Cities sue gangs to stop violence

ArmedBear · Jul 31, 2007

Three Strikes? How did that work out?

Actually, in California, it's credited by some with a significant contribution to the reduction of the violent crime rate. Others say it had no effect on an already-dropping rate. Can we tell for sure? No. Are the people who are in jail committing violent crimes in the community now, though? Of course not. Has 3 Strikes contributed to a higher crime rate? Certainly not.

Has it been a great miscarriage of justice to lock up people who are imprisoned, released, and continue to be convicted of felonies, repeatedly? I don't see how. It might make us feel sorry for some people, but that's nothing upon which to base a justice system. Besides, it was you, nobody, said that locking criminals up for longer is an acceptable solution to you. So which is it? You don't like injunctions instead of longer sentences for serial offenders, but you also oppose longer sentences for serial offenders?

BTW California voters had a chance to reform the law in 2004, and voted No, to keep it as-is.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/66/

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_Strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm#public safety

Compare California to national average. Our rates did drop much faster:
http://www.threestrikes.org/fbi_crimerates_pg1.html

Three Strikes is a very poor example if you are looking for a demonstrable failure.

nobody_special · Jul 31, 2007

joab said:
Then try explaining (away)the parts of your comments that I parsed [...] If the crux of your argument is based on simple word manipulation then why bother to argue at all?

I stand by my comments, and my argument is not based on "word manipulation." My argument is simply this: injunctions to remove a constitutionally protected right, when applied to the membership of a group or organization without a specific finding of cause for each member, would be harmful to civil rights.

Beyond that, I still do not understand what your point was. If, however, it was to find a logical inconsistency within these statements:

nobody_special said:
I never claimed that the injunction could be applied to "anyone a street cop wants them to apply to.

nobody_special said:
If they can ask for an injunction to prevent members of a particular gang from associating, therefore removing a constitutionally protected right from all members without showing cause for each particular member to lose that right,

...then I'm afraid that argument is without merit. Surely you can see that there is a difference between "anyone" and "gang members."

Well, taken at face value he article pretty much leads an objective reader to believe that these are targeted at individuals

The article under discussion here says:

...cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members...

Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down...

It is clear to an objective reader

that some of the suits target individuals, but these statements indicate that others target gangs as a whole. More details would be helpful, of course, and perhaps the article is not entirely accurate -- surely I've seen plenty of examples of that when journalists report on my field. But lacking further information, I must presume the article is correct.

It;s pretty much standard injunction wording , but I think you knew that

I have no idea what "standard injunction wording" is... I doubt I've ever read an injunction in my life.

Right, and these injunctions are an attempt to get around those limits to punishment. So... if the limits are too low, why not raise them instead?

That is the mentality that has us where we are.

Click to expand...

Once again, your logic escapes me. If there are convicted criminals on the street who shouldn't be there, then what's wrong with the reasoning that perhaps their sentences were too short?

What good will lengthening sentences do when violent offenders are getting out early already, why not just eliminate the practice of probation and parole.

Why not make violent offenders actually serve more of their sentence? What's wrong with that idea? Note that I didn't say eliminate probation or parole, but criminals serving only 40% or 50% of their sentence seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I could just as easily respond this way: what good will a civil injunction do when violent criminals are getting out early already?

Look, the goal here is to keep criminals (especially violent ones) in prison. Sure, you can do that by issuing civil injunctions which would add to the sentence. As an alternative, you can simply increase the sentence for the crime, or make violent criminals actually serve their sentences.

ArmedBer said:
Besides, it was you, nobody, said that locking criminals up for longer is an acceptable solution to you. So which is it? You don't like injunctions instead of longer sentences for serial offenders, but you also oppose longer sentences for serial offenders?

My problem with the 3 strikes law wasn't that it offered longer sentences to repeat offenders. Though I do recall reading stories about people sentenced to life imprisonment for fairly trivial (and non-violent) crimes. The fact that it completely removed any judicial discretion in such cases didn't help, either.

That, however, is more likely a separate problem than the one we are discussing now... perhaps another excess from the war on drugs.

The plot you show is interesting; however, one should note that the decline in crime began before the 3 strikes law was in effect. So this does not demonstrate a direct causal relationship (or, at least, it argues that there is another significant variable which is not being shown). That said, I'm willing to believe that the 3 strikes law did cause a decrease in the felony crime rate.

Outlaws · Jul 31, 2007

Plain and simply, standing on a street corner is not a crime, and those who do it (gang members or not) have not committed a crime and are not criminals. If they do something illegal, arrest them and give them a harsh sentence. If you think they are conspiring 24/7, dispatch a surveillance team and them bust them doing something illegal, then put them in prison for a long time. But good Lord, standing on a street corner!?

The problem is that prison is just a summer camp to most of these people who have been raised to realize they have a 50/50 chance of ending up there anyways. The other problem is that everyone feels entitled to a living (and that just ain't gonna happen, nor should it) so they think they can just take what they want.

joab · Jul 31, 2007

I stand by my comments, and my argument is not based on "word manipulation." My argument is simply this: injunctions to remove a constitutionally protected right, when applied to the membership of a group or organization without a specific finding of cause for each member, would be harmful to civil rights.

Your argument is exactly simple word manipulation of you are going to stand on the baseless fact that these injunction are aimed at groups and not groups of individuals

.then I'm afraid that argument is without merit. Surely you can see that there is a difference between "anyone" and "gang members."

Sorry but just more wordsmithing
Anyone can just as easily mean all gang members as it can mean anyone the policeman wants to designate as gang members

I actually held off on pointing out the passages I was talking about, just to see how disingenuous you would get to save your argument. But I am really at a loss to figure out how you thought this would help your stance

.cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members...

Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down...

Now if you still don't see the references, or believe Crazed who actually lives in one of the affected areas, try these references from the article

Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members

Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s

Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members, and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges.

Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales

Is the gang that small, I don't know, but I hardly think they would be on any radar if they were

Fort Worth sued 10 members of the Northcide Four Trey Gangsta Crips

Once again, your logic escapes me. If there are convicted criminals on the street who shouldn't be there, then what's wrong with the reasoning that perhaps their sentences were too short?

Do you see any great push to lengthen sentences? Do you see any great chance that it would succeed if there was?
By your reasoning here
We should have longer sentencing but we don't so we should not try another obviously more acceptable method, that has proven successes, because it will not work as well as having longer sentences.
Ignoring the entire concept that sooner or later you have to let most criminals out, by your method after even a longer gang indoctrination period

Why not make violent offenders actually serve more of their sentence?

