Cities sue gangs to stop violence

Status
Not open for further replies.

rocinante

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,306
Location
Alpharetta GA
All too often I hear the opinion that gun laws are not about stopping crime but a thinly veiled attempt at government control and to turn America into an unarmed and easily controlled population. This article points at cities trying to keep gangs from assembling. The gangs targeted are menacing but if this logic is successful what keeps the methods from being applied to any other 'gangs' government decides are offensive like churches, masons, boy scouts, etc. I am going to extremes but the thing that always scares me about law is they are based on precedence more than any common sense.

Just want opinions if this is something thehighroad community finds troubling at all. I realize it is not directly about guns except for gangs being the boogie man most often cited by liberals in their gun grabbing tirades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits_2
 
Do they really think that their injunctions are going to scare the gangstas?

"Oh crap, I guess that we ought to curtail our felonious practices, the city has filed a restraining order against us."

This is almost as silly as "gun free zone" signs.
 
While we already use civil laws against alleged criminals, e.g. drug forfeiture cases, I fail to see this could be effectively enforced once you have a judgment (among the numerous legal problems with such a judgment).:confused: How do the police know who is subject to the judgment? Do gang members in Tejas wear name tags on their shirts?

Further, I feel that it is an end run around the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure and the right of assembly under the First Amendment. This also smacks of racism rife in Dallas and Fort Worth--oh, look, Black and Hispanics on street corners, they must be gang members, let's plant evidence on them as well.

It smacks of those "restraining orders" that police in the UK can issue. If someone is selling crack on the street corner in Fort Worthless or Dullus, why not arrest that person and prosecute them criminally?

Just goes to show that the government realize that they cannot control the criminal subculture of this country anymore and are devising feel good solutions to show that they are doing "something" so they can continue to tax and oppress the productive class.
 
Pardon the delay in getting this entered, THIS just hit my sense of the absurd so hard the gong is STILL ringing. It sounds good on the surface, but if you think about this for more than a nano-second, the absurdity starts to sink in. Sorry, I'm still laughing. The neighbors think I have finally lost it and gone around the bend.
 
If we learned anything from Clinton, it's that legal cases cannot be used against terrorists, and IMHO gangs are simply domestic terrorists. If you want to get rid of gangs, prosecute them as enemy combatants, then send them to Cuba. Create a 2nd Australia.
 
Anyone who thinks this will work has spent too much time practicing the high dive with no water in their pool.
 
Do these people live in a fantasy world?

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

...

Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in jail. Prosecutors say the possibility of a jail stay — however short — is a strong deterrent, even for gang members who've already served hard time for other crimes.

Riiiight. So a person willing to carry drugs and weapons, and commit other crimes up to and including murder is going to be deterred by a misdemeanor charge that carries a year in jail? As if that one year tacked on top of a life (or death) sentence for a Federal drug + gun +murder charge is really going to matter.

And in a "safety zone" no less. Why, that must work as good as the "gun free zone" did at VT..

Why don't they just make crime illegal and call it a day? :p
 
I can't see these lawsuits holding up in court unless it's very narrowing written to pass 1st Amendment muster (peaceable assembly, etc).

However, the RICO laws may be usable against gangs...they were used against the Hell's Angels and other biker gangs.
 
Some don't think to get it

Now they can be arrested and face jsil time simply for being together

Now the police do not need any probable cause to arrest them on other charges
Cops can now stop , search and even arrest certain people for doing otherwise legal activities if they are together with other certain people

And for all those conveniently quoting chosen parts of the article, don't forget
"Seven months in jail is a big penalty for sitting on the front porch or riding in the car with your gang buddies," said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant city attorney for Wichita Falls.

Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales gang after escalating violence with a rival gang, including about 50 drive-by shootings in less than a year in that North Texas city of 100,000.

Since then, crime has dropped about 13 percent in the safety zone and real estate values are climbing, Hegglund said.
 
Maybe we could slap one of these on the Bush administration. Some Iraqis would be thanking us for it.

Hence my sig line.
 
It would be a heck of a deal, if Gangs were to be the catalyst in getting Tort Reform now wouldn't it? :)

My mind runs to Gov't wanting to put a stop to the Evils of Alcohol and Prohibition .

That worked well didn't it? :p

I can see it now, Gangs get together, and we "finally" get Tort Reform.

In return the BATFE gets to add the letter "G" to their Acronym, which means they need to [strike] steal [/strike] get monies for new gear with new Acronymn

Bat-Fegs...bwhahaha!
 
joab's got it.

See, as long as there's no such injunction, there's nothing the police can do if they see 25 known members of a violent gang assembled in a parking lot, even if the cops know they're on the way to do a drive-by. "Know" is different from "can prove in court."

With an injunction, they can arrest the gang, without having this "proof."

And no, I don't see any problem for the Boy Scouts here.

Restraining orders and injunctions are issued all the time for business disputes, divorce cases, neighbor conflicts, noise violations, etc. Courts have a well-established review process for this stuff.

