this seems strange, even by California standards


PDA






alan
August 5, 2005, 05:14 PM
Posters Note:

If the prosecutor has real evidence of illegal acts by any of the people served, let him bring charges. Otherwise, since when does SUSPICION justify, IN THIS COUNTRY, SUCH ABROGATION OF BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS? I find myself rather curious on that score.

OPINION RELEASE: More Police State Of America CLOSING IN


Gangs of West Sac
In California, anyone can be a gangster
_Kerry Howley_ (mailto:khowley@reason.com)



Sergio Flores, 25, says he didn't know he was a gangster until the state of
California told him he was. Last February, the police department of West
Sacramento served him with an injunction stating that as a member of The
Broderick Boys, a local Latino gang, he had lost the right to move around the
neighborhood of Broderick-where he happens to live-after 10 PM. Flores told
the _Sacramento News and Review_
(http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2005-06-23/cover.asp) that he was never told what, exactly, qualifies him as a member of the gang.
"It doesn't make any sense. There are some bad guys out there, but I don't
know them," he says. Flores is one of 95 people who have lost the right to move freely in a 3-square-mile swath of West Sacramento. They have each been served with a _Civil Gang Injunction_ (http://www.oxnardpd.org/misc/GangInjunction.htm) , a
crime-fighting tactic that has become increasingly popular with district
attorneys across California. In February the local D.A.s imposed restrictions on
suspected gang members within a declared "safety zone." Alleged Broderick Boys are not allowed on Broderick's streets past 10 p.m., nor are they allowed to communicate with other alleged gang members in public, day or night.
Curfews have an ugly history in the U.S., from restrictions placed on
Japanese Americans in WWII to Jim Crow laws that kept blacks indoors in the
South.
More recently, _youth curfews_ (http://reason.com/9911/fe.md.do.shtml) have orced kids inside after dark and during school hours. They typically yield suburban horror stories about 16-year-olds harassed on the way back from band practice or home-schooled teens getting routinely picked up. When kids are targeted, however, it's arguably straightforward for police to determine whom to send indoors once the curfew hits. But very little
distinguishes a gang member in West Sacramento-an actual Broderick Boy-from a boy who happens to live in Broderick. Police are left to weed one from the other. That could be hard. According to Martha Garcia, who is leading a _grassroots protest_ (http://westsacramento-gang.blogspot.com/) against the injunction, they're one and the same. "A Broderick Boy is a boy who was raised in Broderick," she says. "The Broderick Boys are not a gang. They are not in any form an institution." Other residents say the gang hasn't been active for years. "There were Broderick Boys, back in the 1970s. Those guys are all like 50 now," one community member told the Sacramento News and Review. Aged or otherwise, Local Police Chief Dan Drummond says they're still in force, and they're responsible for precisely 853 crimes over the past three and a half years. He also says he knows who they are. There are eleven criteria used to "validate," or declare someone a gang member. Wearing gang colors like red and blue, sporting a certain tattoo, or being seen in a photograph with another gang member all count.
Garcia says some of the criteria are simply fashionable clothing labels,
like Nor Cal, or symbols important to the local Latino population, such as the
_United Farm Workers logo_ (http://www.backspace.com/notes/2003/05/06/x.html) .
Local papers and Web logs are rife with accounts of men who must now stay
indoors after 10 p.m. because they wore the wrong colors, sport the wrong
tattoos or were photographed in the wrong company years ago. Some 95 people have been served with the injunction, which theoretically lasts forever. Many reportedly live in the confines of the safety zone. For as long as they stay in Broderick, they're under lifetime house arrest past 10 p.m.
The ACLU of Northern California filed a motion last Friday to _halt the
injunction_ (http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/050728-broderick.html) , arguing that it makes no sense to treat a gang as a single association. When prosecutors file injunctions against corporations, notice is given to an official representative. The Broderick Boys have no formal organization and no clearly established hierarchy. So public prosecutors simply pick a gang member, notify him, and expect news of the injunction to spread by word of mouth.
Alan Schlosser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Northern California, says the
four men the ACLU is representing weren't aware of the injunction before it
was served and never had a chance to protest. He is also concerned that
alleged gang members have no way of knowing whether they're breaking the law by associating with other accused Broderick Boys. "No one even knows who has been served," he explains, "Only the police know."
The battle against gang injunctions looks bleak. They're now part of the
urban landscape in Los Angeles, San Diego, and dozens of communities in
California. L.A. had the first in 1987; now that city alone has 22 of them.
California's high court _upheld_ ( http://home.comcast.net/~jasonanderson102/acuna.htm)
the constitutionality of gang injunctions eight years ago, and California
district attorneys now hold workshops on their implementation. Cheryl Maxson, an associate professor of criminology at UC Irvine who published a recent study on injunctions, says she expects they will continue to spread, despite the fact that they've been shown to be only modestly successful at preventing crime.
Police Chief Drummond says the tactic has been more than modestly effective
in West Sacramento. Violent crime, he says, has dropped 26 percent in the
past five and a half months. To community members worried about civil
liberties, he points out that only 12 people have actually been arrested for violating the injunction alone. Critics of the injunction say the curfew, like most criminalization of normal human activity, is less about stamping out a specific behavior than about giving police more freedom to interfere where they see fit. When congregating and simply being outside is suddenly illegal, police have the discretion to crack down as they please, and those in violation have reason to avoid attracting attention. At a recent protest rally that Martha Garcia held in Broderick, not a single accused Broderick Boy showed up to protest the injunction. Associating with one another in Broderick, after all, would have been illegal. "We asked them not to come," says Garcia, "The police said if they did, they would be arrested."
_Kerry Howley_ (mailto:khowley@reason.com) is an assistant editor of
Reason.