Why ask me?
Ask the people who don't want prisons in there backyard, ask those that don't want to fund the war on drugs, ask those that feel compelled to pursue the war on drugs
The bare fact is that they are not serving full sentences or longer sentences, so the fear of many short, nonprofitable, sentences may help curb their activities

Plain and simply, standing on a street corner is not a crime, and those who do it (gang members or not) have not committed a crime and are not criminals.

It is, they have and they are if they do it in violation of a court order forbidding it.
Just as it is not illegal for you to visit your girlfriend until she gets an injunction saying you can't.
In both cases a court hearing will determine if the community is better served by your not being allowed to pursue those seemingly innocent activities

The problem is that prison is just a summer camp to most of these people who have been raised to realize they have a 50/50 chance of ending up there anyways.

Then why do they run from the police, why do they fight the charges, why do they make deals for lighter sentences
Simple because you can't make money in jail.
When your sales force is under constant threat of incapacitation by an overwhelming opposition you move operations to friendlier areas

nobody_special · Aug 1, 2007

Your argument is exactly simple word manipulation of you are going to stand on the baseless fact that these injunction are aimed at groups and not groups of individuals

Now if you still don't see the references, or believe Crazed who actually lives in one of the affected areas, try these references from the article

My patience is beginning to wear thin.

The "baseless fact" IS SUPPORTED IN THE ARTICLE. Just because several other passages (and no, I did not miss them) indicate that there are lawsuits targeted at individuals does not mean that all suits are so targeted. Note that the SCOTUS striking down a loitering law targeting gangs supports this argument, as it was obviously not individually targeted. The fact that it was struck down is not necessarily relevant, as clearly there could be other such laws or injunctions.

Sorry but just more wordsmithing
Anyone can just as easily mean all gang members as it can mean anyone the policeman wants to designate as gang members

My first impulse in replying here would offend Art's grandmother. If you don't understand the difference between "anyone" and "gang members" then I'm sorry, I can't help you.

I am not particularly worried that these injunctions might be applied to non-gang-members. I am a bit concerned that other, similar injunctions could be sought against other groups of "undesirables."

In both cases a court hearing will determine if the community is better served by your not being allowed to pursue those seemingly innocent activities

The courts are supposed to protect individual civil rights, and not just rule based on what best serves the community. Furthermore, the criminal justice system should be somewhat isolated from the political whims of the day, lest the majority simply legislate an unpopular minority into prison.

Do you see any great push to lengthen sentences? Do you see any great chance that it would succeed if there was?
By your reasoning here
We should have longer sentencing but we don't so we should not try another obviously more acceptable method, that has proven successes, because it will not work as well as having longer sentences.
Ignoring the entire concept that sooner or later you have to let most criminals out,

Whether or not there is widespread political support for longer sentences is not the issue. Neither is prison overcrowding. The issue is whether the government should obtain injunctions, against individuals or groups, which prohibit otherwise legal (and, in some cases, constitutionally protected) activity, and are targeted based on an affiliation.

If the problem is that "sooner or later you have to let most criminals out," well I fail to see how the injunction will help much. Sure, okay, it makes it easier to put them back in again. But once again, sooner or later you have to let them out...

I don't know about longer legislated sentences, but I am aware that many criminals only serve a fraction of their sentence. If we're talking about repeat felonious violent offenders, put 'em away for life. If not, then they should do their time and that should be that.

by your method after even a longer gang indoctrination period

My method advocates fixing the problem by putting violent offenders in prison for the duration of their sentences. The approach you are defending is to take every advantage to get the bad guys, and damn the consequences (who cares, they're bad guys, right?). But there are consequences.

Locking people up for constitutionally protected activity sets a bad example. Need I mention yet again the possible implications regarding gun ownership in an anti state such as California?

These people may have a criminal record, but they are being targeted (whether individually or not) based on an affiliation. It's easy to say "who cares, they're criminals and so are their associates" but it's still a dangerous precedent; slippery slope and all that. Targeting people for affiliation, rather than individual crimes, is persecution.

People shouldn't be punished for simply being members of an organization. This is disturbingly close to making it illegal to have friends with a criminal record. Furthermore, people shouldn't be prohibited from legal activity for reasons of criminal associations or for past convictions, assuming they've paid that debt to society. They should be punished for specific criminal acts, and the punishment should be evenhanded and fair. We must be careful to differentiate between fair application of just law, and manipulation of the legal system in order to punish or deny civil rights beyond the norm of criminal justice.

Our government and society have become far too tolerant of criminal punishment for specious reasons (as noted in the felony murder thread).

Beagle-zebub · Aug 1, 2007

Hm...I don't know, it seems like it would just make people [insert gang-related activity] inside, in an alley, or while walking. It might very well work at first, but conscious adaptation and natural selection would seemingly negate its effectiveness.

Do some states still have laws saying you can't associate with people you met in prison? (Not a rhetorical question.)

joab · Aug 1, 2007

The "baseless fact" IS SUPPORTED IN THE ARTICLE. Just because several other passages (and no, I did not miss them) indicate that there are lawsuits targeted at individuals does not mean that all suits are so targeted. Note that the SCOTUS striking down a loitering law targeting gangs supports this argument, as it was obviously not individually targeted. The fact that it was struck down is not necessarily relevant, as clearly there could be other such laws or injunctions.

Apparently your argument is wearing thin also

Read the article carefully,especially the part you reference here

SCOTUS struck down the injunction mentioned, what does that tell you?
Perhaps that there are those checks and balances referenced earlier in the discussion, that maybe thee is a process in place to insure that the rights of the gangs are protected
You will also note that other injunctions have held up to these challenges

Overwhelmingly the article references injunctions against individuals and groups of individuals but because the reporter uses the word gang a few time you ASSUME that these innjunctions are used against faceless groups

My first impulse in replying here would offend Art's grandmother. If you don't understand the difference between "anyone" and "gang members" then I'm sorry, I can't help you.

If you don't understand that the street cop can designate anyone he feels looks the part as a potential gang member on the street then you are equally lost.
If you don't realize that your assertion that the injunctions are aimed at groups in general opens the door to the injunctions being applied liberally to those deemed as potential gang members then you didn't think your objection through completely it is about potential corruption of the process right

I am not particularly worried that these injunctions might be applied to non-gang-members. I am a bit concerned that other, similar injunctions could be sought against other groups of "undesirables."

