I agree with that. But it’s irrelevant. Your rant is based on semantic tricks. The FBI doesn’t think all Juggalos are gang members, just that some gang members are Juggalos. And since they are Juggalos, I don’t give a shit.
That’s not true.
All of this is completely wrong and totally contradicted by your cite. However Ravenmna’s comparison of this to the hue and cry over the supposed “targeting” of military veterans is apt. The FBI is not cracking down on Juggalos based on their appearance, listening habits, or appearance. Their presumption of innocence is not being taken away. The FBI release a report saying an increasing number of them are involved in gang activity and that this is something that bears monitoring. That seems reasonable to me.
This is supposed to convince me that this is a bad thing?
“But is the FBI going to crack down on the Juggalos based on their appearance?”
“Shut up.”
The point is that the memo doesn’t identify them as some kind of criminal organization, doesn’t propose targeting them, and doesn’t remove any kind of presumption of innocence. It says most of the crimes committed by ICP fans don’t show evidence of gang activity but some of them do.
Jim grows pot. He sells some of the pot to Harvey, who in turn will sell it to other people. They are now a gang?
When there is evidence that the FBI is tracking Faygo purchases I’ll be concerned.
No, mainly because a gang requires three people who have to identify as an organization. A dude who sells to a dude who sells to a dude who sells isn’t a gang.
On the other hand, if those three dudes get together in Jim’s living room and lay out a plan for being more efficient and making sure they aren’t stepping on one another’s toes or whatever, then yes, they’re a gang.
If you have a group of people who are selling drugs, assaulting people, or committing robberies (or some combination of the above) and other crimes, is it unfair to call them a gang? I don’t think making the most limited possible comparison really accomplishes anything.
I’d love to be wrong about this. I’d love to think that law enforcement will be respectful of the powers they hold and will use those powers with diligent discretion. I’d love to think that the FBI would never sink so low as to discriminate against a group of people based on appearance. Is that the world we live in?
I really love the attitude here that discrimination is okay as long as it’s not happening to me.
I don’t think applying the gang label really accomplishes much in the case of Juggalos, except to try and legitimize harassment.
Bongzilla is a band that plays stoner metal (one of many). They write songs about smoking pot. They purchase and use marijuana as a group. They have a logo. Are they a gang?
They fit your (and the LEOs) definition: they are a group of people engaged in the distribution and consumption of illegal substances, with a self-identifying name and artwork. Are they a gang? If yes, what good does it do to classify them as a gang?
It only takes 2 people to form a conspiracy. RICO can be applied to a single individual. Why do you think it takes 3 people to form a gang?
Why do you keep bringing appearance into it? I know these people wear makeup, but that’s not the issue. Other gangs are also identified based on appearance (whether it’s race, clothes of a particular color, logos, things like that). THE FBI IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE. It’s noting that some of them are in gangs.
Sigh. The FBI did not classify all fans as a gang. If groups of Bongzilla fans dealing are drugs, assaulting people, and committing robberies, then yes, those groups might be gangs. Sound reasonable?
I don’t know why. I’m just citing the federal definition.
That’s not what I asked. I asked if the band was a gang. The fit your definition; do you consider them gang? Why or why not? If yes, what good does it do to refer to them as a gang?
The problem with noting that “some of them are in gangs” is that it’s substituting association for guilt. If not everyone who is a Juggalo is a gang member, then why identify the gang members by their, um, Juggalocity? Juggalotiousness? The way it looks to ICP and their fans is that they are all being declared guilty of being in a gang because some people who engage in criminal acts also happen to like ICP.
The FBI (and LEOs of various states seem to be saying that if the Bloods (a real gang) put out an album and it was a hit, everyone that had a Bloods bumper sticker or wore a Bloods concert t-shirt is now a member of the gang. That guilt-by-association nomenclature is what is so troubling to the band and it’s fanbase.
In the 1960s, every college student that opposed the war was not a member of the SDS. And not every member of the SDS was a member of the Weather Underground.
Well, I think that thinking it takes 3 people to form a gang because that’s how the DOJ defines it is pretty reasonable. 
Thanks for that info; I hadn’t ever seen that before.
I didn’t realize you were asking about the band specifically.
No they don’t. A group of people buying drugs for their own use isn’t a gang. A group of people involved in dealing drugs (along with robberies and assaults) sounds a lot like a gang.
If the data says some of them are in gangs and that it’s a growing problem, why can’t the FBI note that fact?
Well, not to imply that ICP and their upset fans are fucking stupid, but… they are fucking stupid.
No, they aren’t. Will you please read the OP’s cite? I get the sense that everybody complaining about the profiling and the “unprecedented attack on civil rights” is doing so based on a vague impression of what they feel is going on rather than basing their views on the facts.
No.
Just to expand a little further on this: nowhere does the FBI say or even imply that everyone who listens to ICP is a gang member, and they don’t say anyone is a gang member just by virtue of listening to the band. They say there are some gangs of fans. The cite DWMarch linked to is very clear about this, and I already quoted the relevant passage. Nobody is presumed to be a gang member just because they’re a fan. This is a national report on trends in gang activity, and they are saying they’re seeing more of this.
Cite? I don’t care what the PR flack says in response to media inquiries. Of course they are not going to say “Fuck yeah we support the lunatic who shot his wife!” But I just looked up the lyrics for a few of their songs (including “The Juggla”, apparently the origin of the name “Juggalo”), and I am having trouble discerning the positive message.
Can you please point out the positive message behind “The Juggla”?
EDIT: Incidentally, I have never heard of ICP before this thread. But I am tired of hearing musicians hide behind the “This is for entertainment purposes only and I don’t actually believe a word I’m saying!” bullshit.
… well that’s how they used RICO on Sons of Anarchy, so there ! :o
That being said, the first line of the Wiki article seems to agree: “Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering.”. Seems to me that’s clear enough: if you’re a member of a group targeted by RICO, you’re good for a charge and a prosecution. It might not stick of course - you have to actually have done *something *illegal yourself, or have been aware of something illegal going on to be convicted - but you’re still in some trouble, and even minor crimes can become big jail time if “enhanced” by RICO.
That’s the whole point of RICO, as I understand it: to bring down criminal organisations bottom to top, even though the big boss might be too distanced from the actual crimes committed to be charged with them.