What's wrong with this question?

Therefore, after having my post scrubbed, I’m returning to the "Police Investigation" thread on the Law subforum to ask a perfectly valid question for the second time:

I don't understand why my question was deleted when it specifically concerns police conduct.*

To reiterate: which division within the Department of Justice is responsible for investigating illegal actions taken by negligent employees at government agencies (such as the Federal Reserve) that could potentially result in someone's death?

*Sure, there might have been a hint of trolling involved, but I still think the core question is legitimate.

- and then I get an "explanation" from the moderator crimsonsailor7:

You have received a warning at Reddit.

Reason:
-------
Violation of subforum rules.

- so now I’m wondering, which specific rule am I breaking by asking about police investigations in a thread dedicated to police investigations? Is it against the rules to pose logical questions that simply don't follow the established status quo?

Logical questions that supposedly don't follow standard practice? omg, what are you even talking about?

Look, if you actually want to report someone to the authorities, just head over to the Democratic Party headquarters and file a report, they'll tell you exactly who to talk to and how to handle it... Since that previous post was basically just a continuation of some troll post from earlier and ended up getting nuked, this one got deleted too. Trying to disguise trolling as logical questions that supposedly don't follow standard practice is still just trolling, plus it doesn't even belong in this thread...

crimsonsailor7 said:Logical questions that don't strictly follow standard practice? omg, what are you even talking about?

If you want to report someone to the authorities, just head over to the Democratic Party office and file a report; they'll tell you exactly who to talk to and how to do it. Given that this post was clearly just a follow-up to a previous trolling thread and got nuked, this one got wiped too. Hiding trolling under the guise of logical questions that don't strictly follow standard practice is still just trolling, and frankly, it doesn't belong in this specific discussion.

First off, I’d love to hear from an actual "insider" here—Brian Edwards6—about what I should realistically expect from the Democratic Party. Why was this even deleted?
Why is asking about a police investigation regarding a report of illegal conduct within a thread about police investigations considered trolling or "off-topic"? Is this discussion strictly limited to instances where the police physically beat someone or pull them over on the street?

And if you genuinely don't understand my point, what kind of criteria are you actually using for moderation?

I’m looking for a response from one of the supermoderators or admins here, because I’d like to follow up on my question within that specific thread. And I want to make sure I don't get shut out of providing further clarification here, too.

casualharbor9 said:Why would they delete that?

Look, you actually admitted you were just trolling, therefore it’s pretty obvious why the mods wiped it...

casualharbor9 said:And if you don't even know what I'm talking about, what kind of criteria are you even using for moderation?

I totally get what you're getting at, which is exactly why I said this doesn't belong in this thread. The Federal Reserve just follows the orders they're given. Even if they messed up on their end, that's a matter of civil liability, not criminal charges...

casualharbor9 said:And I don't want my chance to clarify things later to be unfairly taken away here either.

You haven't been shut out from anything 🤷 you asked your question in such a harsh way across two different topics without actually explaining where the issue lies, and you unnecessarily derailed the conversation by claiming it was an attempted murder, when all of this could have stayed within the discussion about foreclosures and been settled there...

crimsonsailor7 said:You admitted yourself that you were just trolling, therefore it’s pretty obvious why it was deleted.

I’ll be the first to admit it: I was trolling. That happened during the part where I jumped in to build on that previous post, and yeah, I actually owned up to it.

I know exactly what you’re getting at, which is why I mentioned earlier that this isn't the right thread for this specific question. The Federal Reserve operates based on the mandates and orders they receive. Even if they actually did mess up on their end, we’re looking at civil liability here, not criminal charges.

What does "civic responsibility" actually mean? Am I exercising any kind of "civic responsibility" if I’m flying down the highway at 90 mph, completely oblivious to the fact that the speed limit just dropped to 35? And then, because I couldn't be bothered to adjust my speed, I cause a massive pileup? Can I just shrug my shoulders at the end of it all and say, "Sorry, I didn't realize the limit changed here," and expect everyone to just let me off the hook?

Since when does being ignorant of the facts grant you immunity from criminal liability? In my opinion, it doesn't. The Federal Reserve (or perhaps some unknown entity within the agency)... They took my entire monthly income—which, by the way, I earned elsewhere and wasn't even working for the Federal Reserve to get—and that’s completely illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong here. No court or debt collection agency ever issued an order like this. A garnishment order (assuming one even exists, since I wasn't notified) is supposed to be for specific collections, right? Or is the court acting outside the law now, just sending out orders to seize every last cent of someone's basic living funds?