Short of the harsher methods I'd advocate as a native of Southern California who actually grasps what these people really are, these injunctions seem like a great idea to enable the police to stop gangs before they kill. I'd prefer "wear gang insignias, be caught tagging or showing a gang sign, get executed", but that won't fly. Injunctions are better than nothing.
 
If we learned anything from Clinton, it's that legal cases cannot be used against terrorists, and IMHO gangs are simply domestic terrorists. If you want to get rid of gangs, prosecute them as enemy combatants, then send them to Cuba. Create a 2nd Australia.

Exactly. This is war between civilization and thuggery. The sooner we deal with it in realistic terms the better off we'll be.
 
Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 29, 1:50 PM ET

FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They're suing them.
ADVERTISEMENT

Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.

The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.

"It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. "This is more of a proactive approach."

But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.

"If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to tell if they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective."

Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in the Los Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country's most notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street.

The Los Angeles city attorney's suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster Crips covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too broad.

Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the authority to arrest without cause.

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

Los Angeles now has 33 permanent injunctions involving 50 gangs, and studies have shown they do reduce crime, said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office.

The injunctions prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone — neighborhoods where suspected gang members live and are most active. Some injunctions set curfews for members and ban them from possessing alcohol in public areas — even if they're of legal drinking age.

Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in jail. Prosecutors say the possibility of a jail stay — however short — is a strong deterrent, even for gang members who've already served hard time for other crimes.

"Seven months in jail is a big penalty for sitting on the front porch or riding in the car with your gang buddies," said Kinley Hegglund, senior assistant city attorney for Wichita Falls.

Last summer, Wichita Falls sued 15 members of the Varrio Carnales gang after escalating violence with a rival gang, including about 50 drive-by shootings in less than a year in that North Texas city of 100,000.

Since then, crime has dropped about 13 percent in the safety zone and real estate values are climbing, Hegglund said.

Other cities hope for similar results.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued four gangs in June after an "explosion" in gang violence, seven months after filing the city's first gang-related civil injunction.

Fort Worth sued 10 members of the Northcide Four Trey Gangsta Crips in May after two gang members were killed in escalating violence, said Assistant City Attorney Chris Mosley.

"Our hope is that these defendants will be scared into compliance just by having these injunctions against them," Mosley said.

However, some former gang members say such legal maneuvers wouldn't have stopped them.

Usamah Anderson, 30, of Fort Worth, said he began stealing cars and got involved with gangs as a homeless 11-year-old. He was arrested numerous times for theft and spent time in juvenile facilities.

Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his friends would have simply moved outside the safety zone.

"That's the life you live, so you're going to find a way to maneuver around it," said Anderson, a truck driver who abandoned the gang life about seven years ago and has started a church to help young gang members.

The ACLU and other critics of gang injunctions favor community programs. 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.

"We don't want to lose another generation," Crane said.

Some residents in the Fort Worth safety zone say they feel better with the injunction in place.

Phoebe Picazo, who recently moved to the city to care for her elderly parents, said she hears gunfire almost every night.

"This has always been a quiet community with a lot of seniors, but now we're having to keep our doors locked," Picazo said. "With the injunction, I feel better for my folks."
 
Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his friends would have simply moved outside the safety zone.

That means that the injunction actually has some effect, according to the ex-gangbanger. Interesting.

The Constitution guarantees the right to "peaceably assemble." By no means is the right to assemble in order to commit criminal acts protected.

Ultimately, protecting fictitious civil rights for known and active criminal organizations (as opposed to the right to a speedy trial, search warrants, etc.) leads to the loss of OUR civil rights. Faced with a system that will not allow law enforcement to do anything to stop gang activity, gun bans become more attractive to some voters. Think hard before supporting "civil rights" that are not the intent of the Constitution to protect, like the "right" to operate a violent street gang, claim a "turf", and kill people.
 
While is seems stupid this type of thing has been used for years in Oceanside, CA. The police target specific neighborhoods and individuals with known histories. Rather than an answer it is just one more arrow in the quiver to try to shut down the worst behavior. The cop on the beat can't roust some guys because his experience tells them they are up to no good but he can break up the part and move 'em along if the courts have already given the okay.
 
The cop on the beat can't roust some guys because his experience tells them they are up to no good but he can break up the part and move 'em along if the courts have already given the okay.

Exactly.

This sort of thing helps PROTECT the civil rights of the rest of us.

In an environment where gangs have injunctions, the police can be effective without harrassing everyone, and without practices like racial profiling.

I used to work and surf in Oceanside, and lived a couple small towns south. It's a busy beach town with serious gang problems; the cops needed some legal way to separate the thousands of random people walking around from the gangs. I'm glad they got it.
 
I must respectfully disagree, forcefully, with the sentiment that this is good.

It's a blatant violation of the right to peaceably assemble.
The police target specific neighborhoods and individuals with known histories.

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?

Sure, that may not be happening now, but I see no compelling reason why it can't be done. I don't see any legal basis for removing the right to peaceably assemble from anyone, for any reason.

If they're criminals, they should be arrested for whatever crime(s) they have committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top