PDA

View Full Version : "virtual" CCW'er: Off-duty IRS agent shoots would-be robber in SF


Paladin
08-05-2010, 7:53 AM
I call off-duty LEOs "virtual CCW'ers" since that is what they are: they usually don't have back-up, a radio, a vest, or any of the other support that they do when on the job. They're usually just a person CCWing who suddenly finds themselves in immediate need of a gun. IOW, their only "Good Cause" for carrying at that time of the incident was "self-defense," the very GC not accepted as sufficient by most sheriffs of major urban CA counties. :mad:

I'll add this as example number 32 in the webpage linked in my sig line.

Below text (and news video) from:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7593861

Off-duty IRS agent shoots would-be robber in SF

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- San Francisco police say one robbery suspect ended up shot when he and others targeted an off-duty federal officer in the Bayview District.

The shooting happened in a residential court of the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood.

San Francisco police say the robbery attempt happened around midnight in the 100 block of Marlin Court. The off-duty IRS agent ending up shooting and wounding one suspect in the torso. That suspect initially ran off, but was found and taken to the hospital and is expected to survive.

Police detained another man found at a house nearby and are questioning him as another possible suspect. They're also trying to determine if there was a third suspect involved.

An IRS spokesperson said the victim involved is a special agent in criminal investigations.

SFPD said the agent was off-duty at the time. It's still unclear whether the victim lives in the area or was visiting.
(Copyright ©2010 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

ojisan
08-05-2010, 8:04 AM
I was going to post this.
A classic example of the need for shall-issue CCW.
The IRS agent was lucky enough to be authorized to carry.
You and I should be able to carry and protect ourselves, too.

spiderpigs
08-05-2010, 8:14 AM
Was he trying to get robbed? Walking around in that area during the day is sketchy.

a1c
08-05-2010, 8:24 AM
As much as I agree with some of the premise, the difference is also that LEOs take an oath to uphold the law, even when they're off duty.

I personally don't think civilian CCWers should try to stop robbers. When you take your CCW permit training, you'll actually be told not to. You can make a citizen's arrest, but it's probably not a good idea in many cases.

Here the story however mentions that the robbers targeted the off duty cop, so that's a different story - it looks more like self-defense.

AJAX22
08-05-2010, 8:34 AM
They targeted an it's pencil pusher for robbery

how is that different from them looking to rob an accountant?

JimWest
08-05-2010, 8:51 AM
The worst part of course is that the perpetrator will be audited for the rest of his life.

IRS agent can have my 3 finger salute.

mbrown
08-05-2010, 9:03 AM
So, summing up: if you work for the government you have the right to self defense in San Francisco. "Regular" citizens (read: law abiders with no criminal record) are irresponsible and have no such right.

Crom
08-05-2010, 9:17 AM
So, summing up: if you work for the government you have the right to self defense in San Francisco. "Regular" citizens (read: law abiders with no criminal record) are irresponsible and have no such right.

We have the right, but it has not been judicially enforced in the state of California...yet.

The supreme court said:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. p. 20 Mcdonald v. Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf)

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 9:30 AM
I call off-duty LEOs "virtual CCW'ers" since that is what they are: they usually don't have back-up, a radio, a vest, or any of the other support that they do when on the job. They're usually just a person CCWing who suddenly finds themselves in immediate need of a gun. IOW, their only "Good Cause" for carrying at that time of the incident was "self-defense," the very GC not accepted as sufficient by most sheriffs of major urban CA counties. :mad:

I'll add this as example number 32 in the webpage linked in my sig line.

Below text (and news video) from:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7593861

Off-duty IRS agent shoots would-be robber in SF

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- San Francisco police say one robbery suspect ended up shot when he and others targeted an off-duty federal officer in the Bayview District.

The shooting happened in a residential court of the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood.

San Francisco police say the robbery attempt happened around midnight in the 100 block of Marlin Court. The off-duty IRS agent ending up shooting and wounding one suspect in the torso. That suspect initially ran off, but was found and taken to the hospital and is expected to survive.

Police detained another man found at a house nearby and are questioning him as another possible suspect. They're also trying to determine if there was a third suspect involved.

