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