Kinda like the antis not being concerned about their guns but that other's guns could be used in crime (since you like mixing in the anti gun arguments)

The courts are supposed to protect individual civil rights, and not just rule based on what best serves the community. Furthermore, the criminal justice system should be somewhat isolated from the political whims of the day, lest the majority simply legislate an unpopular minority into prison.

The courts are there to protect the community while making sure that the rights of individuals are not violated, not the other way around
Community safety and stability is not a political whim and no minority has been targeted (but I knew the race card would be played sooner or later) There is a system in place to secure the rights of individuals and groups are not violated and a very adept watchdog group to make sure things don't get swept under the rug.

If the problem is that "sooner or later you have to let most criminals out," well I fail to see how the injunction will help much. Sure, okay, it makes it easier to put them back in again. But once again, sooner or later you have to let them out...

Already addressed
They can't make money in jail, they can't make money if police are in their face, they can't make money if they have to run every time they see a cop instead of just standing there trying to look innocent
It called harassment, a time honored military combat technique

I don't know about longer legislated sentences, but I am aware that many criminals only serve a fraction of their sentence. If we're talking about repeat felonious violent offenders, put 'em away for life. If not, then they should do their time and that should be that.

I'm confused do you or do you not support three strikes. It would seem here that you do, but earlier you implied that it did not work
Why would you be advocating a system that you claim does not work over a system that has documented successes
But the bottom line is
Longer sentences and full sentences are not on the table, injunctions are
Why do people always revert back to that tired argument
It all boils down to
"This would work so much better than that therefore that must be bad. If we cannot have this then I'm going to hold my breath and stamp my feet and refuse that"

Here's a better suggestion, how about longer sentences AND injunctions. They don't have to be mutually exclusive

My method advocates fixing the problem by putting violent offenders in prison for the duration of their sentences. The approach you are defending is to take every advantage to get the bad guys, and damn the consequences (who cares, they're bad guys, right?). But there are consequences.

I knew this was coming too
Show me where I have said or implied damn the consequences
I know I can show you where I at least implied support of court oversight

How does your method even come close to fixing the problem
Your method is one of those that sounds good if you say it fast but really does nothing
The criminals are getting out sometime whether that is sometime soon or sometime later is pretty much irrelevant because they are still coming out in stages so there will always be some of them on the street and the gangs will always just bring in new members to swell the numbers
The injunctions will at least help to make their gang life a little more difficult

Locking people up for constitutionally protected activity sets a bad example. Need I mention yet again the possible implications regarding gun ownership in an anti state such as California?

So does that mean that Joe can walk down the street of the neighbor hood of the girlfriend he has been intimidating
Oh please mention the implications regarding gun owners
Please show me how preventing designated criminals from hanging out together will affect law abiding gun owners
Please show me how, in spite of the SCOTUS decision you yourself cited, the rights of gunowners in general are threatened by these, court supported, injunctions
It's for the gunowners , remind you of anyone else

These people may have a criminal record, but they are being targeted (whether individually or not) based on an affiliation. It's easy to say "who cares, they're criminals and so are their associates" but it's still a dangerous precedent; slippery slope and all that. Targeting people for affiliation, rather than individual crimes, is persecution.

There are references in the article as to why these individuals were targeted for injunctions.

People shouldn't be punished for simply being members of an organization. This is disturbingly close to making it illegal to have friends with a criminal record. Furthermore, people shouldn't be prohibited from legal activity for reasons of criminal associations or for past convictions, assuming they've paid that debt to society. They should be punished for specific criminal acts, and the punishment should be evenhanded and fair. We must be careful to differentiate between fair application of just law, and manipulation of the legal system in order to punish or deny civil rights beyond the norm of criminal justice.

Perhaps you should look up the legal definition of gang
Criminal activity is a major part of that definition
So yes it should be punishable under these injunctions, for a criminal enterprise to assemble for the purpose of criminal activity

And yes a provision of many paroles and probations are that you not have contact with certain undesirable characters

Our government and society have become far too tolerant of criminal punishment for specious reasons (as noted in the felony murder thread).

Personally I think the internet has given too many tin foil hatters chicken little platforms to spout baseless fears

Conspiracies are the it thing these days
And just like the race baiters they have diluted the concept to the point that it is easily dismissed as pot stirring

nobody_special · Aug 1, 2007

SCOTUS struck down the injunction mentioned, what does that tell you?

It tells me that one particular injunction was struck down, but not necessarily for the same reasons that give rise to my objections.

Overwhelmingly the article references injunctions against individuals and groups of individuals but because the reporter uses the word gang a few time you ASSUME that these innjunctions are used against faceless groups

I never said "faceless." And it's not an assumption when it's directly stated in the article.

If you don't understand that the street cop can designate anyone he feels looks the part as a potential gang member on the street then you are equally lost.

I'm sorry, are you trying to argue my point for me?

A police officer may erroneously arrest someone by incorrectly designating him as a gang member, but the judicial system must uphold that, and the person arrested will have legal recourse against the city. So I'm not too worried that a specific injunction might be inappropriately applied to the wrong people. Rather, I"m concerned about the approach in general.

If you don't realize that your assertion that the injunctions are aimed at groups in general opens the door to the injunctions being applied liberally to those deemed as potential gang members then you didn't think your objection through completely it is about potential corruption of the process right

That is precisely my concern.

(since you like mixing in the anti gun arguments)

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

The courts are there to protect the community while making sure that the rights of individuals are not violated, not the other way around

If you mean that community safety takes precedence over individual rights, well that's a typical anti argument. And one with which I take issue.

Community safety and stability is not a political whim and no minority has been targeted (but I knew the race card would be played sooner or later)

Race has nothing to do with it. (Or maybe it does, but that's not what I meant.) Get this through your head: not all minorities are racial. Gun owners are a minority. So are homosexuals, libertarians, and George Bush supporters.

I'm confused do you or do you not support three strikes. It would seem here that you do, but earlier you implied that it did not work

I support the idea of increasing sentences for repeat offenders (especially for repeat violent offenders). I'm not thrilled with the 3 strikes law because it removes all judicial discretion, and IIRC it applies to non-violent crimes as well, possibly including victimless crimes. I've been out of CA for a while now, but I seem to recall stories of the 3 strikes law being applied in cases where it seemed excessive.

So I support the idea and goal, but perhaps not this particular implementation.