An IRS spokesperson said the victim involved is a special agent in criminal investigations.

SFPD said the agent was off-duty at the time. It's still unclear whether the victim lives in the area or was visiting.
(Copyright ©2010 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

I remember a similar case during medical school. I was in DC, and there was an increasing number of car jackings. It almost seemed like it was going epidemic, with alarmingly more cases each week.

I suppose that the criminals felt emboldened by the gun ban, but one day someone tried to carjack a vehicle from an off-duty federal agent. The perp was shot and killed, and low and behold the carjackings went to zero for a couple of months before slowing increasing again.

Coincidence?

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 9:32 AM
We have the right, but it has not been judicially enforced in the state of California...yet.

The supreme court said:

. p. 20 Mcdonald v. Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf)

Yes, but many anti-gunners are taking the Supreme Court decision to say "People have a right to self-defense, but only inside their own homes. Outside they deserve to be slaughtered like cattle to keep from offending our sensibilities."

faterikcartman
08-05-2010, 9:43 AM
As much as I agree with some of the premise, the difference is also that LEOs take an oath to uphold the law, even when they're off duty.

I personally don't think civilian CCWers should try to stop robbers. When you take your CCW permit training, you'll actually be told not to. You can make a citizen's arrest, but it's probably not a good idea in many cases.

Here the story however mentions that the robbers targeted the off duty cop, so that's a different story - it looks more like self-defense.

Cops are not supermen dude. They're just people. I'll be more than happy to take an oath to uphold the law. I would even be willing to go through the same classes LEO does -- on my dime. The bottom line is we're now a two tier society of privileged classes, with non-government types seen as little people and subjects, rather than citizens supposedly in charge of government.

Python2
08-05-2010, 9:54 AM
I personally don't think civilian CCWers should try to stop robbers. When you take your CCW permit training, you'll actually be told not to. You can make a citizen's arrest, but it's probably not a good idea in many cases.

.

You mean just give him your money or what ever you have of value when you are being rob and hope they dont kill you? :eek:So why even go for CCW?
And you must be joking to even think of making a citizens arrest on robbers:rolleyes:

andalusi
08-05-2010, 10:10 AM
They targeted an it's pencil pusher for robbery

how is that different from them looking to rob an accountant?

You didn't read the article very closely. The guy is a member of the IRS CID (http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=98398,00.html). These are the guys who took down Capone and that was the division just getting started.

You mean just give him your money or what ever you have of value when you are being rob and hope they dont kill you? :eek:So why even go for CCW?
And you must be joking to even think of making a citizens arrest on robbers:rolleyes:

A1c differentiated between self-defense and running up to stop someone else being robbed. Police officers are trained to enter a dangerous situation and are protected from liability when it comes to arresting someone. Civilians, well, aren't, and shouldn't, for instance, go running into a convenience store if it's being robbed to take down the bad guys.

Hans Gruber
08-05-2010, 10:20 AM
Two classes? Sounds familiar.


http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsW/17868-1925.gif
If you're not cop, you're little people.

Crom
08-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Yes, but many anti-gunners are taking the Supreme Court decision to say "People have a right to self-defense, but only inside their own homes. Outside they deserve to be slaughtered like cattle to keep from offending our sensibilities."

The anti's are deliberately are misrepresenting what the court wrote and while I find it repulsive and arrogant, it does not matter what they think in a court of law. What matters is what the court found. The quote below by Charles Nichols is accurate and succinct so I list it here:


The anti-gun rights groups like the Brady Center have lied about and distorted the US Supreme Court decision and, not surprisingly, few in the mainstream press have bothered to challenge them. The facts are, the Supreme Court said there are two "sensitive" areas where an individual does not have a right to carry a gun (loaded or unloaded). Those two places are "in schools" and "in government buildings." The home was given as an example of a place where the government can not restrict your right to have a loaded gun. The Court did not say only, the court said (http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d25-Such-as-does-not-mean-only--DC-v-Heller-gun-rights-decision) "such as the home." -Charles Nichols (http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d25-Such-as-does-not-mean-only--DC-v-Heller-gun-rights-decision)

And to put my post on topic, I am glad Paladin posted this because I believe that carry is a right and that all law-abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves. His 31 examples of CCW'ers protecting life are all noteworthy.

dantodd
08-05-2010, 11:46 AM
As much as I agree with some of the premise, the difference is also that LEOs take an oath to uphold the law, even when they're off duty.


