Cities sue gangs to stop violence

nobody_special · Aug 2, 2007

Responding here only to clarify my comments, which you have consistently taken completely out of context...

nobody_special said:
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?

Of course not; my statement was not directed at restraining orders against ex-boyfriends. It was a statement of principle. A just society punishes crimes, which is quite different from persecuting people.

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'll hang my hat on the fact that at least one such action was struck down by SCOTUS. That is proof that abuse occurred, and that cities are pursuing abusive tactics.

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

I'm not arguing against this "tool" because I feel others would work better. I'm arguing against it because I think it is wrong. As such, it doesn't matter if it works or if there is no alternative.

It's kinda hard to follow when you don't stick to one argument

It's kinda hard to argue when you keep misrepresenting my arguments and reading things into my posts which I didn't actually write.

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

I have several arguments, not just one, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm against injunctions issued against groups. I'm also against injunctions issued against individuals which enjoin against legal, constitutionally protected activity which does not infringe upon anyone's rights. I believe the way they are applied is a violation of the 8th amendment. Furthermore, I'm against persecution of people (whether it be individuals or groups) as opposed to punishment of specific crimes.

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

And I was correct both times. :neener:

Longer prison terms for violent offenders would probably help the situation. However, that's immaterial to the matter of whether or not the injunctions are wrong.

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

The above response applies here also, though I'd say "irrelevant side issue" rather than "non issue."

joab · Aug 2, 2007

Responding only because instead of clarifying you have continued to muddy the waters

Of course not; my statement was not directed at restraining orders against ex-boyfriends. It was a statement of principle. A just society punishes crimes, which is quite different from persecuting people.

But that boyfriend has committed no crime by simply walking down a public street and no evidence of a crime is required to get the RO in the first place
You can not declar one acceptable without accepting the other

I'll hang my hat on the fact that at least one such action was struck down by SCOTUS. That is proof that abuse occurred, and that cities are pursuing abusive tactics.

Which displays total predisposition to the state hating you have shown
That SCOTUS decision prove that the system is not being abused and that sufficient oversight is in place more than it shows any of the charges you are trying to make
It also in no way demonstrates that the local jurisdictions are trying to abuse the system, because subsequent orders have stood up
It's a learning process
I explained this with my Miranda and Terry comment

I'm not arguing against this "tool" because I feel others would work better. I'm arguing against it because I think it is wrong. As such, it doesn't matter if it works or if there is no alternative.

You have done nothing to prove your position that it is wrong
Your feeling that it is wrong is irrelevant we are not a nation of feelings we are a nation of laws and the laws have supported these injunctions

It's kinda hard to argue when you keep misrepresenting my arguments and reading things into my posts which I didn't actually write.

Your flip flops are here in print for all to see, as usual my point remains unchanged

I have several arguments, not just one, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is when the arguments conflict with each other
It is when you waffle around to counter my points

As for the rest
More waffling

I believe that you are against these injunctions simply because you formed an opinion when you read the thread title and saw that it was cities against citizens
It does not matter that it was these citizens that started the fight

People scream for more action from authorities when criminals rule the street and then scream foul when the cities enact legal means to combat the thugs

There is nothing cruel or unusual in these decades old injunctions they have stood the constitutional test time after time, the ones that don't get tossed.
That is how our system works

joab · Aug 2, 2007

But you are correct that we have hashed this out enough
Our points are up for anyone that wants to read them
Although I think that we have thrown so much out nob0ody will want to

My point is that the injunction are useful; and legal as proven by the fact there there is higher court oversight

Yours is that they are not legal or useful as proven by the fact that there has had to be higher court oversight

I still have to mention the fact that once you found out that they were aimed at individuals you switched your objection from them being applied to groups and therefore unconstitutional because they were not applied to specific individuals
to the fact that they were applied to specific individuals and therefore unconstitutional

nobody_special · Aug 3, 2007

Yours is that they are not legal or useful as proven by the fact that there has had to be higher court oversight

That is a gross misrepresentation... as is just about everything in your post #77.

to the fact that they were applied to specific individuals and therefore unconstitutional

Nope, that wasn't my argument at all. Another gross (and, I'm thinking, deliberate) misrepresentation.

joab · Aug 3, 2007

#32

If the injunction applies to specific individuals, and is the result of specific actions, that's fine. But my impression is that this is a generic injunction against all people with certain affiliations.

#36

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

#48

I have to take the story at face value, lacking additional information. That said, if the injunctions are targeted at individuals and not a collective gang, that's good.

#55

the SCOTUS striking down a loitering law targeting gangs supports this argument, as it was obviously not individually targeted.

Seems you were willing to engage in specific discussion on the matter after all,

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.

Presto change-o

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

Now your argument was against groups or individuals
Then why was there all those statements from you decrying the injunctions because they were aimed at entire groups while saying that if they were aimed at individuals they were good and fine
#76

I'm against injunctions issued against groups. I'm also against injunctions issued against individuals which enjoin against legal, constitutionally protected activity which does not infringe upon anyone's rights.