If you enjoyed reading about "this seems strange, even by California standards" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Control Group
August 5, 2005, 05:26 PM
That's...appalling.

My jaw has literally dropped, and words are failing me.

Someday a few centuries from now, people are going to look back at what's going on and marvel that anyone could be so blind as to not see what's coming. Just like looking back at the French Revolution; it's hard to conceive that the King and cronies didn't know what they were bringing on themselves.

R.H. Lee
August 5, 2005, 05:30 PM
Someday a few centuries from now, people are going to look back at what's going on and marvel that anyone could be so blind as to not see what's coming. Just like looking back at the French Revolution; it's hard to conceive that the King and cronies didn't know what they were bringing on themselves.
Careful, CG. You're getting dangerously close to harmful patriot rhetoric there. :p

Zundfolge
August 5, 2005, 05:37 PM
Clearly they are testing this idea on "gang members" because most people don't like gang members and won't complain.

Eventualy they will declare groups like The Blackwater Rod and Gun Club (http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/index.htm) to be a "gang" ... and they are already expanding the use of the Patriot act to criminals (even though it was only supposed to apply to terrorists).



Scary times, they is a comin' :uhoh:

Azrael256
August 5, 2005, 05:57 PM
I wonder if they make these people they file injunctions against wear some kind of distinguishing mark. Probably ought to round them up into a confined neighborhood, too.

Due process anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

CentralTexas
August 5, 2005, 06:30 PM
May I point ot yet another story where the ACLU is doing good or would that be risky??? :neener:
CT

Punkermonkey
August 5, 2005, 06:40 PM
Maybe they should have stars sewn onto their clothing, not allowed them to own property and all move them all to a 'ghetto'. We could issue all of them 'papers' and blue work cards. Then we could hire a new security team, a Super Security team to manage them. We could call them the SS.......

:confused:

Car Knocker
August 5, 2005, 06:45 PM
I grew up in West Sacramento back in the 50's and 60's. Sure has gone downhill since.

Pietro Beretta
August 5, 2005, 07:00 PM
Eventualy they will declare groups like The Blackwater Rod and Gun Club to be a "gang" ... and they are already expanding the use of the Patriot act to criminals (even though it was only supposed to apply to terrorists).


Terrorism
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If you envoke terror in others, you are a terrorist. You will be punished to the full extend of the law! :what:

(Source: Dictionary.com)

Standing Wolf
August 5, 2005, 09:43 PM
...it's hard to conceive that the King and cronies didn't know what they were bringing on themselves.

Kings believed they ruled by divine right, and were therefore inviolate.

Heh, heh, heh.

50 Freak
August 6, 2005, 04:35 AM
One criteria for determining if one is a gang member is if someone is "Wearing gang colors like red and blue." :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Jeez, are they kidding?


Okay so if your in Sacramento and your wearing Levi's (you know, blue jeans, little red label)....your a gangbanger.

Lord, I want my tax dollars back. I can't believe they are wasting it with crap like this.

Mixlesplick
August 6, 2005, 09:19 AM
I think stories like this should start out "As a substitute for real police work, today in..." :rolleyes:

MrTuffPaws
August 6, 2005, 10:04 AM
Wow, news from home and it sucks. I hope the ACLU swats the Sac police department back to the stone age on this one.

fourays2
August 6, 2005, 10:24 AM
all the ACLU has to do to get my respect is start supporting 2A. until then :cuss:

gm
August 6, 2005, 11:38 AM
Maybe they should have stars sewn onto their clothing, not allowed them to own property and all move them all to a 'ghetto'. We could issue all of them 'papers' and blue work cards. Then we could hire a new security team, a Super Security team to manage them. We could call them the SS....... sounds like its becoming more and more like that though,I think the nazis set the standard for this kind of crap along with communist china and their re-education camps. The folks practicing these tactics today have just sunk to yet another all-time low.


wow..look wrong,be seen with wrong people and youve just been assimulated into gang banger status.judge,jury and sentance without even a trial. Tis scary stuff indeed.

