Civil rights groups support criminal street gangs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

trooper

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
700
Location
A small police station out in the German countrysi
Let me know what you think...

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=536&docId=l:208835775&topicId=14195&start=8&topics=single

Groups Oppose Action Against Gang;
Oxnard coalition says limiting activities of Colonia Chiques would give police too much power. Authorities say injunction is needed.

Holly J. Wolcott, Times Staff Writer


Several Oxnard civil rights groups announced Wednesday they have formed a coalition to oppose an anti-gang injunction because of fears it would give police too much power, and asked federal authorities to mediate disputes among local law enforcement, community leaders and the Colonia Chiques street gang.

As representatives gathered outside the Oxnard police station to address reporters, prosecutors filed more court documents seeking an injunction against the gang.

The documents contend Chiques members have threatened prosecutors, police officers and community members who support the crackdown.

"All the threats implied great bodily harm or death as a result of implementing this injunction," according to the new court documents, which also allege that Dist. Atty. Greg Totten has been targeted for a "hit."

Prosecutors have filed a civil lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the Chiques, which they describe as the county's largest and most violent gang. If granted, it would impose sweeping restrictions on the activity of hundreds of Chiques within a mapped "safety zone" covering more than half of the inhabited land in the city.

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Fred H. Bysshe will hear arguments Monday. Opponents said they had already set up a hotline for residents to lodge police complaints and were offering free transportation for others wishing to join in protest at the 2 p.m. hearing.

Bysshe this week issued his first ruling in the case when he denied a request from Ventura County Public Defender Kenneth Clayman to argue on behalf of the Chiques that the proposed ban on public assembly was overly broad and illegal. Clayman said Wednesday he planned to make another plea this week.

In documents filed by prosecutors Wednesday, Deputy Dist. Atty. Karen Wold and Oxnard Police Det. Neail Holland argued that approval of the injunction was even more critical because of information detectives had received that gang members were plotting to harm officers, possibly kill one, and damage the city's police station in retaliation for filing the lawsuit.

Wold wrote that since authorities announced on March 24 that they were pursuing the injunction, overall crime has decreased 32% within the proposed safety zone and there have been no gang killings in the city.

She said gang members had circulated a flier among themselves that said, "Please be careful. The cops are on us more than ever."

Granting the injunction would ensure that gang crimes remained in check and better safeguard the community, Wold wrote.

"Residents are afraid to walk their dogs, wash their cars, or let their children play outside. They are virtual prisoners in their own homes. These residents need and deserve immediate relief," Wold wrote in a response to written arguments by the gang's attorneys.

At Wednesday's news conference, Chris Espinosa, a director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which organized the coalition, said law enforcement officials should focus on prevention programs for troubled youth, rather than "rushing" toward a plan to jail them.

"The Oxnard Police Department is attempting to establish dangerous precedent in our community by proposing a 'carte blanche' enforcement tool," Espinosa said.

The lawsuit names 36 Chiques gang members and includes 500 more unnamed defendants.

Violators of the injunction would face misdemeanor charges for flashing gang signs, wearing Dallas Cowboys' attire, staying out past 10 p.m. and socializing with one another in public places.

Representatives from various civil rights groups, including John Hatcher III, president of the Ventura County chapter of the NAACP, and Francisco Romero of the Committee on Raza Rights, said gang crime was a serious problem but denounced the injunction because they believed it would result in harassment of innocent Latinos.

Oxnard, the largest city in the county with 180,000 residents, is 61% Latino.

"The proposed injunction is supposedly aimed against gang members; these are individuals who we know have the greatest need for intervention, intensive outreach and adequate treatment," Luis Garcia, local chairman of the Latino Task Force, said in a written statement. "As usual, our ... lawmakers have opted to blame the victims and their families."

But authorities said the proposed safety zone covered a large cross-section of the city, including St. John's Regional Medical Center as well as some affluent neighborhoods where gang crime has occurred.

Authorities said that for a police officer to make an arrest under terms of the injunction, a gang member must first be identified and served a copy of the court order, and that any violations must occur in public places within the designated safety zone.

David M. Rodriguez, a vice president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said he had sent a request to the U.S. Department of Justice asking it to intervene and "establish a formal process so that the substantive issues" between the community and police could be discussed.