Why would you be advocating a system that you claim does not work over a system that has documented successes

I'm advocating improving the system by fixing certain problems, rather than applying a patch which might give rise to other problems (as you noted above).

Show me where I have said or implied damn the consequences
I know I can show you where I at least implied support of court oversight

You yourself just pointed out possible consequences where injunctions might be mis-applied... "the street cop can designate anyone he feels looks the part as a potential gang member" and "the injunctions are aimed at groups in general opens the door to the injunctions being applied liberally..."

I realize you are arguing that the injunctions are not targeted at groups, but we have seen in at least one case that they were. That may have been rejected by the SCOTUS, but (1) there may well be others, (2) courts are a system of last resort and don't always get things right, and (3) this shows that the attempt to prosecute groups is being made.

The courts always make the right decisions, no? So nobody here is worried about how SCOTUS will rule on Parker?

How does your method even come close to fixing the problem
Your method is one of those that sounds good if you say it fast but really does nothing

Nothing? Keeping violent criminals in prison is "nothing"?

The criminals are getting out sometime whether that is sometime soon or sometime later is pretty much irrelevant because they are still coming out in stages so there will always be some of them on the street and the gangs will always just bring in new members to swell the numbers

The exact same argument can be used against your approach.

It called harassment, a time honored military combat technique

So you're advocating harassment?

I've objected to the use of military tactics against civilians in other threads.

Perhaps you should look up the legal definition of gang
Criminal activity is a major part of that definition

Okay, let's look at the definition, in CA penal code section 186.22:

(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.
(26) Felony theft of an access card or account information, as defined in Section 484e.
(27) Counterfeiting, designing, using, attempting to use an access card, as defined in Section 484f.
(28) Felony fraudulent use of an access card or account information, as defined in Section 484g.
(29) Unlawful use of personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, or medical information, as defined in Section 530.5.
(30) Wrongfully obtaining Department of Motor Vehicles documentation, as defined in Section 529.7.
(31) Prohibited possession of a firearm in violation of Section 12021.
(32) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of Section 12025.
(33) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of Section 12031.

(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, or (31) to (33), 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.

So an informal group of three individuals, who have a "common name," and any member(s) of which have carried a loaded firearm and have an improper driver's license, are a criminal street gang. Also note the definition of "loaded firearm" is peculiar in CA. I'm assuming that the "primary activites.... commission of one or more of the criminal acts" and "pattern of criminal activity" are easy arguments for a prosecutor.

I think that could be applied pretty liberally... especially considering the multiple firearm provisions, some of which are relatively innocuous and are legal in most other states.

So yes it should be punishable under these injunctions, for a criminal enterprise to assemble for the purpose of criminal activity

That seems reasonable to me, if it is shown that they were assembling for criminal activity when arrested. The injunctions presume criminal activity before association, and indeed turn association into criminal activity.

Autolycus · Aug 1, 2007

I am worried that anything can be legislated into law that can be used to target us. This is an example of that.

ArmedBear · Aug 1, 2007

In California, Tecumseh, that's easy:

CA Penal Code 186.22(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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/186.20-186.33.html

Autolycus · Aug 1, 2007

Yes I saw the posting to late. So I edited it to reflect my view point.

Scorpiusdeus · Aug 1, 2007

These injunctions have slowed down Gangs in Oxnard California and they are yet one more tool for LE to use to protect innocent people from thugs. Could this be abused, maybe, but with the high profile monitoring these programs receive I doubt they will be abused too much.

These bangers don't wear name tags, but they throw signs, and get inked. A Name tag would be a better idea as the print would be smaller and not be permanent.

I'm all for it.

joab · Aug 1, 2007

It tells me that one particular injunction was struck down, but not necessarily for the same reasons that give rise to my objections.

OK so how was this one injunction struck down?
Did SCOTUS decide not to take a coffee break one day and instead choose to look up some minor local injunctions to strike down or was there perhaps a challenge that was truck down
If this doesn't tell you that there are people watching over the procedure then you are deliberately not listening

I never said "faceless." And it's not an assumption when it's directly stated in the article.

OK pick whatever descriptive word you like that means unnamed individuals an then show me the direct reference

I'm sorry, are you trying to argue my point for me?

Just trying to help you keep up with it, you seem to be wandering off a little

A police officer may erroneously arrest someone by incorrectly designating him as a gang member, but the judicial system must uphold that, and the person arrested will have legal recourse against the city. So I'm not too worried that a specific injunction might be inappropriately applied to the wrong people. Rather, I"m concerned about the approach in general.

Would that be the approach that the article is about, of applying injunctions under judicial scrutiny against named individuals so that police cannot erroneously arrest someone by inappropriately naming them as gang members.

That is precisely my concern.

Glad I could help direct you to your point
But that also shows how your point so far is not valid
The injunctions are against individuals and groups of individuals not just
groups

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Then why did you say you were, are you wandering off again?

If you mean that community safety takes precedence over individual rights, well that's a typical anti argument. And one with which I take issue.

Actually no I'm not saying that (I would ask you to show me, but I have already seen that you run from that challenge)But your's is a typical twisty response
If you read the comment you will see no indication that I place the value of one over the other, now do you?

I support the idea of increasing sentences for repeat offenders (especially for repeat violent offenders). I'm not thrilled with the 3 strikes law because it removes all judicial discretion, and IIRC it applies to non-violent crimes as well, possibly including victimless crimes. I've been out of CA for a while now, but I seem to recall stories of the 3 strikes law being applied in cases where it seemed excessive.

So I support the idea and goal, but perhaps not this particular implementation

.
Fair enough

You yourself just pointed out possible consequences where injunctions might be mis-applied... "the street cop can designate anyone he feels looks the part as a potential gang member" and "the injunctions are aimed at groups in general opens the door to the injunctions being applied liberally..."

Selective reading on your part,
Try using the whole comment not just the part that fits your argument

f you don't realize that your assertion that the injunctions are aimed at groups in general opens the door to the injunctions being applied liberally to those deemed as potential gang members then you didn't think your objection through completely it is about potential corruption of the process right

The article pretty much disputes this assertion

Nothing? Keeping violent criminals in prison is "nothing"?

I thought you were the one that said that lengthening prison terms had nothing to do with this discussion, I can show you where. I also fully supported that statement, you just have to read a little further

The exact same argument can be used against your approach.

Except that I provided an example of how my approach would work and the article provided examples of how it has

So you're advocating harassment?