Pilgrim
August 6, 2005, 11:53 AM
From the California Penal Code:

13826.3. (a) An individual shall be subject to gang violence
prosecution efforts who is under arrest for the commission or the
attempted commission of any gang-related violent crime where the
individual is (1) a known member of a gang, and (2) has exhibited a
prior criminal background.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, gang-related means that the
suspect or victim of the crime is a known member of a gang.
(c) For purposes of this chapter, gang violence prosecution
includes both criminal prosecutions and proceedings in Juvenile Court
in which a petition is filed pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
******************
186.22. (a) Any person who actively participates in any criminal
street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged
in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and who willfully promotes,
furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of
that gang, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a
period not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison
for 16 months, or two or three years.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), any person
who is convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the
direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with
the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal
conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in
addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony
or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be
punished as follows:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the person
shall be punished by an additional term of two, three, or four years
at the court's discretion.
(B) If the felony is a serious felony, as defined in subdivision
(c) of Section 1192.7, the person shall be punished by an additional
term of five years.
(C) If the felony is a violent felony, as defined in subdivision
(c) of Section 667.5, the person shall be punished by an additional
term of 10 years.
(2) If the underlying felony described in paragraph (1) is
committed on the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of, a public or
private elementary, vocational, junior high, or high school, during
hours in which the facility is open for classes or school-related
programs or when minors are using the facility that fact shall be a
circumstance in aggravation of the crime in imposing a term under
paragraph (1).
(3) The court shall order the imposition of the middle term of the
sentence enhancement, unless there are circumstances in aggravation
or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its choice of
sentencing enhancements on the record at the time of the sentencing.

(4) Any person who is convicted of a felony enumerated in this
paragraph committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in
association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent
to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang
members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, be sentenced to an
indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of:
(A) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for
the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or
any period prescribed by Section 3046, if the felony is any of the
offenses enumerated in subparagraphs (B) or (C) of this paragraph.
(B) Imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years, if the felony
is a home invasion robbery, in violation of subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 213; carjacking, as
defined in Section 215; a felony violation of Section 246; or a
violation of Section 12022.55.
(C) Imprisonment in the state prison for seven years, if the
felony is extortion, as defined in Section 519; or threats to victims
and witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (4), any person who violates
this subdivision in the commission of a felony punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison for life, shall not be paroled until
a minimum of 15 calendar years have been served.
(c) If the court grants probation or suspends the execution of
sentence imposed upon the defendant for a violation of subdivision
(a), or in cases involving a true finding of the enhancement
enumerated in subdivision (b), the court shall require that the
defendant serve a minimum of 180 days in a county jail as a condition
thereof.
(d) Any person who is convicted of a public offense punishable as
a felony or a misdemeanor, which is committed for the benefit of, at
the direction of or in association with, any criminal street gang
with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any
criminal conduct by gang members, shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the
state prison for one, two, or three years, provided that any person
sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail shall be imprisoned for
a period not to exceed one year, but not less than 180 days, and
shall not be eligible for release upon completion of sentence,
parole, or any other basis, until he or she has served 180 days. If
the court grants probation or suspends the execution of sentence
imposed upon the defendant, it shall require as a condition thereof
that the defendant serve 180 days in a county jail.
(e) As used in this chapter, "pattern of criminal gang activity"
means the commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to
commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or
conviction of two or more of the following offenses, provided at
least one of these offenses occurred after the effective date of this
chapter and the last of those offenses occurred within three years
after a prior offense, and the offenses were committed on separate
occasions, or by two or more persons:
(1) Assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury, as defined in Section 245.
(2) Robbery, as defined in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 211)
of Title 8 of Part 1.
(3) Unlawful homicide or manslaughter, as defined in Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 187) of Title 8 of Part 1.
(4) The sale, possession for sale, transportation, manufacture,
offer for sale, or offer to manufacture controlled substances as
defined in Sections 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, and 11058 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(5) Shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied motor vehicle,
as defined in Section 246.
(6) Discharging or permitting the discharge of a firearm from a
motor vehicle, as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section
12034.
(7) Arson, as defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 450)
of Title 13.
(8) The intimidation of witnesses and victims, as defined in
Section 136.1.
(9) Grand theft, as defined in subdivision (a) or (c) of Section
487.
(10) Grand theft of any firearm, vehicle, trailer, or vessel.
(11) Burglary, as defined in Section 459.
(12) Rape, as defined in Section 261.
(13) Looting, as defined in Section 463.
(14) Money laundering, as defined in Section 186.10.
(15) Kidnapping, as defined in Section 207.
(16) Mayhem, as defined in Section 203.
(17) Aggravated mayhem, as defined in Section 205.
(18) Torture, as defined in Section 206.
(19) Felony extortion, as defined in Sections 518 and 520.
(20) Felony vandalism, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision
(b) of Section 594.
(21) Carjacking, as defined in Section 215.
(22) The sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm, as defined in
Section 12072.
(23) Possession of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person in violation of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 12101.
(24) Threats to commit crimes resulting in death or great bodily
injury, as defined in Section 422.
(25) Theft and unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, as defined
in Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code.
(f) As used in this chapter, "criminal street gang" means any
ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons,
whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities
the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in
paragraphs (1) to (25), inclusive, of subdivision (e), having a
common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members
individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern
of criminal gang activity.
(g) Notwithstanding any other law, the court may strike the
additional punishment for the enhancements provided in this section
or refuse to impose the minimum jail sentence for misdemeanors in an
unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served, if
the court specifies on the record and enters into the minutes the
circumstances indicating that the interests of justice would best be
served by that disposition.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for each person
committed to the Youth Authority for a conviction pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (b) of this section, the offense shall be deemed
one for which the state shall pay the rate of 100 percent of the per
capita institutional cost of the Department of Youth Authority,
pursuant to Section 912.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(i) In order to secure a conviction, or sustain a juvenile
petition, pursuant to subdivision (a), it is not necessary for the
prosecution to prove that the person devotes all, or a substantial
part of his or her time or efforts to the criminal street gang, nor
is it necessary to prove that the person is a member of the criminal
street gang. Active participation in the criminal street gang is all
that is required.