Rodriguez and others denounced Police Chief Art Lopez for failing to meet with community leaders about the gang problem.

Lopez said Wednesday he had requested a meeting with league officials this week but said they had declined. League officials would not say whether they had been asked to meet with Lopez before contacting federal officials.

"I asked to meet with their board, and they didn't give me the opportunity," Lopez said. "I said, 'You're making a decision based on misinformation.' But it was like they'd made their decision and were not going to back down."

Lopez also said the coalition's announcement surprised him because Rodriguez had expressed support to the chief for the injunction at a community meeting in March and to Dist. Atty. Totten on another occasion.

Lopez also said the activist groups should not claim to be speaking for a majority of the city's Latinos because "a high percentage of the people getting victimized by the Colonia Chiques are of Latino descent."

Prosecutors have said that 37 of the 39 gang-related homicide victims over the last decade were Latino.
 
I'm just a simpleton, but why not just arrest, convict, and incarcerate the "gang members" for their actual criminal behavior instead of seeking blanket injunctions that attempt to criminalize what would otherwise be legal behavior. If they are criminals, lock then up for their crimes. If this is too hard to do, well . . . It is not OK to make possession of sugar, corn and copper tubing illegal just because it's hard to catch a moonshiner in the act. I don't support the gangs, but they are not criminals because they are gang members. They are criminals because they have committed crimes against people and property. We do not like these law enforcement "shortcuts" being used against us on the excuse of "if it will save just one child" or "if it will keep a gun out of the hands of one bad guy."
 
I'm just a simpleton, but why not just arrest, convict, and incarcerate the "gang members" for their actual criminal behavior instead of seeking blanket injunctions that attempt to criminalize what would otherwise be legal behavior. If they are criminals, lock then up for their crimes.

When a gang has a firm grip on a community, it becomes very difficult to get witnesses to talk to the police and testify in court for fear of gang retaliation. Therefore, it is easier to prosecute gang members for just being gang members.

Pilgrim
 
This sounds like a seriously fouled up community.

On the one hand statements like this:

"The proposed injunction is supposedly aimed against gang members; these are individuals who we know have the greatest need for intervention, intensive outreach and adequate treatment," Luis Garcia, local chairman of the Latino Task Force, said in a written statement. "As usual, our ... lawmakers have opted to blame the victims and their families."

make me laugh and groan at the same time. The members of the gang that are doing the shooting, killing, and drug dealing are the 'victims'? Give me a break.

On the other hand, the kind of draconian injunction the city is seeking seems like an over-the-top measure with HUGE civil liberties problems.

Sounds like the city should drop the stupid injuction idea, and put the money, manpower, and effort into plain old-fashioned police work and arrest, try, and convict the bad guys.
 
This is just a symptom of the larger problem of the influx of gang members not only from Mexico, but Central and South America as well. These are not just 'errant minority kids', these are hardcore criminals and killers. It is happening with the complicity of the 'authorities' whose alegiances lie not with the U.S. and our culture, but with the "Aztlan" mindset. I've been watching this happen in California for years.

Ain't diversity and multiculturalism grand? :rolleyes:
 
"Residents are afraid to walk their dogs, wash their cars, or let their children play outside. They are virtual prisoners in their own homes. These residents need and deserve immediate relief," Wold wrote in a response to written arguments by the gang's attorneys.

So, I assume applications for CCWs are being processed expeditiously, and licenses are being granted to citizens to provide for their own defense.

What? NO??? How can this be???
 
Golgo-13, when you're dealing with (mostly) men who are uninterested in whether somebody not in their gang lives or dies, and is willing to kill over trifles, what do you suggest? In the absence of testimony for crimes outside the view of the police, what do you do?

At the community level, you can't contravene state or federal law. We here at this website, and folks at many other similar sites, believe that people should have the right to arm themselves. Do you really believe that every man, woman or child in Oxnard is able to be armed, were the law to encourage it? Children are at risk; do we arm them? Alternatively, must each and every child be escorted or be under the direct observation of an armed citizen? Or do we try to do something to stop the gang action?

This injunction is aimed at killers and strong-arm types, and their active supporters. Aside from the requirements stated above which control how the police make arrests, there is still the "day in court" if anybody thinks some sweet young innocent was wrongfully taken into custody.