So, what exactly is the role of the police then? Is the Department of Justice just some private security firm running on a limited liability model? Or is the Federal Reserve somehow exempt from the law by some secret clause?

You haven't been deprived of anything. 🤷 You posed your question regarding those two topics with such rigid formality, yet you completely failed to explain what the actual issue is. You unnecessarily derailed the entire discussion by jumping to the extreme conclusion that this was an attempted murder. Honestly, all of this could have stayed within the thread about foreclosures, where it actually belongs, and been resolved there.

Could this be considered attempted murder, or at least reckless endangerment? I’ve gone into more detail on that specific point elsewhere—which is something that really needs to be addressed here—but isn't intentionally stripping someone of food, water, shelter, sleep, and every other basic necessity required for human survival for 30 or 31 days essentially an attempt to kill them? Luckily, air is still free.
It’s obvious that the Law sub should be strictly focused on content, but does one really need to go out and prove physiological facts just to avoid being labeled a troll?

Besides, we’re discussing this in all the wrong places. Honestly, someone could easily argue you’re just trolling the thread at this point...

So, what exactly was wrong with my question? Is there a more appropriate place where I can go ahead and rephrase it?

casualharbor9 said:What does "civic responsibility" even actually mean in practice... because honestly, people throw that term around like it's some kind of magic bullet for fixing society, but when you really sit down and try to pin it down, it’s such a massive, heavy concept...

Look, we’re talking about civil liability under the law here... just because someone breaks a rule doesn't mean it automatically becomes a criminal offense, and you don't get hit with criminal charges for every single little thing that goes sideways... honestly, that speeding example you brought up doesn't really apply to what we're discussing at all...

casualharbor9 said:Since when does being clueless about the actual facts actually get you off the hook for criminal liability...

Look, I never said they just let people go, and if we're talking about an actual felony, there's no way they're just dropping the charges...
Nah, I don't think so... I'm just trolling... Anyway, to follow up on what you were asking earlier, we can definitely dive deeper into all that stuff over on Reddit if you want...

casualharbor9 said:So, I'm just wondering what exactly was wrong with my question, and if there's somewhere else I should be posting it instead...

Like I said before, we can definitely touch base over in Austin... But honestly, it would be a huge help if you could lay out the whole situation with a bit more detail than just saying the Federal Reserve grabbed your money, because we really need to get the full picture if we're going to figure out what our next move should be...

crimsonsailor7 said:It’s a matter of civil liability. Not every single violation of the law qualifies as a criminal offense, nor is everyone held accountable under criminal statutes for everything. Your speeding example doesn't really apply here.

What kind of act is it to leave someone to die like a tied-up dog through an unlawful procedure? —sorry, my bad, dear animal lovers...
My speeding example isn't relevant—because apparently, not all laws apply to everyone?

It doesn't grant immunity if a criminal act was committed, and I didn't say it did.
But, so I don't troll you further by answering your questions, we can just move this discussion over to a legal forum.

...

Like I said, we could talk about collections. Of course, it would be helpful if you described the situation with more than just "the Federal Reserve took my money," so we actually know how to proceed.

...we could have just headed straight there 🙂, though I'm not sure if I'll have the energy left today... and there are still plenty of us in this country who have matured enough to want to hang that avatar of yours around our necks...

Look, laws are supposed to apply to everyone equally, but you can't just lump them all together like that... Criminal law and civil law are two completely different beasts, totally separate branches with their own sets of rules and procedures. Just because you feel like the Federal Reserve basically swindled you doesn't mean they actually did anything illegal that justifies a police investigation.
Anyway, let's move on to the garnishments, since we're pretty much done here.

crimsonsailor7 said:The laws apply to everyone equally, but you can't just lump them all together like that. Criminal law and civil law are two entirely separate branches—different statutes, different procedures. Just because you feel like the Federal Reserve swindled you doesn't mean they actually did, and it certainly doesn't mean you can report it to the cops.
In any case, let's move on from the collection proceedings; we're done here.

I don't have an opinion on whether someone acted with malice, by accident, or through pure negligence. If an illegal action puts a life at risk and there's clear evidence of it, then it becomes a matter for a police investigation. That’s why I’m looking for an answer from the perspective of someone like Brian Edwards6, rather than some judge acting as prosecutor and jury combined...
Please don't try to shift the goalposts when we're already playing in the big leagues. 😉

therefore: is there any logical reason why a moderator or admin wouldn't want me asking about a police investigation within a thread specifically dedicated to discussing police investigations?