*****
It takes a little bit more than police say-so to make someone a member of a gang.

Pilgrim

alan
August 6, 2005, 05:14 PM
Regarding mention of The Patriot Act, which was supposed to be used in TERRORISM CASES ONLY, and note having been made of it having been used in ordinary criminal matters, it was also used in a case of ALLEGED POLITICAL CORRUPTION, which supposedly took place in Nevada, as memory serves..

Additionally, regarding what I shall refer to as The California Syndrome, California is often held up at THE MODEL WHICH SHOULD BE EMULATED, I never understood why, but that is besides the point. All to often, particularly virulent examples of social policy foolishness, first adopted in California, seems to migrate eastward.

Re this, I respectfully suggest that you keep your eyes and ears open.

O.F.Fascist
August 6, 2005, 06:48 PM
IMO this kind of crap is rediculous.

Apparently we have similar stuff in Texas althought I havent heard much about restraining orders and the like.

It is however an issue in the latest law change that allows us to carry a handgun concealed in our vehicle without a CHL.

(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed
to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other
than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined
by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

albeit our definition of a criminal street gang is a bit better defined than Californias.

(d) "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

thorn726
August 6, 2005, 10:05 PM
ARGH! so stupid.
go to lvoe this >> being seen in a photograph with another gang member all count.<<<<

so where does the photo have to come from ? i am at a bus stop and a gang member gets off the bus and a cop takes a picture, and i am now a gang member?

once someone is actually convicted of a bunch of gang stuff, ok , i could see some restrictions in their parole or whatever, but to arbitrarily decide who is a gang member? ARGh! this poor guy getting run in like that is horrible.

RevDisk
August 6, 2005, 10:17 PM
Scary times, they is a comin'

Coming? I think they're already here. People are just starting to notice more.

grimjaw
August 7, 2005, 01:38 PM
Terrorism
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Wait a minute.

US threatens military action against Iraq for failing to allow UN inspectors to search for WMD's.

Threatened force by group against people with intention of coercing government, for political reasons.

jmm

jnojr
August 7, 2005, 02:07 PM
My immediate take after reading the first few sentences... first, police departments don't randomly pick people, call them "gang members" and spend time, effort, and money on getting injunctions against them. Second, every criminal plays the "Who, me? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a good kid! Wasn't me!" card.

Car Knocker
August 7, 2005, 02:44 PM
Second, every criminal plays the "Who, me? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a good kid! Wasn't me!" card.

And guess what? Some are actually telling the truth. Imagine that!

dpesec
August 7, 2005, 03:43 PM
How about this one.
USAF dress BLUES :what:

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2005, 04:03 PM
I used to wear blue slacks with a fat old red stripe down the side. I regularly go to the bad parts of San Diego, for charitable work. I am pretty sure that we have publicity photos of me with gang members from the past present and future.

Oh good, I just realized I can't be a gang-member. I am white. :barf:

The right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed (unless it seems like a good idea).

Kurush
August 7, 2005, 04:04 PM
all the ACLU has to do to get my respect is start supporting 2A. until thenIf anything the ACLU is narrowing their support of the Bill of Rights. Remember all the support ACLU gave the homeowners in Kelo v. New London? Me neither. In fact according to ACLU spokespeople, they still haven't "developed a policy" on it. I'm an ACLU member so I get their email newsletter, here's an excerpt from it:
"The Court's civil liberties record this year was a surprisingly positive one,"
said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national legal director. "In contrast to
past years, the Justices seemed less anxious to undermine meaningful civil
rights enforcement, more skeptical about the death penalty, and more willing to
look at international law for whatever guidance it can provide in resolving
fundamental human rights issues."Yes, you heard it here first, the SCOTUS term that gave us Kelo and Raich was surprisingly positive...because the justices ignored the Constitution in favor of "international law".

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 04:37 PM
So what is the real goal of the ACLU if not supporting the rights of the individual? I cant think of any more fundamental indivudual right than the ownership of property. Second place is probably the right to self defense. Why doesnt the ACLU support either of these rights?

Kurush
August 7, 2005, 05:14 PM
The ACLU does not care about the BoR per se. My impression is that the way they see it is there are certain goals such as affirmative action, hate crime laws, free speech, death penalty etc, and they have decided that supporting the left wing of the court (i.e. Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg) is the best way to further those goals. The problem is that left wing ideology incorporates a very broad view of collective rights and a very narrow view of individual rights (although they deny this of course). So if the ACLU supports the leftists to get affirmative action, they end up opposing many individual rights. In addition, many (but by no means all) ACLU decision makers are themselves leftist and try to undermine ACLU support for individual rights.