Now it's my turn
Get this through your head
Harassment does not always mean making prank phone calls or committing illegal or anti social acts and military tactics do not always refer to deadly engagements
I guess asking you to use a dictionary before resorting to word twisting would be too much to ask
It simply means "disturbing your opponents/enemy's rest"
Now show me where that has an anti constitutional angle to it

So an informal group of three individuals, who have a "common name," and any member(s) of which have carried a loaded firearm and have an improper driver's license, are a criminal street gang. Also note the definition of "loaded firearm" is peculiar in CA. I'm assuming that the "primary activites.... commission of one or more of the criminal acts" and "pattern of criminal activity" are easy arguments for a prosecutor.

Did you pull anything with that stretch? I also notice that you do a lot of assuming.

Somehow you get to the relative innocent sounding Have an improper DL from the criminal act of committing fraud to wrongfully obtain Department of Motor Vehicles documentation

The injunctions presume criminal activity before association, and indeed turn association into criminal activity.

Just as an injunction against an abusive spouse assumes that he would be there to abuse her again

Yhe gist of your argument is that it could be used for corrupt purposes, of which there is no evidence that it has

The gist of mine is that it is not used for corrupt purposes and the process is watchdogged adequately

The other objection you seem to have is that it will not work as well as the long prison sentences that you say has nothing to do with this discussion

My stand id that these injunctions have proven to work and we are not getting the long sentences anytime soon ,and even if we did that would only increase the effectiveness of the injunctions, so go with what they will let us have

Can you show any proof that these injunctions are being corrupted
We know that there is evidence that they are being watched over by outside interests and that the courts are protecting the rights of individuals

Oh and I ain't parsing no more it's getting boring because we are both too long winded

The Deer Hunter · Aug 1, 2007

If there not dead or in jail, I don't see the point.

Gangs still operate on a sub level in prison.

nobody_special · Aug 1, 2007

nobody_special said:
If you mean that community safety takes precedence over individual rights, well that's a typical anti argument. And one with which I take issue.

joab said:
Actually no I'm not saying that (I would ask you to show me, but I have already seen that you run from that challenge)But your's is a typical twisty response
If you read the comment you will see no indication that I place the value of one over the other, now do you?

Actually, I do. So let's look at your actual comment:

joab said:
The courts are there to protect the community while making sure that the rights of individuals are not violated, not the other way around

If you didn't mean to emphasize the dominance of the first clause (protecting the community) over the second (protecting individual rights), then can you please explain the meaning of "not the other way around?"

nobody_special said:
Nothing? Keeping violent criminals in prison is "nothing"?

joab said:
I thought you were the one that said that lengthening prison terms had nothing to do with this discussion, I can show you where. I also fully supported that statement, you just have to read a little further

Who is "word-smithing" now?

What I actually said is that the presence of widespread political support for lengthening sentences is not the issue. That's quite a different statement from "lengthening prison terms had nothing to do with this discussion."

Furthermore, there's a difference between lengthening the prison term to which a criminal is sentenced, and lengthening the amount of time that a criminal spends in jail. Recall that I support criminals actually serving their full sentences instead of getting out of prison after having served a fraction of that sentence. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the legislated sentences are sufficient; maybe they are, or maybe not... but I do know that criminals often don't do much of their time.

Did you pull anything with that stretch? I also notice that you do a lot of assuming. Somehow you get to the relative innocent sounding Have an improper DL from the criminal act of committing fraud to wrongfully obtain Department of Motor Vehicles documentation

I was thinking along the lines of teenagers with false IDs... not sure if that applies or not. But it doesn't really matter, as there are other minor offenses (some are misdemeanors) listed. Selling a gun, for example.

As for the assumptions, they're not such a great leap I think, since those things are not well defined.

Harassment does not always mean making prank phone calls or committing illegal or anti social acts and military tactics do not always refer to deadly engagements
I guess asking you to use a dictionary before resorting to word twisting would be too much to ask
It simply means "disturbing your opponents/enemy's rest"
Now show me where that has an anti constitutional angle to it

I must strongly object to your tone here. I understood perfectly well what you meant by harassment. And I still thing it's wrong. Consider Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I think this qualifies as an unusual punishment, since it is selectively applied.

Furthermore, harassment of people, for whatever reason, sets a bad example and fosters animosity. And it is subject to abuse. Would it be okay to harass gun owners? After all, many CA gun owners have assault weapons which are borderline illegal. Given the anti-gun sentiment in that state, it's not such a leap. What about Muslims? Some Muslims caused a lot of trouble for this country. Should Muslims be harassed?

The problem here is your attitude that some people are "enemies." Sure, there are pretty bad people out there... if they're really so bad, hardened violent criminals, then they should be in prison and stay there. If not, then persecuting them certainly won't make them see the error of their ways. Treating people as enemies won't help make them productive members of society.

If the goal is simply to get hardened criminals off the streets, well, then they need to stay in prison longer (as in, for life).

nobody_special said:
The injunctions presume criminal activity before association, and indeed turn association into criminal activity.

joab said:
Just as an injunction against an abusive spouse assumes that he would be there to abuse her again

Yes, but there's a substantial difference here. An injunction against an abusive spouse (I presume this is a restraining order) is granted to prevent one person from violating the civil rights of another, and passes a test similar to "strict scrutiny" -- it uses the minimum amount of force necessary to do so.

The article indicates that the gang injunctions go far beyond that. They bar the right to assemble, set curfews, ban alcohol, etc. which go well beyond the minimum restriction as per strict scrutiny. The injunction against criminal acts is more appropriate to your example.

Thin Black Line · Aug 1, 2007

People who shoot police officers aren't afraid of lawsuits:

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2007/08/01/8_1_Cop_shot_folo.html

Police seek leads in shooting

By MIKE McKIBBIN The Daily Sentinel

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

GLENWOOD SPRINGS — Investigators looking into Sunday night’s shooting of a Glenwood Springs police officer want to talk with two “persons of interest” seen riding away from the scene nearly an hour after the incident, authorities said Tuesday.

The two people reportedly were seen heading south on South Grand Avenue, past Berthod Motors, at 11:48 p.m. Sunday, Garfield County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Tanny McGinnis said. McGinnis would not elaborate about what was meant by “riding away.”

Investigators would also like to talk to any motorists who were in that area between 11:40 p.m. and 11:55 p.m., she said.

“We want to talk to anyone who was in that area at that time, she said.