LEOs (in Michigan, not sure if CA has special laws) are generally under no more obligation than anyone else to intervene if they see a crime happen.

WWDHD?
08-05-2010, 11:54 AM
An IRS agent authorized to carry a gun? This is wrong on so many levels.

Paladin
08-05-2010, 12:15 PM
As much as I agree with some of the premise, the difference is also that LEOs take an oath to uphold the law, even when they're off duty.

I personally don't think civilian CCWers should try to stop robbers. When you take your CCW permit training, you'll actually be told not to. You can make a citizen's arrest, but it's probably not a good idea in many cases.

Here the story however mentions that the robbers targeted the off duty cop, so that's a different story - it looks more like self-defense.(emphasis added to above quote)

Well, some LEOs don't even believe in trying to stop a murderer! Two Marin County deputies watched and did NOTHING to intervene as a BG opens up w/a SGN killing people.

Deputies watched while gunman killed two on bridge
By Karl Fischer
kfischer@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 08/18/2009 05:47:21 PM PDT

Two Marin County sheriff's deputies watched from 50 feet away while a man killed two people with a shotgun on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge last week.

The deputies, detectives returning from an unrelated investigation in San Pablo, stopped traffic and radioed for help, Richmond police said Tuesday.

But they made no move to stop the killer's rampage or to follow him or take his license plate number.

Their reactions that night left local law enforcement circles buzzing in the days following the Aug. 11 deaths of Deborah Ross, 51, and Ersie Everette, 58."

For those who may have not heard about the story or forgotten it:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=214012 Go to post #16 for the story since the original link had died.

LEOs are under NO LEGAL DUTY to protect any particular individual. (I'll let someone else provide the citations. The only one I remember off the top of my head is the Winnabego case. Perhaps CGF should have those cases on their Wiki if they don't already.) Remember that the next time some CLEO tells you you don't need a CCW, just dial 9-1-1 and the "thin blue line" will magically appear to save your bacon.

Crom
08-05-2010, 12:30 PM
LEOs are under NO LEGAL DUTY to protect any particular individual. (I'll let someone else provide the citations. The only one I remember off the top of my head is the Winnabego case. Perhaps CGF should have those cases on their Wiki if they don't already.) Remember that the next time some CLEO tells you you don't need a CCW, just dial 9-1-1 and the "thin blue line" will magically appear to save your bacon.

Yes. What a horrible story. The case is:

DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=489&invol=189)., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

489 U.S. 189It found that:

Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father's custody. Petitioner's father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage and was rendered profoundly retarded. Petitioner and his mother sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that respondents had deprived petitioner of his liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:
Respondents' failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father's violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 194-203.

(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Pp. 194-197.

faterikcartman
08-05-2010, 12:53 PM
LEOs (in Michigan, not sure if CA has special laws) are generally under no more obligation than anyone else to intervene if they see a crime happen.

Same deal here. This came out to many folks' surprise after the LA riots.

JimWest
08-05-2010, 5:51 PM
:TFH:An IRS agent authorized to carry a gun? This is wrong on so many levels.

As much as I hate the bastards, it's not out of line. They receive threats of violence on numerous occasions. Even investigators for various official Boards of the State of California are authorized to carry. :detective:

cmth
08-05-2010, 6:49 PM
This guy was not an IRS tax auditor, he was an IRS enforcement agent (federal cop). He is the man with the gun who comes after you if you don't render unto Caesar.

