Cities sue gangs to stop violence

[ArmedBear]

Right, that seems fine when the target is a gang of criminals. But what if it were applied to a "gang" of political dissidents? Or perhaps a libertarian group which has expressed strong views against the increasingly authoritarian government?

Your argument holds no water if you believe that there are any legitimate roles for government.

What if the police force were to start shooting people for littering? They have guns, and they patrol the streets. What if...

If you want to argue that we shouldn't have armed government employees patrolling the streets, go for it. But otherwise, we have to rely on checks and balances on law enforcement, i.e., the court system. Just like a search warrant, these injunctions have to pass judicial muster. Court injunctions are used in various circumstances, and they generally restrict the right of someone to do something that would otherwise be legal, like walking down the sidewalk near an ex-spouse's house. That's what they are.

The 4th Amendment does not forbid all searches, either.

In order to get such an injunction, the city must demonstrate that the gangs are NOT simply assembling peaceably. How would that apply to the groups you mentioned?

 

[GTSteve03]

Just like a search warrant, these injunctions have to pass judicial muster.

And we all know how effective that is.

Just ask Katherine Johnson about the search warrant served at her house for drugs. Oh wait, you can't, because she's dead due to being ventilated by some cops with a bogus warrant.

:banghead:

 

[joab]

What you forget Nobody is that your civil rights can be forfeit with due process

These gang members have been given due process and the sentence is an injunction
The courts are not just walking down the street handing out these orders

The other thing that you are overlooking is the definition of gang, participating in criminal activities is the major component of that definition

Political dissent is not by itself a criminal activity

If these dissidents couple their activism with criminal activities as a group then they may well find themselves the target of injunctions

 

[ArmedBear]

So GT, what's your answer?

No more search warrants? No more police? No more courts? What?

I, too, want to end the "Drug War." But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[GTSteve03]

So GT, what's your answer?

My answer is no governmental body should have the power to take away someone's Civil Rights, full stop. No "no-knock" warrants, "free speech zones" or "enemy combatants."

I don't care how much "judicial oversight" is given, there will always be a rubber-stamp judge or dirty cops out there more than willing to try and bend the rules. The results are at best the restriction of someone's civil rights and at worst, in Katherine Johnson's case, the death of an innocent person.

 

[joab]

nd we all know how effective that is.

Just ask Katherine Johnson about the search warrant served at her house for drugs

Using that mentality we should not carry guns to protect ourselves
They would just be taken away and used against us.
There is an example or two floating around somewhere of this happening

 

[nobody_special]

Your argument holds no water if you believe that there are any legitimate roles for government.

Huh? That's certainly not true.

What if the police force were to start shooting people for littering? They have guns, and they patrol the streets. What if...

You missed the point.

My point is that a fundamental right should not be denied to someone simply because of an affiliation. An injunction against a basic, constitutionally protected right should require ^%$@ good cause, i.e. something on the level of a criminal conviction.

If an injunction against a fundamental right can be granted based on affiliation, what prevents the city of San Francisco from asking for injunctions to keep NRA members from owning guns within the city?

If you want to argue that we shouldn't have armed government employees patrolling the streets, go for it.

I'm not arguing that at all.

What you forget Nobody is that your civil rights can be forfeit with due process

I haven't forgotten that, however in a just society, "due process" generally means more than a rubber stamp by a judge which removes a constitutionally protected right from a whole class of people, without showing cause on an individual basis.

These gang members have been given due process and the sentence is an injunction
The courts are not just walking down the street handing out these orders

The other thing that you are overlooking is the definition of gang, participating in criminal activities is the major component of that definition

That's not what I get from the article. 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. The fact that the affiliation is to a criminal organization is irrelevant; what should be important is whether or not the individuals have committed crimes.

Another example: in CA, I believe it is illegal for any gang member to own a firearm. While I do agree that convicted violent criminals should not have access to firearms, it's dangerous to take the leap to legislation which makes it illegal for any member of an organization to own firearms. There's no due process there either.

 

[gyp_c2]

uhhhh...

...I think it's the murphys' law... type thing, that bothers some of us...
The idea that what was a good idea starts to be used against other groups of people than they were originally designed to affect...
It worked against the gangs, let's use it against...(your favorite group here)...
If it can be it will be...that would be my concern at least...