The officer, whose name has not been released, was shot by one of two suspects he encountered at approximately 11 p.m. Sunday, south of the Glenwood Springs Airport, near some storage units and the Police Department’s motor vehicle impoundment lot. The officer was struck in the chest, and his bulletproof vest is credited with saving his life, police said.

The Sheriff’s Department is in charge of the investigation, and McGinnis said investigators had received a couple leads from citizens through the Crimestoppers program. No further details were released because of the ongoing investigation.

The reward for information that helps lead to the arrest and conviction of the suspects was doubled to $4,000, McGinnis said, because of donations by area businesses and citizens.

Despite ground and air search efforts Sunday night and Monday morning, the two suspects were not found.

The suspects were described as Hispanic men, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 7 inches tall, approximately 155 pounds, 18 to 20 years old, with short brown hair and clean-shaven. One man wore a red, hooded sweatshirt with dark pants and lace-up boots; the other wore a black or dark blue, hooded sweatshirt, dark pants and black and white Adidas tennis shoes.

joab · Aug 1, 2007

If you didn't mean to emphasize the dominance of the first clause (protecting the community) over the second (protecting individual rights), then can you please explain the meaning of "not the other way around?"

ell lets examine your comment

The courts are supposed to protect individual civil rights, and not just rule based on what best serves the community.

My comment was meant to suggest that the good of the community is not secondary to what best serves the individual
You cannot do one without equally protecting the other. like has been done with these injunctions
Not the other way around as you suggest that the rights of the individual are more important that what best serves the communtiy

Who is "word-smithing" now?

You think you are the only one who can do it
Kinda distracting and simplistically diversionary huh?

I was thinking along the lines of teenagers with false IDs... not sure if that applies or not. But it doesn't really matter, as there are other minor offenses (some are misdemeanors) listed. Selling a gun, for example.

I sell guns all the time without committing any crimes.
When you live in a community you are bound to the rules of that community. If you don't like them then move or work to change them

I must strongly object to your tone here. I understood perfectly well what you meant by harassment. And I still thing it's wrong. Consider Amendment VIII:

Object away sport, you set the tone
And what about the 8th, you think that somehow applies here?

I think this qualifies as an unusual punishment, since it is selectively applied.

I must strongly object to the abject ridiculousness of that statement
Selectively enforced.
All laws selectively enforced, if you consider that they are against those identified as committing criminal activities

Furthermore, harassment of people, for whatever reason, sets a bad example and fosters animosity. And it is subject to abuse.

I guess you con't get the concept after all and the abuse you speak of is subject to the oversight documented in the article that you claim to take at face value

Would it be okay to harass gun owners? After all, many CA gun owners have assault weapons which are borderline illegal. Given the anti-gun sentiment in that state, it's not such a leap. What about Muslims? Some Muslims caused a lot of trouble for this country. Should Muslims be harassed?

Are you saying that Muslims are criminals and that being Muslim equates to being part of a criminal gang?
And again with the race card, pretty lame dontchathink

The problem here is your attitude that some people are "enemies." Sure, there are pretty bad people out there... if they're really so bad, hardened violent criminals, then they should be in prison and stay there. If not, then persecuting them certainly won't make them see the error of their ways. Treating people as enemies won't help make them productive members of society.

If the goal is simply to get hardened criminals off the streets, well, then they need to stay in prison longer (as in, for life).

No the problem is that people like you don't see them as the enemy of the community.
Your simplistic give em more time line doesn't work for one reason.
It ain't happening get that through your head
The injunctions are happening
If longer terms and mandatory terms did come back people like you would whine about that, like you already have in this conversation
If judges are ever allowed again to hand out sentencing as they see fit y'all would be up in arms about selective sentencing
As long as it involves the government you will not be happy and will protest against it
Not necessarily because you see it as a bad thing but because you want to be edgy and stand out, by jumping on the most popular bandwagon of the day

If you thought for a moment you would see the absolute ludicrousness of your argument

The article indicates that the gang injunctions go far beyond that. They bar the right to assemble, set curfews, ban alcohol, etc. which go well beyond the minimum restriction as per strict scrutiny. The injunction against criminal acts is more appropriate to your example.

So would walking or driving down a city street be a criminal activity?
RO prohibit the restrained from doing that if that street is within a certain distance from the victims home

The injunction fall well within the example
They are none to commit crimes and are enjoined from being in the vicinity of those that they participate in criminal activity with
The same way felons are paroles and probationers are prohibited from certain acts that the rest of us take for granted because we have not abused the community trust.

There is zero evidence that the system is being abused and ample evidence that it is subject to court oversight, but you still cry about the constitutional sky falling.
Why exactly is that

That is pretty much all this conversation boils down to

nobody_special · Aug 2, 2007

Not the other way around as you suggest that the rights of the individual are more important that what best serves the communtiy

Actually, I believe that pretty firmly. Otherwise you risk the tyranny of the majority.

You think you are the only one who can do it
Kinda distracting and simplistically diversionary huh?

I haven't done that at all, at least not intentionally. I have found your arguments somewhat opaque at times.

I sell guns all the time without committing any crimes.
When you live in a community you are bound to the rules of that community. If you don't like them then move or work to change them

Which misses the point entirely. The point is that this particular definition of a gang member is pretty wide, and covers a lot of territory that would be serious trouble people on this board.

nobody_special said:
I think this qualifies as an unusual punishment, since it is selectively applied.

I must strongly object to the abject ridiculousness of that statement
Selectively enforced.
All laws selectively enforced, if you consider that they are against those identified as committing criminal activities

No, you missed the point entirely. And I think you're wrong. The injunctions are a punishment which is selectively applied against some criminals (who are gang members), but not other criminals who have committed the same crimes. It's unequal punishment for the same crime. It's at the same level as selective enforcement of the law, which is essentially a form of corruption.

And yes, I'm aware that there is judicial discretion in sentences, and not every convicted thief (or whatever) gets the same sentence. That's not the point, and it's not the same thing.

Furthermore, harassment of people, for whatever reason, sets a bad example and fosters animosity. And it is subject to abuse.

I guess you con't get the concept after all and the abuse you speak of is subject to the oversight documented in the article that you claim to take at face value

It's still bad on many levels. And the fact that the "oversight" is an imperfect last resort, and that it has been used already to strike down one law, gives significant weight to my argument. It also proves that the sort of abuse that I'm concerned with has been attempted. Sure, it failed... but as we know from experience with gun control laws, it's far easier to restrict freedoms than restore them. Just because the oversight worked once doesn't mean that it will work every time.