Andy Taylor
08-05-2010, 7:19 PM
Whatever your feelings about the IRS, (I have mine, but won't go into them here) this man is a Federal Law Enforcement official. No different than an FBI agent. I do not have an issue with him carrying a gun. I don't have an issue with most people carrying guns. he happens to be fortunate that his choice of employment exempts him from the unconstitutional crap that most of us in CA have to put up with. I would do the same in his possition.

maxmiller
08-05-2010, 7:33 PM
IRS CI agents go through the same basic federal officer school as FBI and Secret Service etc. http://www.fletc.gov/

They investigate large-scale tax fraud.

cmth
08-05-2010, 7:51 PM
Tax fraud? Taxes are pretty fraudulent... Can I charge the government with defrauding me of the money that is rightfully mine?

Colt
08-05-2010, 9:52 PM
The "man" is a 36 year old female. Was on duty at the time according to IRS. IRS Criminal Investigation Agents work all kind of strange hours and generally work stuff most folks don't think of when they hear "IRS." They do not need to be accountants, although it helps - but they do need a minimum number of accounting hours.

Training period is one of the longest in all of federal LE - six months at FLETC in Brunswick Georgia. These are real federal agents, folks. I was privileged to attend a recent graduation ceremony, and met some fantastic agents.

Obviously, this agent was prepared and defended herself.

Chalk up another one for the good guys.

pitchbaby
08-05-2010, 10:14 PM
Cops are not supermen dude. They're just people. I'll be more than happy to take an oath to uphold the law. I would even be willing to go through the same classes LEO does -- on my dime. The bottom line is we're now a two tier society of privileged classes, with non-government types seen as little people and subjects, rather than citizens supposedly in charge of government.

I would gladly do the same on my dime, as long as I don't have to ace the obstacle course... Hehe.... Well said fater!

pitchbaby
08-05-2010, 10:19 PM
Police officers are trained to enter a dangerous situation and are protected from liability when it comes to arresting someone. Civilians, well, aren't, and shouldn't, for instance, go running into a convenience store if it's being robbed to take down the bad guys.

AGREED! I would still gladly, however take POST training if it meant having the right to protect myself and my loved one's "exclusively" while out and about in public. It seems extreme to have to do so, but more training certainly can't hurt.

a1c
08-05-2010, 10:23 PM
Cops are not supermen dude. They're just people. I'll be more than happy to take an oath to uphold the law. I would even be willing to go through the same classes LEO does -- on my dime. The bottom line is we're now a two tier society of privileged classes, with non-government types seen as little people and subjects, rather than citizens supposedly in charge of government.

Wait until you take your CCW training. Being a cop is a job. Being an armed citizen is something else. A firearm is not a badge.

faterikcartman
08-05-2010, 10:57 PM
Wait until you take your CCW training. Being a cop is a job. Being an armed citizen is something else. A firearm is not a badge.

You've said nothing other than you seem to support the idea they ARE supermen and there is and should be two tiers in our society. No one here is trying to say give me a CCW and let me fight crime. In response to others' comments we're saying let us protect OURSELVES. And if that means giving us background checks and any pixie dust magic supercop police training (keep in mind, I believe a higher percentage of police shootings are in error than civilian SD shootings) we'll pay for it.

The reality, however, doesn't have anything to do with safety, rather, it has to do with keeping people under control and easily suppressed if politicians deem it necessary. Police are more easily controlled because they're jobs depend on it. If so-called "civilians" were truly incapable of appreciating when it was appropriate to use a gun in self defence, or even incapable of being trained to appreciate it, they would never be allowed to serve as jurors or judges in criminal or civil court trials involving self-defence shootings. So that explanation/excuse is bullcrap.

cmaynes
08-06-2010, 12:55 AM
The "man" is a 36 year old female. Was on duty at the time according to IRS. IRS Criminal Investigation Agents work all kind of strange hours and generally work stuff most folks don't think of when they hear "IRS." They do not need to be accountants, although it helps - but they do need a minimum number of accounting hours.

Training period is one of the longest in all of federal LE - six months at FLETC in Brunswick Georgia. These are real federal agents, folks. I was privileged to attend a recent graduation ceremony, and met some fantastic agents.

Obviously, this agent was prepared and defended herself.

Chalk up another one for the good guys.