Now you are against them whether they are applied to groups or individuals/
What happened in those few post between this stance and them being good and fine?
See what I mean about further muddying the water

nobody_special · Aug 3, 2007

Oh, jeez. You had to do this, and I feel obligated to respond and defend myself when someone is attacking me rather than my argument.

nobody_special said:
If the injunction applies to specific individuals, and is the result of specific actions, that's fine. [...]
I have to take the story at face value, lacking additional information. That said, if the injunctions are targeted at individuals and not a collective gang, that's good.

Etc. etc.

Yes, at the time I was concerned about, and arguing against, injunctions against groups. However, that changed once you specified the reason for issuing injunctions: harassment.

See, I'm not against injunctions as a whole... for example, I generally have little problem with your ex-boyfriend restraining order example (aside from Lautenberg, but I don't think that's a diversion we need to get into here).

I do have a problem with these restraining orders, because of the reasons you articulated for them: namely, harassment.

We shouldn't have a government which persecutes or harasses a segment of the population, for any reason. I think it's pretty obvious why that is bad.

Sentencing a convicted criminal to prison is not about persecution, it's about justice. You don't seem to grok the distinction, and I'm not sure how else to explain it.

the SCOTUS striking down a loitering law targeting gangs supports this argument, as it was obviously not individually targeted. [...]
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.

Seems you were willing to engage in specific discussion on the matter after all,
Presto change-o

No, that was an attempt to avoid a discussion of the case, because we don't have any details about it. The fact that the case existed and was overturned is relevant, though.

Now your argument was against groups or individuals

More specifically, my argument was then primarily about the reason and basis for such a restraining order.

What happened in those few post between this stance and them being good and fine?

What happened is that you advocated injunctions upon people's liberty for the purpose of harassment. That doesn't punish a crime, it is not justice, it's persecution. And it's a really bad idea to condone persecution of anyone by the government.

In response to this argument, you say:

But that boyfriend has committed no crime by simply walking down a public street and no evidence of a crime is required to get the RO in the first place You can not declar one acceptable without accepting the other

There is still the distinction, in that the RO against the ex-boyfriend is narrowly tailored to prevent him from infringing on another's rights.

Beyond that, I'm not thrilled with the say ROs are dealt out sometimes with little or no supporting evidence for cause; however, I do see a place for them in the legal system.

A RO against an ex-boyfriend is not intended to be punishment. It is not intended to remove any rights beyond the minimum necessary to protect the rights of another person (who should be able to justify the request for a RO by having some reasonable cause and expectation that her rights may be violated... such as if the guy is harassing her). It is reasonable to expect your rights to stop when they interfere with the rights of another, so this type of RO doesn't really bother me much.

The injunctions against gang members, as described in the article, are clearly not so narrowly tailored and are much more restrictive. They enjoin against activities which do not infringe upon anyone's rights. They can be viewed as a punishment, a conclusion which is supported by your assertion that they are a tactic of harassment, as well as the fact that they are not issued as a sentence for any particular crime. As such, they are effectively bills of attainder. As they are not applied uniformly -- meaning, for example, that the injunctions are issued only to some people convicted of armed robbery, (namely gang members), while other criminals convicted of the exact same offense do not receive such injunctions -- they qualify as unusual punishment. If (for example) all convicted armed robbers (or whatever) suffered injunctions as a part of their sentence, that would be more even-handed and perhaps just. I think something like that happens during probation or parole -- not an injunction, but there are restrictions which are uniformly applied, right?

Anyway, I realized much of this during the course of our argument, which is what led me to change my argument from "injunctions against groups are bad" to "these injunctions are wrong in general."

As for the whole court oversight issue, we've been back and forth on this. Your argument uses faulty logic here:

That SCOTUS decision prove that the system is not being abused

I believe that you are against these injunctions simply because you formed an opinion when you read the thread title and saw that it was cities against citizens
It does not matter that it was these citizens that started the fight

It does not prove that the system is not being abused. It shows that one instance of attempted abuse was stopped (after the fact). It does not prove that other abuses are not occurring. Indeed, it is not possible for you to prove that without a full accounting of all such anti-gang programs. And if the cities are using laws and lawsuits to harass people, I think you can expect abuses to be attempted.

This is my position. It is reasonably self-consistent, and I hope it is clear. Please stop trying to re-phrase it in your own terms.

nobody_special · Aug 3, 2007

Oh, and I love this one...

You have done nothing to prove your position that it is wrong
Your feeling that it is wrong is irrelevant we are not a nation of feelings we are a nation of laws and the laws have supported these injunctions

I have listed many reasons why I believe it is wrong, in several posts, repetitively.