Cheers for now, hoping I don't find this thread locked tomorrow morning...

I just honestly can't wrap my head around it 🤦

casualharbor9 said:... if someone's life is actually at risk due to an illegal procedure and there's clear evidence of that, then it becomes a matter for a police investigation. That's why I'm looking for a perspective from someone like Brian Edwards6...

Frankly, this question makes zero sense within a thread dedicated to "Police Investigation." As crimsonsailor7 already pointed out, you aren't going to get a useful answer here without drifting completely off-topic.👍

P.S.: Just for context, I’m coming at this as a police officer, a moderator, and someone who recently had their entire paycheck frozen by the Federal Reserve (though perhaps not necessarily in that specific order).👍

Brian Edwards6 said:This question makes zero sense in a thread about a police investigation. Like crimsonsailor7 already pointed out, you aren't going to get any real answers here that won't just be total nonsense anyway.👍

What’s the logic here? Are we supposed to believe that the police just don't launch an investigation when someone's actual life or health is on the line?

Just to be clear, I’m coming at this from a few different angles: I’m speaking as a police officer, as a moderator, and as someone who has personally had their entire last paycheck frozen and seized by the Federal Reserve—though maybe not necessarily in that exact order.👍

So, they actually took your entire paycheck?

crimsonsailor7 said:I just can't bring myself to believe it. 🤦

Honestly, I’m right there with you. It's hard to wrap your head around what fiscal tyranny has actually done to the people in this country.

casualharbor9 said:Why wouldn't it make sense? Doesn't the police investigate when someone's life or health is at risk?...

Now you’re just expanding the scope to include everything under the sun. Sure, the police respond when there's a direct threat to someone's physical safety or health (though even that isn't an absolute, given there are other agencies for different types of threats), but no, they aren't going to step in because the Federal Reserve decides to seize my entire paycheck. There are much more appropriate threads for that specific grievance, and "police investigation" certainly isn't one of them.👍

casualharbor9 said:... Seized your whole paycheck?

Yes, they did.👍

Brian Edwards6 said:Now you're just stretching this topic out in every possible direction. Sure, a police investigation happens when someone's life or health is threatened (though even that isn't an absolute rule, since other agencies handle different kinds of threats), but no, they don't step in just because the Federal Reserve decides to garnish my entire paycheck. There are plenty of more appropriate threads for that, and "police investigation" isn't one of them.👍

I'm "stretching the topic"—or is it just that someone in this country is arbitrarily seizing judicial, executive, and legislative powers simply because they have the opportunity?

therefore; the law distinguishes based on motives, methods, and means regarding threats to life and health—so based on that, the executive branch initiates (or doesn't) a proceeding, and then the judiciary convicts or acquits???
Where exactly does it say that? Please, give me a quote or a source.

Yes.👍

Was that a lawful or unlawful procedure?
What constitutes illegal debt collection? Doesn't financial crime fall under the jurisdiction of the police?

Is this actually the Legal subforum, or am I just being trolled here?

casualharbor9 said:... Was that a legal or illegal procedure?...

Even if we assume it was illegal, that doesn't automatically make it a criminal offense. 👍

And no, that doesn't actually meet the statutory definition of "unlawful collection."👍

P.S.: Regarding the flow of this conversation, I think it's best if any specific legal questions are moved to the appropriate thread (in this case, the one dedicated to debt collection) just to avoid any unnecessary confusion.👍

Brian Edwards6 said:Just because something violates a regulation doesn't automatically make it a criminal offense. 👍

So, what, endangering someone's life or health through negligence—or whatever else might be going on here—isn't a crime?

And yeah, technically that doesn't fit the legal definition of "unlawful collection."👍

Poor choice of words... on several levels, I'd say.

P.S.: Regarding the discussion itself, I agree that if you have specific legal questions, they should be posted in the appropriate thread (like the one for debt collection, just to avoid any confusion).👍

Then where am I supposed to ask about police misconduct when an illegal procedure puts lives or health at risk?

casualharbor9 said:Is endangering someone's life or health through negligence—or who knows what else—not considered a criminal offense?...

Based on my own experience and how things currently work in the US legal system, no, a wage garnishment isn't a criminal offense. If you feel otherwise, you’re more than welcome to reach out to the District Attorney's office; they can provide you with a specific, well-substantiated answer that will hopefully leave you feeling satisfied.👍

On the other hand, it actually *is* a potential crime for you and me to have taken on debt that we knew, right from the start, we wouldn't be able to repay. Isn't that part bothering you at all?😕