I am going to assume that your information is solid here, but as a person who lived in SF for sometime and has friends in SFPD, I have to say that the idea of an IRS agent, being in Hunters Point, After Midnight, With no immediate backup- is beyond what SFPD or The Sheriffs Department would consider SOP. It sounds very, very unusual.

I am glad she was able to defend herself, but it sounded like she had a death wish or something. the SFPD Gang unit usually rolls into there with 4 man teams.... who are armed with much more than handguns.

Colt
08-06-2010, 5:50 AM
I don't know the area - just know that IRS claims she was on duty at the time. Don't know if she was alone or working with someone or working with another agency. Also, fed agents are considered "on duty" 24/7...

Paladin
08-06-2010, 6:31 AM
Being a cop is a job. Being an armed citizen is something else. A firearm is not a badge.Yep, being a cop is a job. And what do cops so often say their job is? "My job is getting home alive after each shift." :rolleyes:

If cops were really for "mere civilians" getting CCWs, then their police officers associations would come out publicly in support of Shall Issue, even if it was against the police chiefs/sheriffs association stand against Shall Issue.

For the past several years I tell cops/whoever makes those calls asking for donations for whatever LE group, "I'll support you only after you publicly support my right to carry a gun to defend myself. Until then, all the money I used to send you is going to the NRA and other pro-gun groups that fight for me!" Their usual response: hemming & hawing or silence. My response: click! :mad:

a1c
08-06-2010, 7:09 AM
You've said nothing other than you seem to support the idea they ARE supermen and there is and should be two tiers in our society.

You've completely misunderstood my point. That's absolutely not what I said. It sounds like you have some issues with the current system, and you're taking them on me. Re-read my posts and chill, Cartman.

WWDHD?
08-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Didn't this arming of most federal agencies start during the Clinton admin?
IMO, IRS agents are "Law Enforcement Officers" about as much as a patent Attorney is an LEO (no offense to patent attorneys). If they ever need to get rough, they should turn it over to the FBI.
One of my favorite saying is: "The government only does one thing well, they take money away from YOU at gunpoint(armed IRS agents?), and give it to someone else."

Arondos
08-06-2010, 10:53 AM
I took this oath multiple times can I just list it as good cause? I mean if all it takes is an oath and you are suddenly OK for CCW... :)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

And Paladin I like that Idea the next time the PD calls looking for donations I think that is what they are going to hear.

Scott Connors
08-06-2010, 11:03 AM
Didn't this arming of most federal agencies start during the Clinton admin?
IMO, IRS agents are "Law Enforcement Officers" about as much as a patent Attorney is an LEO (no offense to patent attorneys). If they ever need to get rough, they should turn it over to the FBI.
One of my favorite saying is: "The government only does one thing well, they take money away from YOU at gunpoint(armed IRS agents?), and give it to someone else."

IRS CID carrying guns predates Clinton. I remember reading about them when I was a kid (1960s) fascinated with the FBI, and they were listed among other feds who carried.

andalusi
08-06-2010, 11:37 AM
AGREED! I would still gladly, however take POST training if it meant having the right to protect myself and my loved one's "exclusively" while out and about in public. It seems extreme to have to do so, but more training certainly can't hurt.

I'd happily take POST training, too, or better yet, the same FLETC training the IRS CID agents get.

Didn't this arming of most federal agencies start during the Clinton admin?

Yes, all these law enforcement agencies were supplied by NERF until then. :rolleyes:

IMO, IRS agents are "Law Enforcement Officers" about as much as a patent Attorney is an LEO (no offense to patent attorneys). If they ever need to get rough, they should turn it over to the FBI.

Unfortunately for you, when opinions and facts collide, it's the facts that actually matter. The Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS is every bit a federal LEO as their counterparts in the DOJ or the BATF. They have forensic computer training on top of that, as well as specialized knowledge in their particular area of criminal law enforcement. Just like, oh say, the BATF does for alcohol, tobacco, and firearm law enforcement.

Flopper
08-06-2010, 11:52 AM
Wait until you take your CCW training. Being a cop is a job. Being an armed citizen is something else. A firearm is not a badge.

Nobody ever said they wanted a CCW so they could play cop.