Here's one example, from post #76: "I'm also against injunctions issued against individuals which enjoin against legal, constitutionally protected activity which does not infringe upon anyone's rights. I believe the way they are applied is a violation of the 8th amendment. Furthermore, I'm against persecution of people (whether it be individuals or groups) as opposed to punishment of specific crimes."

And here, in post #68: "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."

Heck (tip o' the hat to Art's Grandma), I gave clear reasons way back in post #55: "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."

And of course I just gave these same reasons, again and with elaboration, in post #81.

At no point did I say anything about "feelings." Such ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

joab · Aug 3, 2007

It does not prove that the system is not being abused. It shows that one instance of attempted abuse was stopped (after the fact). It does not prove that other abuses are not occurring. Indeed, it is not possible for you to prove that without a full accounting of all such anti-gang programs.

I cannot prove a negative, if you believe that these injunctions are being abused by all means link me up, that's your job.
It's a prove your argument not just tell us your feelings kinda thing

Please stop trying to re-phrase it in your own terms.

Click to expand...

But, but, I used your terms
You can tell that by my use of quotes from your posts

Yes, at the time I was concerned about, and arguing against, injunctions against groups. However, that changed once you specified the reason for issuing injunctions: harassment.

Click to expand...

Wow, so because I used the word harassment in describing what I feel the the injunctions accomplish your entire argument changes
I am a debate god, kneel before me
That sounds real funny when I say it with my witness protection voice

And harassment does not equal persecution, you know that because I explained it.
Remember when you got all mad because I explained it when you claimed you already knew what it meant.

And of course I just gave these same reasons, again and with elaboration, in post #81.

Click to expand...

Now go back and read all those quotes of yours that you just repeated
They are all about what you feel, what you believe and what your personal problems with the injunctions are
Invoking the 8th while explaining these feelings does not make it a valid argument
Just like "It's for the children" is used by the antis, you use "It's for the citizens" to validate an emotional argument that just doesn't stand the test of facts

Such ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

Click to expand...

Whining about ad hominems when there are none will also get you nowhere
Pointing out inconstancies and flaws in your argument is in no way an attack against you you can look that up
Now if I called you a simple minded oaf that could not separate his feelings from facts and reality, that would be an ad hominem, trust me if I wanted to say that I would have.
If I kept making cutsey little comments about deferring to Art's granma that would be implying that I wanted to engage in ad hominems, it would also tend to indicate that I was perusing the rules to see if I had any valid complaint of ad homs

The ad hom accusations are pretty consistent, but at least you didn't revert to the grammar bashing defense that is so common when the bogosity of an argument is pointed out

eric_t12 · Aug 3, 2007

gun control laws aimed at gangs sometimes have affects later down the road.

we shouldn't worry it only targets gangs...

In 1931, amidst rising gang violence (the gangs being Nazi and Communist youths), carrying knives or truncheons in public was made illegal, except for persons who had firearm carry permits under the 1928 law. Acquisition of firearms and ammunition permits was made subject to proof of "need." [28]

When the Nazis took power in 1933, they apparently found that the 1928 gun control laws served their purposes; not until 1938 did the Nazis bother to replace the 1928 law. The leaving of the Weimar law in place cannot be attributed to lethargy on the Nazis' part; unlike some other totalitarian governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia), the Nazis paid great attention to legal draftsmanship and issued a huge volume of laws and regulations. [29] The only immediate change the Nazis made to the gun laws was to bar the import of handguns. [30]

Shortly after the Nazis took power, they began house-to-house searches to discover firearms in the homes of suspected opponents. They claimed to find large numbers of weapons in the hands of subversives. [31] How many weapons the Nazis actually recovered may never be known. But as historian William Sheridan Allen pointed out in his study of the Nazi rise to power in one town: "Whether or not all the weapon discoveries reported in the local press were authentic is unimportant. The newspapers reported whatever they were told by the police, and what people believed was what was more important than what was true." [32]

Four days after Hitler's triumphant Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, the Nazis finally enacted their own firearms laws. Additional controls were layered on the 1928 Weimar law: Persons under eighteen were forbidden to buy firearms or ammunition; a special permit was introduced for handguns; Jews were barred from businesses involving firearms; Nazi officials were exempted from the firearms permit system; silencers were outlawed; twenty-two caliber cartridges with hollow points were banned; and firearms which could fold or break down "beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities" became illegal. [33]

...the whole review of the book "lethal laws" can be found here.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lethal.htm

it all comes back to gun control in general. when you remove the human right (the bill of rights does not provide rights, it describes rights inherent to all the People, as endowed by their creator) to keep and bear arms you make someone less than human.

Guy B. Meredith · Aug 3, 2007

Makes more sense than suing the gun manufacturers.

Cities sue gangs to stop violence

nobody_special

member

joab

Member

joab

Member

nobody_special

member

joab

Member

nobody_special

member

nobody_special

member

joab

Member

eric_t12

Member

Guy B. Meredith

Member

Similar threads