A question that has arisen since 9/11 seems to apply here, as well: Is the Constitution a suicide pact?

Oh, well. Nobody ever promised that life would be simple and easy...

Art
 
This bit struck me as particularly out to lunch:

At Wednesday's news conference, Chris Espinosa, a director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, which organized the coalition, said law enforcement officials should focus on prevention programs for troubled youth, rather than "rushing" toward a plan to jail them.

Um, since when is it the job of the police and district attorneys to run youth services programs? I thought their job was to arrest and prosecute people who break the law.

Now, I don't really like the civil rights aspects of this injuction thing. Would an injunction against being a member of a group, even a violent group, and even only in a specified area, run into First Amendment freedom of association problems?
 
Once more I will assume the attire of the Devil's Advocate.

Violators of the injunction would face misdemeanor charges for flashing gang signs, wearing Dallas Cowboys' attire, staying out past 10 p.m. and socializing with one another in public places.

"This clothing you cannot wear, this sign you cannot make and these people you cannot socialize with in public." Sound like freedom to you? Of course it is hard to fight such criminals when they have a tight grip on an area. But has it not been said that necessity is the plea for every infringement of liberty? Should we make it a crime to wear a certain style of clothing and mannerism because it is associated with a gang? And what effect will it have? They can make new gangs signs and new getups.
 
Keep on digging, Riley!

I have to agree with Henry Bowman. Prosecute the gangsters for actual crimes, rather than criminalizing otherwise legal activities. The latter will almost always come back to haunt us.

As usual, the solution is all about more freedom. Eliminate unconstitutional drug and gun controls. The gangs will lose a major motivation for their real criminal behavior (crimes against persons and property), while the law-abiding members of the community will be better able to defend themselves from the gangs and other criminals.

~G. Fink
 
Eliminate unconstitutional drug and gun controls. The gangs will lose a major motivation for their real criminal behavior (crimes against persons and property),

Ah, yes! This will elevate them to a great state of nirvana bliss in which they will celebrate their diversity in a continual state of yo. Gordon, you make them sound like little businessmen just "doing crime" as a means to a profit. The truth is that they are motivated not only by financial gain (said motivation would not be removed by your "solution"), but also by racism and class envy, as taught by those who consider themselves "tolerant".
 
I'm just a simpleton, but why not just arrest, convict, and incarcerate the "gang members" for their actual criminal behavior instead of seeking blanket injunctions that attempt to criminalize what would otherwise be legal behavior

One would think that would happen, BUT,

1) It is FAR too much work, and

2) The arrests and convictions would be mostly MINORITIES (read non-whites); "profiling" and "racial discrimination" would be charged against the prosecutor. Somebody, somewhere, will find a "Mark Fuhrman" and such a discovery will invalidate any convictions.
 
Art, wasn't it Earl Warren who said that bit about the suicide pact? Might want to be careful about the company you keep.

You needn't violate the Constituion one bit, of course it wouldn't hurt if the Bush Administration wasnt welcoming illegals with open arms, you just need to folow a few simple steps.

- Reinstitute RKBA

- Stop prosecuting people for non-crimes and start vigorously prosecuting actual criminal acts.

- Take a somewhat relaxed view at law enforcement so that community activism can send a far stronger message to the thugs about the values they hold. Something along the lines of the our beloved Saints from Boston, fine Irish lads they are, would be about perfect.

I think that would about do the job.

Art, remember lessons from Hegel: theisis, anti-thesis- synthesis. The people in power over in Chicago dont give a damn about the safety or security of everyday folk, if they did why would they so vigorously go after GrandPa for packing a .38 when he goes to pick up his Social Security check?

These govt thugs want broad based powers with ill-defined limitations and their repression of the populace is their means to achieve it.
 
I thought I had a comment to make, but then I realized that H.L. Mencken said it first and best:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -- H.L. Mencken
Feanaro had it right, Devil's Advocate or no.

pax

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. -- Albert Camus

I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery. -- Jean Jaqueas Rousseau
 
on a sidenote-

trooper is in Germany, where, I believe ALL Nazi symbolism has been absolutely banned from their society.
 