 

[Autolycus]

I dont think this is a good idea. In the end I see it starting to be used against other groups. I am agreeing with GTSteve03 and Nobody Special. The last post by Nobody Special is pretty much a good summary of my feelings on this issue.

 

[joab]

I haven't forgotten that, however in a just society, "due process" generally means more than a rubber stamp by a judge which removes a constitutionally protected right from a whole class of people, without showing cause on an individual basis.

I missed the rubber stamp reference in the article, but I did see a reference or two about the injunctions being aimed at specific groups of individuals
The fact that the gangs are being sued in order for these injunctions to be put in place at least implies that specific groups must be named and a case must be made to support the suit
Hardly rubber stamping and a stretch to call it broad brushing

 

[nobody_special]

From the article:

cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members, and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges.
[...]
The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone

It appears that at least some of the injunctions apply collectively to a group, rather than to specific individuals. And while they surely must specify which gang, that's of little importance.

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, well... that's a precedent which could be dangerous to any organization which has a member with a criminal record. Alternately, I can see such tactics being applied to NRA members in states like CA where the political sentiment commonly associates firearms with criminality.

Also... an injunction against committing crimes? I thought it was already illegal to commit a crime, by definition?

These lawsuits are a tactic of "preemptive punishment" -- punishing before the crime, under the assumption that such punishment will prevent the crime. Reference "Minority report" for why this is bad. Furthermore, the concept of punishment based on criminal association is extremely dangerous to everyone, especially in a nation with a large criminal code...

 

[joab]

You are skirting over the fact that gangs are groups of individuals just because each of those individuals are not named in this articles does not support your specualtion that these injunctions can be applied to anyone a street cop wants them to apply to.
If you read objectively you will find the references I am speaking of

Also... an injunction against committing crimes? I thought it was already illegal to commit a crime, by definition?

Again you must read objectively
The injuction is against known criminals hanging together

These lawsuits are a tactic of "preemptive punishment" -- punishing before the crime, under the assumption that such punishment will prevent the crime.

Not even hardly
The injunctions are to prevent known criminals that commit criminal acts together and whose purpose for hanging out together is to commit crimes from hanging out together

 

[nobody_special]

You are skirting over the fact that gangs are groups of individuals just because each of those individuals are not named in this articles does not support your specualtion that these injunctions can be applied to anyone a street cop wants them to apply to.
If you read objectively you will find the references I am speaking of

Huh? I'm not "skirting over the fact" -- my argument depends upon it! And I never claimed that the injunction could be applied to "anyone a street cop wants them to apply to."

Also... an injunction against committing crimes? I thought it was already illegal to commit a crime, by definition?

Again you must read objectively
The injuction is against known criminals hanging together

From the article: "The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone"

These lawsuits are a tactic of "preemptive punishment" -- punishing before the crime, under the assumption that such punishment will prevent the crime.

Not even hardly
The injunctions are against known criminals that commit criminal acts together and whose purpose for hanging out together is to commit crimes from hanging out together

The article wording suggests that at least some of the injunctions are against the organization, not it's individual members. And while I do agree that these gangs are primarily composed of, and organized for, criminal purposes, it would be best to incarcerate members for their crimes rather assuming guilt by association and arresting members for exercising constitutionally protected rights.

 

[joab]

Huh? I'm not "skirting over the fact" -- my argument depends upon it! And I never claimed that the injunction could be applied to "anyone a street cop wants them to apply to."

Actually not so much, you must have missed this part because your argument certainly does not depend on it your stance pretty much hopes it doesn't exist

just because each of those individuals are not named in this articles does not support your specualtion

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

I just have misread this chunk of falling sky

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,

From the article: "The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone"

From that whole list all you can find to point out is the committing crimes injunction. I'm sorry but that smacks of agenda driven rhetoric

The article wording suggests that at least some of the injunctions are against the organization, not it's individual members.

You have simply inferred that because the reporter chose that wording
If you read you will see that historically these injunctions are against gang MEMBERS , they are sometimes referred to by lazy reporters with the generic term gang

it would be best to incarcerate members for their crimes rather assuming guilt by association and arresting members for exercising constitutionally protected rights.

