the very first sentence. Do you not know how appositives work? ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/88 "2012-08-12T20:03:53Z")
According to [Table 3 : Gangs with members who has served in US Military](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/), its obvious (to me and others, like four persons in household I just asked) that FBI is calling the Juggalos/ICP a gang, more particularly a ‘street gang’ at that. No doubt in my mind AT ALL. Saying otherwise, in my humblest of opinions, demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of English usage (and intention of FBI’s communication of information in written format meant to ‘educate’ the ones reading said words). No if’s, and’s, or butts on this as far as I can tell. Is it really that unclear what is being communicated, in writing, in more than one location in document, in this instance?! If not, please explain how inclusion in Table 3 indicates NOT being a gang (by definition of FBI’s usage of word ‘gang’, of course). What other intent could possibly be meant to be listed in Table 3 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? IS there any other intent than to state, with no innuendo whatsoever(!), gangs with members who served in US military? Not that I agree the Jugs in toto are a gang, just so its known where I myself stand on the FBI’s ridiculous claim. I cannot see any other meaning, but am open to such other intent of inclusion being pointed out to me. Fight my ignorance here… Thanks in advance,\*\* tomndebb\*\*, for any clarification of how I might possibly be misinterpreting the inclusion of Juggalos/ICPs in said Table 3 🙂 Where is my error of thought/understanding of Table 3 saying the opposite of your thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/89 "2012-08-12T20:30:47Z")
> [@Ionizer](#): > > According to [Table 3 : Gangs with members who has served in US Military](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/), its obvious (to me and others, like four persons in household I just asked) that FBI is calling the Juggalos/ICP a gang, more particularly a ‘street gang’ at that. No doubt in my mind AT ALL. Saying otherwise, in my humblest of opinions, demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of English usage (and intention of FBI’s communication of information in written format meant to ‘educate’ the ones reading said words). No if’s, and’s, or butts on this as far as I can tell. Is it really that unclear what is being communicated, in writing, in more than one location in document, in this instance?! > > If not, please explain how inclusion in Table 3 indicates NOT being a gang (by definition of FBI’s usage of word ‘gang’, of course). What other intent could possibly be meant to be listed in Table 3 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? IS there any other intent than to state, with no innuendo whatsoever(!), gangs with members who served in US military? Not that I agree the Jugs in toto are a gang, just so its known where I myself stand on the FBI’s ridiculous claim. I cannot see any other meaning, but am open to such other intent of inclusion being pointed out to me. Fight my ignorance here… > > Thanks in advance,\*\* tomndebb\*\*, for any clarification of how I might possibly be misinterpreting the inclusion of Juggalos/ICPs in said Table 3 🙂 Where is my error of thought/understanding of Table 3 saying the opposite of your thoughts? Nothing there that says anything different than what has been said before. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/90 "2012-08-16T12:47:01Z")
If you think the FBI attacking civil rights is unprecedented, you need to read some history. This isn’t even a blip on the radar. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/91 "2012-08-16T17:37:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No, I’m pointing out that the wording of the report gives the impression that every Juggalo is a gang member, because it does: nowhere in the report does it say that not all Juggalos are gang members. Since the argument that the FBI has determined that all Juggalos are gang members and that all fans of ICP are in a gang has failed, the claim is now being scaled back to say the FBI is giving impression Juggalos are a gang by not specifically denying they are a gang. What you and **Frylock** are saying here is contradicted by the additional details later the same FBI announcement. If they were actually trying to give the impression you are concerned about, they probably wouldn’t contradict it themselves. > [@Frylock](#): > > People have cited the “although only four states…” sentence as evidence that it’s not saying they’re all gang members. But that sentence does exactly the opposite. That word “although” is there to show that what follows (only four states recognize them as a gang) is _in contrast_ to what the passage itself is trying to argue. Only four states recognize them, which might raise some doubt as to whether they’re really a gang or not. _But_, says the passage, they really _are_ a gang, and we’re going to tell you why. Again, no. The passage says that they’re only recognized as a gang in four states, but there is gang activity in other states. It’s not an argument that they’re all gang members or that all fans are a gang. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/92 "2012-08-16T17:39:47Z")
Where is the outrage about the FBI callously labeling every motorcycle enthusiast as being a murderous, meth-running thug? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/93 "2012-08-16T18:48:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Again, no. The passage says that they’re only recognized as a gang in four states, but there is gang activity in other states. It’s not an argument that they’re all gang members or that all fans are a gang. Read the following and tell me whether to be a P is to be a gang member. > [@](#): > > The P’s, a gang, are growing in number. Although only two gang lists actually name the P’s as a gang, many P-subsets exhibit ganglike activity and engage in criminal activity and violence. Can you read that and actually not come away with the clear understanding that the passage is saying that to be a member of the P’s is to be a member of a gang called The P’s? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/94 "2012-08-16T19:13:08Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Read the following and tell me whether to be a P is to be a gang member. > > Can you read that and actually not come away with the clear understanding that the passage is saying that to be a member of the P’s is to be a member of a gang called The P’s? Sorry, I meant to ask whether you can read that without understanding it to mean that to be a P is to be a member of a gang called The P’s. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/95 "2012-08-16T19:14:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Can you read that and actually not come away with the clear understanding that the passage is saying that to be a member of the P’s is to be a member of a gang called The P’s? I think this is a good example of focusing on irrelevant details and missing the point. You wrote that “many P-subsets exhibit ganglike activity and engage in criminal activity and violence,” which makes it very clear that not all groups of Ps are in gangs or are committing crimes. But somehow you’re drawing the conclusion that the FBI is saying or implying that all Ps are members of the P gang. Reading the full text instead of seizing on particular sentences or phrases makes the situation pretty obvious as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/96 "2012-08-16T19:21:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think this is a good example of focusing on irrelevant details and missing the point. You wrote that “many P-subsets exhibit ganglike activity and engage in criminal activity and violence,” which makes it very clear that not all groups of Ps are in gangs or are committing crimes. No, it doesn’t make that clear at all. It makes it clear that not all groups of P’s are “engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity.” But being engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity is not a necessary condition on being a gang member. > [@](#): > > But somehow you’re drawing the conclusion that the FBI is saying or implying that all Ps are members of the P gang. I’m not drawing a conclusion. I’m reading. I guess I’ll ask you the question I asked **Tomndeb** –do you know how appositives work? The first sentence, becaues of the appositive phrase, literally _asserts_ that to be a Juggalo is to be in a gang. That’s not an implication. It’s what the sentence _literally says_. Again, I think it’s all silly, and I’m as inclined to think the problem is basically with someone in the FBI who doesn’t know how to write (or possibly think) as I am to think the FBI actually thinks every Juggalo is a gang member. But none of that changes the fact that the report actually does classify every Juggalo as a gang member. > [@](#): > > Reading the full text instead of seizing on particular sentences or phrases makes the situation pretty obvious as far as I’m concerned. It seems to me the bit I rephrased covers everything important to the interpretation question. What passage do you think is relevant that I’m not looking at? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/97 "2012-08-16T19:28:49Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > No, it doesn’t make that clear at all. It makes it clear that not all groups of P’s are “engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity.” But being engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity is not a necessary condition on being a gang member. Unless this is turning into some kind of existential exercise, yes, those are most certainly necessary conditions for being a gang member. If the FBI is saying many subsets do this, it ought to be transparently obvious that they’re saying not everybody is in such a subset and that the behavior can’t be attributed to the group at large. Now it sounds like “The FBI’s unprecedented attack on civil rights” has been downgraded to “The FBI’s grammar is shaky.” Footnote to the FBI report: > [@](#): > > Juggalos are traditionally fans of the musical group the Insane Clown Posse. Which makes it sound like being an ICP fan doesn’t even make you a Juggalo, let alone a gang member. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/98 "2012-08-16T19:40:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Unless this is turning into some kind of existential exercise, yes, those are most certainly necessary conditions for being a gang member. To my knowledge, the only thing you need to do to be a gang member is to declare yourself to be a member of that gang (together with whatever requirements the gang itself adds on to that declaration, if it adds any). Do you have a citation that says otherwise? I’ll admit I’m just making an assumption here. > [@](#): > > If the FBI is saying many subsets do this, it ought to be transparently obvious that they’re saying not everybody is in such a subset and that the behavior can’t be attributed to the group at large. Now it sounds like “The FBI’s unprecedented attack on civil rights” has been downgraded to “The FBI’s grammar is shaky.” Well yeah, I’ve already said, twice, that I’m as inclined to think the people who put this report together just weren’t thinking clearly about the meaning of what they wrote, as I am to think they actually mean to say every Juggalo is a gang member. But nevertheless, whether they meant it or not, they do say that to be a Juggalo is to be a member of a gang. > [@](#): > > Footnote to the FBI report: > > Which makes it sound like being an ICP fan doesn’t even make you a Juggalo, let alone a gang member. It doesn’t make it sound like anything. The statement is easily compatible with either every fan being a Juggalo, or some fans not being Juggalos. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/99 "2012-08-16T20:04:38Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > To my knowledge, the only thing you need to do to be a gang member is to declare yourself to be a member of that gang (together with whatever requirements the gang itself adds on to that declaration, if it adds any). In the eyes of the law? I have to think there is more to it than that. > [@](#): > > But nevertheless, whether they meant it or not, they do say that to be a Juggalo is to be a member of a gang. No, they don’t. They say four states recognize Juggalos as a gang, but that a larger number of states have “have identified criminal Juggalo sub-sets.” They say “many” such subsets “exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence.” Later the FBI says (and I’ve quoted this before) “open source reporting suggests that a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity.” I don’t think there is any sensible way to read this and conclude that the FBI is saying Juggalo = gang member. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141/100 "2012-08-16T20:26:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In the eyes of the law? I have to think there is more to it than that. I don’t see why–remember that gang membership isn’t itself a crime. So it’s not like I’m saying states could prosecute a person just for declaring allegience to a gang. A gang enhancement would require that _plus_ several other factors. > [@](#): > > No, they don’t. They say four states recognize Juggalos as a gang, but that a larger number of states have “have identified criminal Juggalo sub-sets.” They say “many” such subsets “exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence.” Later the FBI says (and I’ve quoted this before) “open source reporting suggests that a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity.” I don’t think there is any sensible way to read this and conclude that the FBI is saying Juggalo = gang member. I don’t understand why you are not reading that word “subsets” and not seeing that they are referring to subsets of the group previously mentioned in the passage–the Juggalos-- which was already identified, as a whole, in itself, as a gang. “Juggalo-subsets” are a subset of the Juggalos. Meanwhile, the Juggalos (not just "juggalo-subsets) are, as stated in the very first sentence, a gang. The activities of the juggalo-subsets are not limiting the scope of the claim to just those subsets. They are explaining what it is that constitutes the juggalos, _as a whole_, as a gang. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fbis-unprecedented-attack-on-civil-rights-2012-fbi-vs-juggalos/631141.md?page=6)