Are you saying that Muslims are criminals and that being Muslim equates to being part of a criminal gang?

Google "sarcasm."

And again with the race card, pretty lame dontchathink

:banghead: :fire:

"Muslim" does not indicate race. It indicates religion.

I find it very interesting that you have now accused me of "playing the race card" twice, and yet race has never once entered into my arguments. :scrutiny:

No the problem is that people like you don't see them as the enemy of the community.
Your simplistic give em more time line doesn't work for one reason.
It ain't happening get that through your head
The injunctions are happening
If longer terms and mandatory terms did come back people like you would whine about that, like you already have in this conversation
If judges are ever allowed again to hand out sentencing as they see fit y'all would be up in arms about selective sentencing

There's a difference between judicial discretion in sentencing and selective application or enforcement of the law. And I thought there still were mandatory terms? Regardless, as I said before it doesn't matter much if longer terms happen (or, more properly, criminals actually serving a larger fraction of their sentences). As I said before, the lack of political support for this is not the point - though it is perhaps unfortunate. If the problem gets bad enough, the political support will rise.

My real problem here is the whole approach wherein a city government finds they can't get people through the usual legal method, so they go and prohibit otherwise legal, constitutionally protected activities which do not infringe upon anyone else's rights, just for these people in order to get them. It's persecution, and it's wrong. It's very nearly equivalent to a bill of attainder. I know this is an unpopular position; who wants to defend criminal gang members? But that's what the rule of law is about.

As long as it involves the government you will not be happy and will protest against it
Not necessarily because you see it as a bad thing but because you want to be edgy and stand out, by jumping on the most popular bandwagon of the day

If you thought for a moment you would see the absolute ludicrousness of your argument

Oh give me a break. My arguments are rational and backed by facts, which you conveniently ignore. And as much as our government raises my blood pressure these days, that hasn't always been the case.

The article indicates that the gang injunctions go far beyond that. They bar the right to assemble, set curfews, ban alcohol, etc. which go well beyond the minimum restriction as per strict scrutiny. The injunction against criminal acts is more appropriate to your example.

So would walking or driving down a city street be a criminal activity?
RO prohibit the restrained from doing that if that street is within a certain distance from the victims home

The point is that the injunctions of a RO follow a "strict scrutiny" rule. They are not intended to harass or punish a person. Instead, they are designed to prevent that person from infringing upon the rights of another (at the very least, the right to be left alone and in peace), using the minimum possible force.

That is not the case with these injunctions. Prohibiting the right to assemble goes beyond "strict scrutiny" because the act of assembly does not violate anyone's rights.

There is zero evidence that the system is being abused and ample evidence that it is subject to court oversight, but you still cry about the constitutional sky falling.
Why exactly is that
That is pretty much all this conversation boils down to

See the above regarding selective enforcement. See the above regarding abuse; if it were not being abused, SCOTUS would likely not have overruled a city. And while you may tout that as an example of oversight preventing abuses, it takes time for the judicial wheels to turn and people's lives may be ruined by the process of achieving a victory in front of the Supreme Court. I don't have all that much faith in the quality of said oversight, either. My opinion appears to be shared by many people who are worried over the outcome of Parker (or Heller or whatever they're calling it these days). We're talking about the court that issued the Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. New London decisions.

Feanaro · Aug 2, 2007

What I wonder is, how does one determine who is a gang member? It's not like the Crips or the Bloods keep a handy membership list that they share with everyone. Are these injunctions limited to specified individuals or is there some method of determining gang status?

crazed_ss · Aug 2, 2007

What I wonder is, how does one determine who is a gang member? It's not like the Crips or the Bloods keep a handy membership list that they share with everyone. Are these injunctions limited to specified individuals or is there some method of determining gang status?

In San Diego, the injunctions that have been in place for nearly a decade target specific individuals. Here is the criteria for determining if someone is a gang member.. http://www.sdcda.org/protecting/criteria.php

joab · Aug 2, 2007

Actually, I believe that pretty firmly. Otherwise you risk the tyranny of the majority.

And your way we submit to the tyranny of the criminal minority

I haven't done that at all, at least not intentionally. I have found your arguments somewhat opaque at times.

Actually you have done it a few times. and I have found your arguments to be somewhat obtuse at times

The point is that this particular definition of a gang member is pretty wide, and covers a lot of territory that would be serious trouble people on this board.

Could you point out the habitual criminals on this board, so I know who to avoid.
Not because I am afraid of being labeled a gang member but because I'm just the kind of person that chooses not to hang out with criminals . But then we don't normally wear the same clothes or mark or assemble for the purpose of committing crimes so we're pretty safe here

The injunctions are a punishment which is selectively applied against some criminals (who are gang members), but not other criminals who have committed the same crimes.

That's where you are missing the point
If they are committing the same crimes under the same circumstances they are a gang and will be treated the same
And I have news for you
These types of injunctions are placed on single individuals also. I already gave an example of Orlando's prostitute injunctions, against individual whores
My next door neighbor is not allowed in certain parts of town without risking arrest for his past drug activity.
Judges used to get away with this type of creative sentencing until some people started in on the selective enforcement angle

It's still bad on many levels. And the fact that the "oversight" is an imperfect last resort, and that it has been used already to strike down one law, gives significant weight to my argument. It also proves that the sort of abuse that I'm concerned with has been attempted. Sure, it failed... but as we know from experience with gun control laws, it's far easier to restrict freedoms than restore them. Just because the oversight worked once doesn't mean that it will work every time.

Maybe we should just dismantle the entire judicial system
Innocent people are regularly sent to jail for life some are even executed, arrests are made with out strict legal justification, It takes the court system to straighten it out after the fact. That's how we get the Miranda and Terry rulings, it's also how we get the ruling that an injunction was unconstitutional
When those rulings are made cities jump through hoops to make sure they comply with them so that cases in the future are not overturned and money wasted

Google "sarcasm."

Right back atcha

Muslim" does not indicate race. It indicates religion.

see above
From now on I;ll run my comments past my 7 yo grandaughter to makes sure they are not to confusing

Regardless, as I said before it doesn't matter much if longer terms happen (or, more properly, criminals actually serving a larger fraction of their sentences). As I said before, the lack of political support for this is not the point - though it is perhaps unfortunate. If the problem gets bad enough, the political support will rise.