That assumes that they were not incarcerated for their past crimes. There are term limits on punishment

Anther point you miss is that that injunction on committing crimes does not mean felonies only it means any crime, even minor insignificant misdemeanors

Now they can have the added weight of violating the injunction thrown at them

Their constitutional rights have not been violated they have been given due process

 

[Art Eatman]

"But what if it were applied to a "gang" of political dissidents? Or perhaps a libertarian group which has expressed strong views against the increasingly authoritarian government?"

Before such could happen, somewhere in the court decisions or ordinances there must be enablement via laws.

I find it difficult to believe that folks would have voted people into the legislatures or Congress who would pass such laws. That is, unless you believe in voters as in LawDog's, "Not me, it was some dude." that did all the voting.

An IMO deal: Some objections are credible. This sort is not.

Art

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

While I seriously doubt the government moving against political organizations with this tactic, (I foresee others), I still don't understand how anyone could think that a lawsuit were possible to enforce against a gang.

I'm all for trying to get rid of gangs, but, I'd think there'd be a better, atleast more effective way.

 

[joab]

The article cites successes

 

[crazed_ss]

We've had gang injunctions in San Diego for a long time.

"JBTs" havent used the injunctions against the Boy Scouts or Book clubs yet.

If you look at the injunction you'd see that the people on the court order are documented gang members. They arent just random people being told "you cant hang out here" .. They dont have an injunction against them because the city simply doesnt like groups of minority youths hanging out, they have an injunction against them because they break the law with their group of friends. If they were'nt out there in the streets, screwing stuff up, and ruining the quality of life for other residents, they wouldnt be barred from congregating with each other. Their right to assemble ends when it starts infringing on other people's rights.

You can see the San Diego gang injunctions here.. http://www.sdcda.org/protecting/gang.php

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Well, there might be successes. I know for a fact New York had successes in it's crusade against gangs there. The question is the cost of success. And, "Did we actually take down the gang?"

Might a few low level gangbangers be off the street? Of course. NY did this with enforcement of vandalism, pickpocket, etc. laws. Here it seems it is done by filing lawsuits that the gangs aren't even going to show up to contest which later put them in a state of losing assumed rights they would have had before.

But, is the funding for the gang gone? Nope. Is the gang gone? Nope.

But, is this hurtful to civil rights? Well, in all likelihood.

However, I see something which nobody and GTSteve do not here.

Yeah a government with a burr up it's butt might try to take down a political org for one reason or another.

Difference is this. A gangmember ain't showin' up to court. He's too busy with gangsta sh%^.

I will show up to court, and if I can prove a violation of my civil rights, I might be making alot of money off the government.

 

[ArmedBear]

An injunction against a basic, constitutionally protected right should require ^%$@ good cause, i.e. something on the level of a criminal conviction.

And you think that the gang members against whom these injunctions are ordered have exactly what? Clean criminal records?

I haven't forgotten that, however in a just society, "due process" generally means more than a rubber stamp by a judge which removes a constitutionally protected right from a whole class of people, without showing cause on an individual basis.

It's not a class of people; it's a list of a few individuals. And as far as showing cause, maybe you should look at what it takes to get this injunction before going off. Furthermore, the people are not universally banned from association, just association with certain other individuals with whom they have criminal ties.

The question is the cost of success.

Well, in San Diego and Oceanside, where I've worked and lived, the cost has been what, exactly?

As crazed_ss said, so far no libertarians, book clubs, communists, or anyone else has been kept from assembling.

Costs to the law-abiding community? Zero. Benefits? Fewer murders. ROI? Pretty damn good.

That's what "success" means. Fewer murders.

 

[gc70]

"The Rev. Jack Crane, pastor of Truevine Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, is helping Anderson's group provide gang members with counseling, shoes and other resources needed to help them escape that life."

I was not aware that shoes were a critical factor in gang membership.

 

[joab]

So this one toll will not eliminate gangs, what should they do mordechai, nothing?

There is absolutely no evidence that these injunctions, which have apparently been going on for awhile,will be turned on political dissidents, but they might maybe be some day if somehow it can be proved that political dissent is a criminal activity, so we should drop the whole program in spite of it's documented successes?

You say that the injunctions only hold up because they are not contested, did you not read the part about injunctions being contested and holding up in court?