Shalako
August 8, 2005, 02:50 PM
I live in a Sacramento neighborhood with VERY visible gang activity. I don't particularly care for it. Blue jeans? You are kidding right? It's not simple blue jeans by a long shot. When I get home from work everyday, there is usually a congregation of 5-10 young urban males standing by the curb about 5 houses down. They all have the typical baggy clothing and jerseys (fine with that) but each and every one has a distinguishable baby blue bandanna, slightly exposed baby blue tee-shirt extending below the jersey, or a baby blue ballcap. That's not a coincidence there fellas. The weird thing is some days the congregation of young urban males is replaced by another group that all have the distinguishing tags but in scarlet red. Neither group is up to any good. When I drive by them, I always find something very interesting to look at in the other direction from them. If I don't notice them, they don't notice me.

I'd actually prefer if the statist JBT's relocated these particular citizens away from my neighborhood. Would all of you want these guys standing around till late in the night in front of your house? How about walking your dogs at night past these folks? On 4th of July they walked by when I was lighting my fireworks and they walked through them and kicked them over. Real upstanding citizens there. Oh wait, I'll just get a CCW and everything will be hunky dory. Yea right. I am damn thankful that there are cops that take this crap seriously.

Moonclip
August 8, 2005, 05:36 PM
I'm surprised more people didn't know about this. It aslo happens in Long Beach California too againts the Crips and a local Hispanic gang too I think. There was an article about this in the paper last year. It seems the injuctions can get a bit silly, some seem to be applied on very flimsy evidence or on gang members who have left the life and haevn't participated in the gang in many years.

The injunction can get very specific, I think they even can have provisions on cell phones and police scanners! Your papers please!

p35
August 8, 2005, 06:17 PM
So they serve one alleged gang member, get the injunction, and then randomly notify people that they are subject to the injunction without further notice or hearing? There's no way this is constitutional under the Due Process Clause. I hope the Section 1983 lawsuits start flying fast.

Marshall
August 8, 2005, 09:40 PM
Terrorism
ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If you envoke terror in others, you are a terrorist. You will be punished to the full extend of the law!

If you're saying the above definition means what you paraphased, a more correct definition would be: If you evoke terror by the use of threatening force and or violence with the intention of intimidation and or coercion................



Are we missing something in the article? Did something get lost? I don't see where that's even close to legal or where a court would allow the sanction without some kind of proof or even, reasonable conclusion at least?

Car Knocker
August 8, 2005, 11:01 PM
Shalako,

North Highlands?

Werewolf
August 9, 2005, 11:18 AM
I am damn thankful that there are cops that take this crap seriously. See... :scrutiny:

And you guys think the STATE doesn't know what it is doing. Yeah. Riiiiiight. :banghead:

Shalako
August 9, 2005, 12:29 PM
Lincoln Village.

I appreciate that most of you (us) here at THR keep their eye on the civil liberties issues. We do not want to piss those rights away. I just have this problem in my face, right now. I would like that the cops would have better tools to irradicate gang activity and leave the streets safer for productive citizens. Relying on my 1911 is not the preferred alternative.

How would you have the cops fight gang activity? Would you give them any effective tools to use? We can't go on with two hands tied behind our backs and let the losers and dirtbags defecate on our society.

Help me out here. With the brainpower here, we have got to develop effective tools to combat this newer permutation of criminal activity. Its not going to get better on its own. Thanks.

antarti
August 9, 2005, 01:06 PM
when it sounds to me like you got all the "tools" you need right here pard. Gosh, the LEOs really have their "two hands tied" on this one (italics mine):

(i) In order to secure a conviction, or sustain a juvenile
petition, pursuant to subdivision (a), it is not necessary for the
prosecution to prove that the person devotes all, or a substantial
part of his or her time or efforts to the criminal street gang, nor
is it necessary to prove that the person is a member of the criminal
street gang. Active participation in the criminal street gang is all
that is required.

Couldn't "active participation" be a guy hanging with a friend (formerly "free association") who might be a member? You don't have to prove anything anyway do you? Get a narc to do it, or shorten somebody's sentence or plea so they lie in your favor (I know it's gauche and passe, but it's done all the time). Now, all your LEO problems are solved. Take video of 2 guys just shaking hands (if you still need proof or CYA which I doubt), and serve 'em with papers, then put 'em away for an extra 5/10/15 years when they do anything outside their homes remotely suspect since they are "legally gang bangers".

I mean really, what's so hard about that? Is the "hands tied"stuff just PR fodder because you need more .50's/APCs/tanks and the budget's too tight (damn tightwad peasants)?

Sheesh...

jefmad
August 9, 2005, 01:07 PM
Here is novel idea to get rid of gang bangers. Catch them doing something actually illegal. Until then, leave them alone. I know nobody wants them hanging around but don't support the diminishing of others rights unless you accept a diminishing of your own. That is something I cannot accept personally.

Car Knocker
August 9, 2005, 01:18 PM
Shalako,

Gang activity will run rampant until the populace gets good and tired of it and takes an active hand in erradicating it. A very active neighborhood watch program can be very effective in driving gangs out of a neighborhood. Gangs don't like it when every time they turn around they see someone watching them and taping their activities day and night, calling the cops whenever they break the law and showing a determination to testify in court.

BUT...people don't want to make the effort. They expect the cops to make the problem go away. As long as there is public apathy the problems will not be resolved.

My second guess would have been Rancho.

Shalako
August 9, 2005, 01:55 PM
Thanks guys, especially Car Knocker for your constructive advice. The voice of reason and all...

I just imagine that most of you do not share my dilema, so cannot truly understand where I am at on this one. Do you have a huddle of gangbangers on your route to the local market? Oops, I'm whining again. :neener: Maybe it will get better through the efforts of brave citizenry willing to risk retalliation and slashed tires. At least they stopped running prostitutes from the driveway across the street.

I should just cough up the $450k to move to a better neighborhood huh? I'll get right on that.

Car Knocker
August 9, 2005, 03:21 PM
We had a couple a drug houses, and all that entails, in my neighborhood a few years ago. The neighbors got together and made life so miserable for the druggies, and the owners of the property, that we finally drove them from the neighborhood. We didn't do anything illegal (in fact, we had the cooperation of the police) but we took lots of photos in a very obvious manner, called the police when something was amiss, got the health department and code enforcement folks involved, animal control, etc.

What made it work was the involvement and commitment of just about all the people in the area. Without that, the druggies would still be here and thriving!

Seems to me that the same tactics would work with gangs.

Control Group
August 9, 2005, 03:41 PM
I just imagine that most of you do not share my dilema, so cannot truly understand where I am at on this one. Do you have a huddle of gangbangers on your route to the local market? Oops, I'm whining again. Maybe it will get better through the efforts of brave citizenry willing to risk retalliation and slashed tires. At least they stopped running prostitutes from the driveway across the street.

I should just cough up the $450k to move to a better neighborhood huh? I'll get right on that.
Shalako, I empathize with your dilemma. I understand what you want, and why you want it. I lived enough of my life in downtown Milwaukee to extrapolate what it must be like to live in a truly gang-ruled area, and I'm sorry. I've had my car and residence broken into, robbed, and vandalized enough to understand the frustration, helplessness, and fear that come as a result of living in such an area. A couple years back, a car (not mine) was fire-bombed two houses down the street from me.

But there's no getting around one of life's simple truths: bad things happen to good people. You don't want to be one of those good people, and neither do I, but it's neither your place nor mine to demand that other people pay the price for our fears, no matter how justified they may be. No one, and particularly not the government, can make the problem "go away" for you. No one is going to come in from outside and make it all better. Your safety in your person and your possessions is your responsibility.

The real crime is that CA, in particular, goes to such effort to deny you the effective means of meeting that responsibility - but that doesn't mean the correct solution is to deny even more people more of their fundamental rights.

The correct solution is what jefmad and Car Knocker, respectively, have said. Get the criminals put away (and I don't mean plea bargain down to probation, and I don't mean trade evidence for a get out of jail card, I mean doing time commensurate with the offense), and get the people they terrorize to start taking responsibility for their own safety. Slapping curfews on suspected gang members (as defined by someone at some level of some bureaucracy) isn't just an unethical solution, it's an ineffective one. We all know that criminals don't obey gun laws, why do you suppose criminals will obey curfews? They're not afraid to deal crack on a street corner, they're not afraid to shoot up somebody's house in broad daylight, they're not afraid to buy stolen guns, they're not afraid to shoot cops, but they'll be afraid to go out after 10? That's the law they plan on following?

Or is it just so that the police have an excuse to pick someone up if they "know" he's going to do something bad? If there's enough police presence to effectively prevent breaking curfew, how is there not enough police presence to effectively deter real crime? How will the police know if a given person walking down the street is one of the people that's got a curfew? They'd better stop anyone who's blac...I mean, hispan...I mean, SUSPICIOUS, just in case. Or better yet, maybe they can make all the people slapped with a curfew wear a GPS device/transmitter, so they'll know when they walk out their front door.

While we're at it, we might as will rescind their right to vote and their RKBA. Then they can have all the cool perks of a felony conviction, just without the tattoos. And it'll save money, too, when we don't have to fund that "due process" thing anymore.

The Real Mad Max
August 9, 2005, 03:46 PM
Sounds like a self serving BS article to me. Where was it published? What is your source?

Control Group
August 9, 2005, 04:05 PM
Well, given the email address of the author (khowley@reason.com), I suspect that it was published by Reason magazine, certainly online, possibly also in their paper copy. Quick search online gives me this: http://www.reason.com/links/links080205.shtml. USA Today makes a passing reference to similar policies in California here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-09-cover-gangs_x.htm. A couple other links found via googling (I don't necessarily vouch for the authority of the publications, however) are here: http://dailydemocrat.com/news/ci_2907922 and here: http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2005/07/29/news/155new2.txt and here: http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13329915p-14171918c.html.

another okie
August 9, 2005, 04:51 PM
Art. I, Sec. 9, "No bill of attainder shall be passed..." Sounds pretty close to a bill of attainder to me.

DRZinn
August 10, 2005, 07:57 PM
Would all of you want these guys standing around till late in the night in front of your house? How about walking your dogs at night past these folks?Nothing wrong with standing around. Something about "prior restraint" there....

On 4th of July they walked by when I was lighting my fireworks and they walked through them and kicked them over.A criminal act (though a relatively minor one compared to other things these people are usually involved in) which has absolutely nothing to do with wearing the same colors and looking mean.

Why can't we deal more harshly with actual behavior and quit worrying so damn much about precursors?

Here is novel idea to get rid of gang bangers. Catch them doing something actually illegal. Until then, leave them alone. I know nobody wants them hanging around but don't support the diminishing of others rights unless you accept a diminishing of your own. That is something I cannot accept personally.What he said.

Shalako
August 10, 2005, 08:43 PM
So you are cool with gangs then.

That's not for me.

Control Group
August 10, 2005, 11:08 PM
So you are cool with gangs then.

That's not for me.
Oh, please.

You're trying to equate "gang" with "crime," and therefore, by extension, assign to everyone who disagrees with you a pro-crime stance. That's ridiculous. Provide some real definition of "gang," and then we'll talk.


Note: if you define "gang" as a group that commits crimes, then of course no one's in favor of them; they should be put away. Just like anyone else who commits crimes.

If you define "gang" as a group that might commit crimes, then yeah, I'm all for gangs. I'm in a bunch. I go to the range with a "gang" of friends. We all dress kind of the same and use a sort of slang, too. Better give me a curfew.

alan
August 11, 2005, 01:27 AM
another okie wrote:

Art. I, Sec. 9, "No bill of attainder shall be passed..." Sounds pretty close to a bill of attainder to me.

---------------

I believe that the constitution does contain such an admonition. It also contained words to the effect that "congress shall pass no ex-post facto law" Despite that, we have what was originally known as The Lautenberg Amendment, which certainly does appear to be one, an ex-post facto law that is..

Shalako
August 11, 2005, 07:15 PM
When I say gang, I mean the real deal, not a gang of girlscouts, amway dealers, or the rotary club. I would not waste your time with such idiocy as that.

Don't you equate Cripps and Bloods with crime? Cripps and Bloods kill people, run extortion rings and prostitutes, and sell drugs. Anyone who freely identifies and associates with Cripps and bloods should be rounded up. I especially don't want them in front of my house.

I'm sorry you mistook me for some sort of drivelling moron that complains about some normal guys shuckin and jivin over by the curb. Heck I'd probably join them or offer them a soda. I do not know how I can say the word gang and you visualize innocent bystander. We must be using two different definitions of the word gang.

Once again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

GunGoBoom
August 11, 2005, 08:06 PM
How would you have the cops fight gang activity? Would you give them any effective tools to use? We can't go on with two hands tied behind our backs and let the losers and dirtbags defecate on our society.

Help me out here.

Talk about a fat juicy softball.

How would you have the cops fight gang activity?
More patrols.
More investigation of crimes.
More arrests.
More prosecutions.
Yet more patrols
Yet more investigation of crimes
Yet more arrests.
Yet more prosecutions.
YOU calling them and reporting them kicking your fireworks (malicious mischief and/or disorderly conduct, a crime), and having the police ARREST them and CHARGE them and prosecute them. That's the tool that should be used. Vote people into positions of power (sheriff, district attorney, etc.), who are going to make the cops WORK and solve crimes and respond to good citizens' requests to press charges, like you, and prosecute crimes and criminals to the full extent of the law. But unless and until they commit a crime, leave them the heck alone! This is America jack. You can hang out on the street corner all you damn well please. If you don't like it, please go change the bill of rights to repeal the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments BEFORE you support such unconstituional measures. No different than supporting gun bans.

Would you give them any effective tools to use?

Of course - they tools they've already got - the money and a budget to get off their asses and patrol and investigate and solve crimes. Perhaps vote for bond issues for MORE tax money for same. Would I give them ALL the tools they ask for? Most certainly NOT. Police ALWAYS want "more effective tools" - they would have absolute plenary power to arrest and detain at their whim anyone they didn't like or anyone who looked a little strange (do you?) if it was up to them - if we gave them the 'tools' that they WANT and constantly gripe about not having. Their 'tools' are OUR lost freedoms. We most certainly can NOT give them all the 'tools' they would like, or the Const. and American way of life immediately goes down the urinal. That's the whole point. In a free society, we MUST necessarily give up certain levels of safety. But if we spend time and money investigating and prosecuting CRIMES (not wearing blue, not hanging out on the sidewalk), then CRIME will decrease.

We can't go on with two hands tied behind our backs and let the losers and dirtbags defecate on our society.