You keep saying you're being misunderstood, so please elaborate so we can understand what you're trying to say.

Flopper
08-06-2010, 11:56 AM
The Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS is every bit a federal LEO as their counterparts in the DOJ or the BATF. . . Just like, oh say, the BATF does for alcohol, tobacco, and firearm law enforcement.

And with those statements, you just unintentionally gave ammo to those of us that think IRS CID shouldn't be armed.

faterikcartman
08-06-2010, 12:19 PM
Nobody ever said they wanted a CCW so they could play cop.

You keep saying you're being misunderstood, so please elaborate so we can understand what you're trying to say.

+1 dude.

FatalKitty
08-06-2010, 12:30 PM
As much as I agree with some of the premise, the difference is also that LEOs take an oath to uphold the law, even when they're off duty.

I personally don't think civilian CCWers should try to stop robbers. When you take your CCW permit training, you'll actually be told not to. You can make a citizen's arrest, but it's probably not a good idea in many cases.

Here the story however mentions that the robbers targeted the off duty cop, so that's a different story - it looks more like self-defense.

upholding the law is EVERYONE's responsibility.
if you saw a murder taking place, would you not call the cops? if you were carrying, would you not intervene? JUST because LEO are paid to do it, does not mean everyone else is exempt from upholding the law.

chuckdc
08-06-2010, 1:08 PM
IRS-CID agents work cases related to both tax offenses (not typically just non-payment which mostly isn't worth the price to investigate, but actual frauds against the government, like refund schemes i.e. EIC fraud, paying taxes with phony checks, and so forth), threats against the IRS, money laundering, providing financial support to terrorists, and more. They also provide financial crimes support to Federal, State, and local agencies that are working drug and organized crimes. They can also be "borrowed" to assist the Secret Service details protecting officials when they need manpower, and a number of CID agents have served as Air Marshals as well.
They are currently armed with .40 cal Glock handguns as a standard duty weapon and have access to Remington 870 and 1100/87 shotguns if needed for raids or higher-risk operations. They are currently considering getting semi-auto rifles or carbines of some sort.
"Back in the day" They were armed with everything from .38 Special revolvers up to and including Thompsons, BARs and hand grenades.

Typically a CID agent has a degree in accounting, but might also have some other degree, plus 24 semester units of accounting. They then take the exam, and if selected, attend FLETC in Brunswick, GA with agents from numerous other Federal law enforcement agencies, EXCEPT the FBI, DEA and Secret Service, who have their own agency-specific academies elsewhere. They have initial training for 3-4 months, then a second agency-specific training of 2-3 months. There may be other agencies now doing their own training, as that changes from time to time. Once someone becomes a CID agent, they have recurring training in various things, including defensive tactics (unarmed) and quarterly re-qualification with firearms. They will also generally add on some sort of specialty collateral duties within their field office, such as technical agent (i.e. electronic surveillance) firearms instructor, computer forensics, and so on.
The pay range for a CID agent is generally GS-7 to GS-13, plus 25% "availability pay" which takes the place of overtime. The agency pretty much requires them to work a 50 hour work weeks in order to "earn" this pay, unlike most other Federal agents where it really IS about being "available" on-call. (typical accountants!)

I am related to a CID agent, that's my source for the above.

Wherryj
08-06-2010, 1:23 PM
The "man" is a 36 year old female. Was on duty at the time according to IRS. IRS Criminal Investigation Agents work all kind of strange hours and generally work stuff most folks don't think of when they hear "IRS." They do not need to be accountants, although it helps - but they do need a minimum number of accounting hours.

Training period is one of the longest in all of federal LE - six months at FLETC in Brunswick Georgia. These are real federal agents, folks. I was privileged to attend a recent graduation ceremony, and met some fantastic agents.

Obviously, this agent was prepared and defended herself.

Chalk up another one for the good guys.

Did you check for your wallet before you left?

Colt
08-06-2010, 9:39 PM
The "man" is a 36 year old female. Was on duty at the time according to IRS. IRS Criminal Investigation Agents work all kind of strange hours and generally work stuff most folks don't think of when they hear "IRS." They do not need to be accountants, although it helps - but they do need a minimum number of accounting hours.