Gangs are not just punk kids hanging out and smoking dope until their next heist anymore
Some are profitable criminal enterprises capable of better legal representation than may other businesses

 

[nobody_special]

Before such could happen, somewhere in the court decisions or ordinances there must be enablement via laws.

As I pointed out earlier, IIRC it is illegal for gang members in CA to possess firearms. This may not be a particularly good example, but it is an example of what I am talking about.

Joab, I can't parse the first half of your post #39. As for the rest...

From that whole list all you can find to point out is the committing crimes injunction. I'm sorry but that smacks of agenda driven rhetoric

Agenda driven rhetoric? I'm sorry, I fail to see what you're getting at.

I was merely pointing out the irony in an injunction against illegal activity. It reminded me of what I've read here about anti-gun laws, as a parody of the anti-gunners: "Ooh, there was a heinous shooting last night in DC! What shall we do? Guns are already banned. Let's double-ban them! No, let's triple-ban them!"

You have simply inferred that because the reporter chose that wording
If you read you will see that historically these injunctions are against gang MEMBERS , they are sometimes referred to by lazy reporters with the generic term gang

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.

That assumes that they were not incarcerated for their past crimes. There are term limits on punishment

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?

Anther point you miss is that that injunction on committing crimes does not mean felonies only it means any crime, even minor insignificant misdemeanors
Now they can have the added weight of violating the injunction thrown at them

So in a way, this is a bit like the three-strikes law. How well did that work out?

Seriously, if the guys are bad (and they probably are), what is the problem with simply convicting them for their crimes and putting them away for a long time? If they're getting out too early, maybe the criminal statutes need to be revisited with an eye toward increasing the sentences of repeat or violent offenders. But these injunctions bother me on many levels. They single out a particular group of criminals to receive punishment beyond the norm. I don't think there should be "special cases" in criminal law. The rules should be the same for everyone.

Their constitutional rights have not been violated they have been given due process

If the injunctions are applied to individuals, then sure... I'll agree with that. If not, well...

 

[crazed_ss]

Injunctions are applied against individuals. Once again, here is an example from from here in SD County.. http://www.sdcda.org/protecting/gi_eastside.pdf

Like I said, It's been working here for the past decade and the gov't has yet to start prohibiting otherwise law-abiding citizens from peacably assembling.

 

[joab]

Joab, I can't parse the first half of your post #39.

Then try explaining (away)the parts of your comments that I parsed

I was merely pointing out the irony in an injunction against illegal activity. It reminded me of what I've read here about anti-gun laws, as a parody of the anti-gunners: "Ooh, there was a heinous shooting last night in DC! What shall we do? Guns are already banned. Let's double-ban them! No, let's triple-ban them!"

Well, those comments too are pretty much agenda driven rhetoric
If the crux of your argument is based on simple word manipulation then why bother to argue at all?
It;s pretty much standard injunction wording , but I think you knew that

I have to take the story at face value, lacking additional information.

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

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.

So in a way, this is a bit like the three-strikes law. How well did that work out?

In more ways it's nothing like Three Strikes and much more like 10-20-Life, how well is that working?

Seriously, if the guys are bad (and they probably are), what is the problem with simply convicting them for their crimes and putting them away for a long time? If they're getting out too early, maybe the criminal statutes need to be revisited with an eye toward increasing the sentences of repeat or violent offenders. But these injunctions bother me on many levels. They single out a particular group of criminals to receive punishment beyond the norm. I don't think there should be "special cases" in criminal law. The rules should be the same for everyone.

What good will lengthening sentences do when violent offenders are getting out early already, why not just eliminate the practice of probation and parole.
hey why not just give police a simple tool to use to curb gang activity instead of waiting for some pie in the sky omni solution to come along
They do not single out groups they single out groups of named individuals after they have been given due process
They are not sentenced beyond the norm, because now the norm is an injunction from participating in gang activities.

Orlando started this with prostitutes awhile back. A convicted prostitute as a matter of probation cannot be in a designated zone if he or she is caught there they are arrested whether they are soliciting or not

I used to work the graveyard in one of the zones, the effect was drastic and almost immediate

When business is disrupted busniess people will move to where the profit is

If the injunctions are applied to individuals, then sure... I'll agree with that. If not, well...

Then I guess you have to agree