Actually, by being members of this particular gang they are commiting a crime. Its called conspiracy. Further evidenced by the death threats issued by these gang members...conspiracy to commit murder. Any member of this gang is knowingly part of a conpiracy to commit crimes such as murder, robbery and drug dealing. There is no violation of civil rights. You can dress, do, say and be a member of whatever group you want to as long as that group is not conspiring to deprive others of their rights such as life and property.

The way they dress is not illegal, it mearly identifies them as part of an illegal group conspiring to commit crimes. I realize the wording in the article states that it will be a misdemeanor to flash signs or dress a certain way, If this is accurate, then it is wrong. These things should provide PC for arrest on conspiracy charges. That would preserve civil rights and prosecute for an actual crime. Anyone not part of a criminal gang should be fine.
 
Chris Espinosa... said law enforcement officials should focus on prevention programs for troubled youth, rather than "rushing" toward a plan to jail them.
I agree with that this is rather a blissninny approach to the problem. There are a couple of interesting points coming from this, however:
  1. Mr. Espinosa seems to be motivated by the thought that they are just attacking symptoms, rather than the "underlying problem." I agree with the part about attacking symptoms--clearly, wearing Dallas Cowboy attire does not endanger anyone, nor do the other things on their list.

    I disagree, however, with the idea that more "prevention programs" will fix the problem. I have seen absolutely no evidence that any "prevention programs" have any effect whatsoever. (Notwithstanding the successes of occasional highly-empathic individuals who have had good success at reaching and changing troubled youth. Those successes are due to the unusual qualities of those individuals, and can't be translated into large "programs.")
  2. There is however, something that is highly correlated with people staying out of trouble with the law. That something is having their father in the home when they're growing up. I recently saw the statistic of the percentage of incarcerated felons who grew up with no father in the home. Those without a father were several times more likely to end in prison than those who had a father in the home. Unfortunately, our society is going the wrong direction here, and I have no magic suggestions about what to do about it.
    [/list=1]
 
Glock Glockler, I'm in accord with you; I tend to toss out ideas to hunt for some sort of answers for the real world we live in.

Sure, two-parent families, with a working and competent bread-winner is better than the present ghetto structure. Trouble is, we got what we got, and governments at the local and state level aren't gonna make waves to change that.

TPTB don't want us to be able to defend ourselves. Personal independence is anathema.

The present budgets for law enforcement are inadequate to suppress street crime. Again, TPTB won't allocate adequate funds; LEO numbers are of low priority in the allocations of that scant resource called money.

As with things like the Patriot Act, scared people call for and/or pass unconstitutional measures.

So with our system as it is, and looking at things like political correctness as it applies to politics of race, what do we do? Heck, I don't have an anwer that's politically acceptable in Modern America. I'm a pessimist about our long-term future. I think too many people will happily trade liberty for the perception of safety.

And the honest folks in Oxnard are both scared and mad...

Art
 
trooper is in Germany, where, I believe ALL Nazi symbolism has been absolutely banned from their society

True. Showing swastikas or SS symbols in public is an offense over here.

However, the law differentiates in some way. It's not a problem to show a picture that contains a swastika if you set up a historical exhibition about the Third Reich, for example. It is, however, illegal to sew a nazi patch on your jacket and march down Main Street.

I think one could create a similar injunction in Oxnard, e.g. it's okay to wear Dallas Cowboys stuff as long as you don't hang around in places frequented by gang-bangers and as long as you don't associate with other known gang members.

As some of you already mentioned, they don't wear it because they're genuine Cowboys fans but to identify each other. It's a uniform they use to commit crimes. Denying them this means of identification would make it harder for them to coordinate their actions, citizens wouldn't be scared by the view of them. Lastly this would send out a loud and clear signal that their organisation will not be recognized as a legitimate part of the community.


Regards,

Trooper
 
Yeah, trooper, I imagine the gangbangers are smart enough to replace the obviously-known "Colors" with something seen as innocuous: Sports jackets of some particular team. These guys may be evil, but that doesn't require that they be stupid.

Art
 
Um, since when is it the job of the police and district attorneys to run youth services programs? I thought their job was to arrest and prosecute people who break the law.

Ever hear of Community Oriented Policing? Because of the federal dollars available for COP, police are doing just that, running youth services programs. And they are doing it while drawing pay for being law enforcement officers. Same with the DARE (Drug Awareness Resistance Education) program.

There are a lot of social workers wearing badges as a result.

Pilgrim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top