It's not the point only because you don't want it to be
It is a valid point in this discussion because you keep bringing it up
It's the same point as if I go to my mother's and want a mountain dew to drink when all she has is water
The water will do the job of quenching my thirst but it is not as attractive to me as a cold Mt Dew would be
If I do not have the means to get the Dew then I must be satisfied with the water
Just as you do not have the means to implement these longer sentences and time served that you advocate but then claim are irrelevant

My real problem here is the whole approach wherein a city government finds they can't get people through the usual legal method, so they go and prohibit otherwise legal, constitutionally protected activities which do not infringe upon anyone else's rights, just for these people in order to get them. It's persecution, and it's wrong. It's very nearly equivalent to a bill of attainder. I know this is an unpopular position; who wants to defend criminal gang members? But that's what the rule of law is about.

Injunctions are not unusual methods, they have been around fro years if not decades,
All criminal punishment infringes on otherwise constitutional activities,, that's why there is the requirement of due process which these injunctions must observe as well

My arguments are rational and backed by facts, which you conveniently ignore

then why when I ask you to show me those facts you conveniently ignore that request.
Show me these facts based on facts and not based on assumptions based on what word the reporter of this one article used
CrazedSS has several times now tried to tell you that it is fact that these injunctions are issued against individuals, Drew Carey even knows thisbut you refuse to listen because you have enough info from the article to make the assumptions necessary to back your argument in your own mind

The point is that the injunctions of a RO follow a "strict scrutiny" rule. They are not intended to harass or punish a person. Instead, they are designed to prevent that person from infringing upon the rights of another (at the very least, the right to be left alone and in peace), using the minimum possible force.

And you know that these injunctions don't follow strict scrutiny how?
ROs are intended to protect the victim by prohibiting otherwise constitutionally protected activities, the same as the injunctions. The only difference is that now the courts are recognizing the community as the victim

That is not the case with these injunctions. Prohibiting the right to assemble goes beyond "strict scrutiny" because the act of assembly does not violate anyone's rights.

The act of simply walking down a city street does not violate anyones rights either. But if you have an injunction against you by an ex girlfriend on that street you will be arrested

See the above regarding selective enforcement. See the above regarding abuse; if it were not being abused, SCOTUS would likely not have overruled a city. And while you may tout that as an example of oversight preventing abuses, it takes time for the judicial wheels to turn and people's lives may be ruined by the process of achieving a victory in front of the Supreme Court. I don't have all that much faith in the quality of said oversight, either. My opinion appears to be shared by many people who are worried over the outcome of Parker (or Heller or whatever they're calling it these days). We're talking about the court that issued the Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. New London decisions.

See above regarding total dismantling of our legal system.
Parker and Kelo are much more complex issues than telling criminals where they are not allowed to be criminals

If you look at that overturned injunction
The article states that it was too large in scope
It did not say whether that scope was in regards to who it affected or in regards to the size of the area covered

I got the impression that it was that it was a city wide injunction,which explains the "safety zones"

nobody_special · Aug 2, 2007

These types of injunctions are placed on single individuals also.

To clarify: my parent argument (to which your quote responds) was directed against injunctions applied to either groups or individuals.

And you know that these injunctions don't follow strict scrutiny how?
ROs are intended to protect the victim by prohibiting otherwise constitutionally protected activities, the same as the injunctions. The only difference is that now the courts are recognizing the community as the victim

The act of simply walking down a city street does not violate anyones rights either. But if you have an injunction against you by an ex girlfriend on that street you will be arrested

ROs do not enjoin against walking down any city street. They typically enjoin against being within a certain distance of someone, or their residence, correct? That is, they are specifically targeted. They enjoin one particular "right of assembly" because the other person doesn't want to "assemble." So this directly prevents the infringement of another person's rights.

They do not prohibit the right to travel in general, or to associate with people who want their company. The injunction is no more broad than is necessary to protect the rights of the person being protected by the order. In this way, it is analagous to an injunction against criminal activity.

The ROs against gang members go beyond that standard. The enjoined right to assemble, in this case, does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. Removal of that particular right goes beyond the strict scrutiny standard unless it is shown that there can not be any legal purpose for such assembly (and it is pretty much impossible to prove that).

If you look at that overturned injunction
The article states that it was too large in scope

Yes, and you may be right about that scope being city-wide, but the article really doesn't give enough information. That is why I have avoided specific discussion of why it was overturned.

Edited to add: I just thought of a simple way to express my problem with these injunctions. The crime should be punished, and that is different from persecuting the person.

Beyond that, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. We aren't going to convince each other of anything.

joab · Aug 2, 2007

Perhaps you should reread this article that you place so much face value in

The injunctions do not forbid the gang members from association with each other.
They forbid them from associating with each other in specific locations within the city
We can only speculate as to why those locations were chosen, but it doesn't take a lot of deductive reasoning

The crime should be punished, and that is different from persecuting the person

.So should we wait until the deranged ex boyfriend actually commit the violent crime against the girlfriend?
It takes less to get a RO against a previous domestic partner than it does for the city to get one against members of a gang

As I have repeatedly said
these injunctions have been being handed out for a while now, just because you just heard of them does not make them new
You have provided absolutely nothing to suggest that the system is being abused and after all this time if it was going to be abused there would be something to hang your hat on.

I probably distrust the government more than you do and from your own comments I can speculate that I have more reason to distrust it

The system we have is what we have and that's it
We can not just throw our hands up and ignore some tools, with documented successes, because we feel others would work better, especially when there is pretty much no way we are going to get those other tools that you consider better

To clarify: my parent argument (to which your quote responds) was directed against injunctions applied to either groups or individuals.

It's kinda hard to follow when you don't stick to one argument
First you claim that you were against groups or individuals being issued these injunctions then you switch up to being against them because they target groups instead of individuals

First you say that we need longer terms and time served then you say that that is immaterial

You say that if political pressure is applied we will get the longer terms and time served then you say that political pressure is a non issue

Tell you what when you figure out exactly what your objection is let me now
Until them I will have to go with my initial impression

Matt King · Aug 2, 2007

Gangs still operate on a sub level in prison.

Consider the scary example of the Aryan Brotherhood, who have effectively taken over the prison system in a large number of states; even while it's leadership are locked away in maximum security prisons.

revjen45 · Aug 2, 2007

From post #5: "It smacks of those "restraining orders" that police in the UK can issue." Yup, but here in the Good Old US of A it's called a Bill of Attainder, specifically banned under the Constitution, but since the Original Intent has been so thoroughly traduced and usurped no one will notice.

Cities sue gangs to stop violence

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads