this seems strange, even by California standards

[Shalako]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.