No we cannot; you got that straight. But we cannot arrest, harass and restrain INNOCENTS in the dragnet - we must root out and prosecute and punish the GUILTY only. Curfews and such injunctions are just the local government's cheap and lazy way out to solve thier FAILURE to do what we elected them to do and pay them to do. PATROL/DETER, INVESTIGATATE, SOLVE, ARREST, CHARGE, and PROSECUTE crime (not freely associating with whomover one likes - that's the 1st Am jack).

Help me out here.

I just did. :)

ACLU is lower than whale crap - what a joke - selective libertarians. The Raich and Kelo term is a positive one, eh?. That almost makes me want to puke. We need a REAL protector of civil rights group in this country!

Shalako
August 11, 2005, 09:09 PM
So is someone who joins the Cripps innocent then?

There is a 100% likelyhood that the affiliation they joined will commit crimes. They willingly joined the affiliation knowing that.

Your other suggestions were helpful though.

Whats with all the "jack" stuff? I am not diminishing your rights. I want actively criminal gangbangers off my street. That doesn't seem to apply to your rights or the diminishment thereof.

Azrael256
August 11, 2005, 09:49 PM
So is someone who joins the Cripps innocent then? Yes. Absolutely 100% innocent.

Now, have him convicted of a crime, by a jury of his peers, in a speedy and public trial, and I'll promptly change my tune. Don't you equate Cripps and Bloods with crime? No. I associate criminals with crime. Show me a random cripp or blood off the street, and I could not, with a clear conscience, infringe upon any of his rights. Only a jury has the authority to do something like that. The only time I would advocate depriving him of life, liberty, or property would be as a witness to a crime in front of the aforementioned jury, and even then, it's their call, not mine.

Control Group
August 12, 2005, 10:08 AM
So is someone who joins the Cripps innocent then?
Has he committed a crime?

If he has, then no, he's not innocent, and he should be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned. If he hasn't, then yes, he's innocent, and should enjoy every Constitutional right the rest of us do.

This is a a very simple distinction. A "clear, bright line" as legal types like to say. If you haven't broken any laws, you're not a criminal. Don't you see the basic injustice of punishing potential criminals? Everyone is a potential criminal. Some people are higher potential than others, sure. But even someone who joins the Cripps or Bloods isn't a 100% chance of being a criminal. If nothing else, he could be shot dead before he committed any crime. Unless you're clairvoyant, you can't predict the future; nothing's 100%. "I just know he's gonna do something bad" is completely inadequate reason for imprisoning someone in his home. "Eveyone knows them nee-groes is just lookin' for a chance to steal from honest white folk"

That's why we've got what they call "presumption of innocence." This policy is not only presumption of guilt, it's presumption of guilt before anyone's even been charged with a crime; before any crime has been committed! Let alone the whole fair trial, jury of your peers thing that someone once said was a good idea. I generally don't like cliched inflammatory terms, but if this isn't unamerican, I have no idea what is.

Shalako
August 12, 2005, 02:16 PM
I am pretty sure it is a crime to join a criminal gang. Maybe I am off on that, and if so I conceed.

But,
If one joins Al Queda, are they innocent? I think our .gov has determined otherwise. But that is not a very good argument in this setting because most here seem to distrust the .gov.

To me, its not about rogue cops. The cops are the agents of society and are doing our bidding. Yeah, you all will get a good chuckle about that, but call me an optimist, or ask what I smoked..ha ha... that's cool, but its how I like to envision a civilized society.

With that in mind, I view the article that started this thread as saying,
"Some losers and dirtbags have worn out their welcome in West Sacramento."
Booo Hooo. Like I care about some losers and dirtbags. They were served their walking papers. They can move their base of operations to some other local gang haven like Oak Park, South Sac, Del Paso Heights, or North Highlands.

I can tell that I am of the minority opinion here (<-- understatement), so I'm backing away quietly now.

captain obvious
August 12, 2005, 03:07 PM
I would like that the cops would have better tools to irradicate gang activity and leave the streets safer for productive citizens. Relying on my 1911 is not the preferred alternative.

:banghead:

How about getting rid of the legal quagmires that enable these types of organizations to exist, say, like the war on some drugs?

Or would that work too well, and then no one would race to kiss the feet of the statist thugs that have been drafted to "solve" this problem?

DRZinn
August 12, 2005, 09:06 PM
How about getting rid of the legal quagmires that enable these types of organizations to exist, say, like the war on some drugs?Livin' up to your name again...

c_yeager
August 13, 2005, 06:35 AM
So what is the real goal of the ACLU if not supporting the rights of the individual? I cant think of any more fundamental indivudual right than the ownership of property. Second place is probably the right to self defense. Why doesnt the ACLU support either of these rights?

THis is because there are already COUNTLESS organizations dedicated to the preservation of the 2nd amendment as well as private property rights. The ACLU speaks for people that noone else speaks for, thats thier mission.

How many groups make it their full-time job to protect the RKBA? more than I can count. How many groups are fighting for the rights of kids in Sacratmento being labeled as gang members due to their place of residence? Answer: one.

If you enjoyed reading about "this seems strange, even by California standards" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!