Stupid pet tricks

[Demosthenes]

Woman Apologizes for Pitbull Attack on IRS Employee
Santa Clarita, Calif. (April 7, 2008)
By WebCPA staff
|
Lisa Hrizco Blechman of Santa Clarita Valley, Calif., apologized at her sentencing hearing for trying to encourage her two dogs to attack an IRS employee who taped a summons on her front door.

Blechman, 47, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of assaulting a federal officer, according to the Daily Breeze. On Oct. 30, 2007, IRS employee Ruth Seidman went to Blechman's residence to serve a summons of an audit of her husband's business.

When the employee identified herself, Blechman began yelling and swearing at her, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Blechman told Seidman that if she did not remove the summons, Blechman would come outside with her dogs. As Seidman began to walk to her vehicle, Blechman opened the front door and released the dogs, including a pit bull, to scare the IRS employee. They did not run out and attack, but Seidman said the dogs frightened her. Blechman's attorney argued that the dogs were harmless and her pitbull was arthritic. Blechman was sentenced to two years' probation on the assault charge.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Glock 20 stops pitbulls immediately.

Unfortunately, most federal employees are generally prohibited from carrying firearms while working. Postal mail carriers often carry mace (not the stick with the spikes, but the chemical spray) to deal with dogs. Probably would be a good idea for IRS workers who serve documents.

Then again, in some states (Massachusetts), mace is considered to be a firearm and requires a (difficult to obtain) concealed carry permit.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Two, the Glock Model 20 is in 10mm. Although the FBI briefly adopted 10mm handguns as standard issue in the early 90s, for various reasons too complex to go into here they quickly dumped it in favor of pistols chambered for the .40 S&W round.

Mostly because the 10mm has a thoroughly unpleasant recoil (I know someone who sprained their wrist firing a Colt Delta Elite).

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Two, the Glock Model 20 is in 10mm. Although the FBI briefly adopted 10mm handguns as standard issue in the early 90s, for various reasons too complex to go into here they quickly dumped it in favor of pistols chambered for the .40 S&W round.

Mostly because the 10mm has a thoroughly unpleasant recoil (I know someone who sprained their wrist firing a Colt Delta Elite).

I found the Glock 20 to be quite shootable. Something about the ergonomics of the Glock, perhaps the wide grip compared to the Colt Delta Elite. I am not some uber-giant recoil loving thug either. For a semi-auto and as a personal defense round, the 10mm is probably the gold-standard. However, some people (particularly those of slight build with small hands) would find the Glock 20 to be unmanageable. For them, perhaps one of the Glocks that shoot the 20 Short & Weak. (An intentional dig at CKB, who has a Glock in 40 S&W).

[Leftcoaster]

One, only in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts would mace be considered a "firearm." What a bunch of socialist weenies.

All things are relative, I suppose...

Up here in the frozen Tundra, Mace and Pepper Spray are considered restricted weapons. When I worked for customs, we had a bin for travellers to surrender said items when they crossed the border. Ironically, a chemically identical can of "Bear Scare" can be purchased at most camping/outdoors stores. Imagine a mace/pepper spray dispenser, and then think "Costco"

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Glock 20 stops pitbulls immediately.

Unfortunately, most federal employees are generally prohibited from carrying firearms while working. Postal mail carriers often carry mace (not the stick with the spikes, but the chemical spray) to deal with dogs. Probably would be a good idea for IRS workers who serve documents.

Then again, in some states (Massachusetts), mace is considered to be a firearm and requires a (difficult to obtain) concealed carry permit.

I have a friend who is active on a regional multi-jurisdictional drub lab take down squad. Meth labs are the main "issue" in this area and he participates in a lot of meth lab busts. One particularly nasty area is a trailer court inhabited by immigrants who keep a lot of pit bulls for "protection". My friend says that a CO2 fire extinguisher is usually enough to dissuade a charging dog. On the occasion that fails, a round of buckshot works everytime.