Training period is one of the longest in all of federal LE - six months at FLETC in Brunswick Georgia. These are real federal agents, folks. I was privileged to attend a recent graduation ceremony, and met some fantastic agents.

Obviously, this agent was prepared and defended herself.

Chalk up another one for the good guys.

Did you check for your wallet before you left?

Dude - read the post above yours - its pretty spot on. Additional info: in 2008 about 300 persons were hired out of 10,000 + applicants. Tough standards.

And getting into FLETC is all about the wallet check - too bad TSA doesn't it take it as seriously at airports...

azn_wrx
08-08-2010, 3:26 AM
IRS-CID agents work cases related to both tax offenses (not typically just non-payment which mostly isn't worth the price to investigate, but actual frauds against the government, like refund schemes i.e. EIC fraud, paying taxes with phony checks, and so forth), threats against the IRS, money laundering, providing financial support to terrorists, and more. They also provide financial crimes support to Federal, State, and local agencies that are working drug and organized crimes. They can also be "borrowed" to assist the Secret Service details protecting officials when they need manpower, and a number of CID agents have served as Air Marshals as well.
They are currently armed with .40 cal Glock handguns as a standard duty weapon and have access to Remington 870 and 1100/87 shotguns if needed for raids or higher-risk operations. They are currently considering getting semi-auto rifles or carbines of some sort.
"Back in the day" They were armed with everything from .38 Special revolvers up to and including Thompsons, BARs and hand grenades.

Typically a CID agent has a degree in accounting, but might also have some other degree, plus 24 semester units of accounting. They then take the exam, and if selected, attend FLETC in Brunswick, GA with agents from numerous other Federal law enforcement agencies, EXCEPT the FBI, DEA and Secret Service, who have their own agency-specific academies elsewhere. They have initial training for 3-4 months, then a second agency-specific training of 2-3 months. There may be other agencies now doing their own training, as that changes from time to time. Once someone becomes a CID agent, they have recurring training in various things, including defensive tactics (unarmed) and quarterly re-qualification with firearms. They will also generally add on some sort of specialty collateral duties within their field office, such as technical agent (i.e. electronic surveillance) firearms instructor, computer forensics, and so on.
The pay range for a CID agent is generally GS-7 to GS-13, plus 25% "availability pay" which takes the place of overtime. The agency pretty much requires them to work a 50 hour work weeks in order to "earn" this pay, unlike most other Federal agents where it really IS about being "available" on-call. (typical accountants!)

I am related to a CID agent, that's my source for the above.

They also work around the world and essentially follow the money.

pitchbaby
08-08-2010, 11:03 AM
They also work around the world and essentially follow the money.

I wonder if they get special diplomatic privileges to legally carry when they travel abroad on an investigation?

cr250chevy
08-08-2010, 11:37 AM
With stories like this I do not understand why CCW's are not handed out to law abiding citizens. It only makes sense....

pitchbaby
08-08-2010, 12:10 PM
With stories like this I do not understand why CCW's are not handed out to law abiding citizens. It only makes sense....

What's worse, there are far more many stories like this that we don't hear about.

JimWest
08-14-2010, 4:23 PM
Whatever your feelings about the IRS, (I have mine, but won't go into them here) this man is a Federal Law Enforcement official. No different than an FBI agent. I do not have an issue with him carrying a gun. I don't have an issue with most people carrying guns. he happens to be fortunate that his choice of employment exempts him from the unconstitutional crap that most of us in CA have to put up with. I would do the same in his possition.

Yeah and if I was a German during Hitler's reign I wouldn't join the SS. No, I don't care to dilute the analogy. If your an IRS cop, you're a d*ck.

Colt
08-14-2010, 5:54 PM
Yeah and if I was a German during Hitler's reign I wouldn't join the SS. No, I don't care to dilute the analogy. If your an IRS cop, you're a d*ck.

Interesting thought. I would respectfully disagree, but will vehemently defend your right to express that opinion.

I suspect that you have no idea what the IRS CID actually does...