So the moral of the story is the IRS workers need to lug around a 40 lb. CO2 extinguisher....

I notice a few select citizens of Quatloosia have once again subverted a thread into the realm of firearms.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

I notice a few select citizens of Quatloosia have once again subverted a thread into the realm of firearms.

[Homer Simpson Drool Voice]Guns.... Ahhh....[/Home Simpson Drool Voice]

Actually, I suspect that a can of mace would be a better choice for most people who are concerned about dog attacks. Much easier to hit your target and very effective. Gives more meaning to the phrase "spray and pray" though.

Also, CKB, I think I confused you with UGA Lawdog. I thought you were the one singing the praises of the Glock in 40 Cal. a while back. Sorry.

On a more serious note (and to get the thread back on track), I am bothered that the IRS employee was potentially put at serious (perhaps fatal) risk by this defendant and perhaps a little time in jail would have been more appropriate than just two years probation. Does that IRS have a policy in dealing with potentially violent tax payers (or deniers) and a method of "flagging" their files?

[Leftcoaster]

Does that IRS have a policy in dealing with potentially violent tax payers (or deniers) and a method of "flagging" their files?

I know that the Canada Revenue Agency has a system for flagging the files of potentially violent taxpayers. I would be very surprised indeed if something similar didn't exist with the IRS.

[webhick]

Does that IRS have a policy in dealing with potentially violent tax payers (or deniers)

Maybe if you're an agent, and you ask real nice...they'll reimburse you for a pair of cheap running shoes.

I find the easiest way to get rid of someone is to profess your undying love their left hand. Just keep in mind that if they're a lefty, make it the right hand. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

...Actually, I suspect that a can of mace would be a better choice for most people who are concerned about dog attacks. Much easier to hit your target and very effective. Gives more meaning to the phrase "spray and pray" though.

Spray, pray, and run like hell! In the scenario I presented, my friend and his colleagues don't have that option considering that the dog could be the least dangerous creature facing them, i.e. well-armed meth cookers. He said the fire extinguisher seems to work because the dog has never seen anything like a cloud of white vapor being shot at "him", and the momentary lack of oxygen seems to take the wind out of their sails.

On a more serious note (and to get the thread back on track), I am bothered that the IRS employee was potentially put at serious (perhaps fatal) risk by this defendant and perhaps a little time in jail would have been more appropriate than just two years probation. Does that IRS have a policy in dealing with potentially violent tax payers (or deniers) and a method of "flagging" their files?

Very good point. This person probably had no idea they were going to have a violent confrontation and something should be done to protect these personnel.

[Demosthenes]

Does that IRS have a policy in dealing with potentially violent tax payers (or deniers) and a method of "flagging" their files?

They do. The label is PDT (potentially dangerous taxpayer.)

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part25/ch04s01.html

[The Observer]

Getting the label assigned is problematic since it is another issue of the IRS "creating" a "list" for which the subject has no chance to contest. While the goal has been to make getting a person on the list more objective, the decision is still made by a small group of people far removed from the circumstances of the event relying on the report of the particular TIGTA agent(s). This means that there is little uniformity in the decision as to why, given similar circumstances, a particular taxpayer ended up on the PDT list as opposed to another taxpayer who did not. As an example the above case with the dogs most likely resulted in the convicted being labeled as a PDT for using her animals. But I am aware of another case of a revenue officer who was held against his will in a taxpayer's house who had brought his two Doberman Pinschers in as assistance that resulted in no PDT indicator being placed as well as no arrest or charges filed for kidnapping.

[ASITStands]

I have seen two instances where the PDT designation appeared on certain master file transcripts, and the only connection was the fact the person owned hand guns or was retired military and protested the tax. There was no instance of actual threat against an agent.

We attempted to discover how the labeling had occurred. There's a database entitled "PDT System," but we were unable to extract information due to an enforcement exclusion.

It's difficult to understand how and why some people are placed on lists and not others.