Fighting gangs -- San Francisco's approach

[A.Malina]

Sample: 
"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.

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."

The rest of the article can be seen at the link below:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits&printer=1;_ylt=ApctJeV7sxpoU_wN34O7.dVH2ocA

[Ted]

  Didn't the Town of Cicero try this a few years ago and it was shot down in court as being unconstitutional??

[berwynson]

Just what the proliferation of lawyers has been hoping for. Another opportunity to benefit from the misfortunes of humanity.

[A.Malina]

Just what the proliferation of lawyers has been hoping for. Another opportunity to benefit from the misfortunes of humanity.

The only people suffering misfortune are those whose neighborhood quality of life is going down the sewer because of gang activity and gang presence.  If you meant lawyers (the ones trying to prevent police from assisting the good neighbors by helping rid them of the bad)would benefit from people's misfortunes, then I will agree that's deplorable.  As to the constitionality of any law:  if properly written, it should work just fine.

[berwynson]

Just what the proliferation of lawyers has been hoping for. Another opportunity to benefit from the misfortunes of humanity.

The only people suffering misfortune are those whose neighborhood quality of life is going down the sewer because of gang activity and gang presence.  If you meant lawyers (the ones trying to prevent police from assisting the good neighbors by helping rid them of the bad)would benefit from people's misfortunes, then I will agree that's deplorable.  As to the constitionality of any law:  if properly written, it should work just fine.

Since you mention specifically, gang activity and gang presence, I would ask whether those two factors continuing to be a negative which thwarts neighborhood quality of life, are supported or bolstered by the illegal drug trade? If they are, the "War on Drugs" ought to, by now, be rending the gang activity asunder.

But it's not? So, how pervasive were those two factors, gang activity and gang presence, before the "War on Drugs"? When I was a kid, neither drugs nor gangs were much of a problem at all.

Enter widespread litigation, laws permitting confiscation of private property, imprisonment of large numbers of criminals having committed victimless crimes, general public apathy, and here we are today!!

[apatriot]

Berwynson:  "When I was a kid, neither drugs nor gangs were much of a problem at all."  Correct.  Not a factor.

A. Malina, for discussion, do you think no control on our borders plays a part?.  We've got the Coast Guard checking ports for drugs, while two mexicans are growing pot in a forest preserve to the tune of $10 M.  Please don't deceive yourself into thinking that our government (either party) cares about drugs.  They don't.  They support countries that want to bring drugs here.  Example:  what a surprise:  Mexico.  and others.

I could be wrong (cause I have no statistics) BUT I would venture to guess that there are more people doing drugs via popping pills than on coke or weed.  And who is their supplier?  Our little old drug companies here at home.  They prey on people at every turn.

The above is just a little offering of why Berwynson made his comments.  They create a situation in order to profit off that situation, and it's not just with drugs.  The average person (and I'm not meaning to call you average) thinks:  Wow !  This is great.  This will really curtail gangs and drugs.  It won't.

[A.Malina]

Berwynson:  "When I was a kid, neither drugs nor gangs were much of a problem at all."  Correct.  Not a factor.

A. Malina, for discussion, do you think no control on our borders plays a part?.  We've got the Coast Guard checking ports for drugs, while two mexicans are growing pot in a forest preserve to the tune of $10 M.  Please don't deceive yourself into thinking that our government (either party) cares about drugs.  They don't.  They support countries that want to bring drugs here.  Example:  what a surprise:  Mexico.  and others.

I could be wrong (cause I have no statistics) BUT I would venture to guess that there are more people doing drugs via popping pills than on coke or weed.  And who is their supplier?  Our little old drug companies here at home.  They prey on people at every turn.

The above is just a little offering of why Berwynson made his comments.  They create a situation in order to profit off that situation, and it's not just with drugs.  The average person (and I'm not meaning to call you average) thinks:  Wow !  This is great.  This will really curtail gangs and drugs.  It won't.

Of course the lack of border control plays a part, a huge one.  But because the problem is huge and is ignored (maybe encouraged) by the federal government, should individual cities just give up and accept the situation -- maybe retrain themselves to think of every corner as a drug marketplace? As for the abuse of prescription drugs, I do not see it as related to gang drug sales and related crime. 

[berwynson]

Of course the lack of border control plays a part, a huge one.  But because the problem is huge and is ignored (maybe encouraged) by the federal government, should individual cities just give up and accept the situation -- maybe retrain themselves to think of every corner as a drug marketplace? As for the abuse of prescription drugs, I do not see it as related to gang drug sales and related crime. 
[/quote]              **************************************************

Here's where the fine print goes unnoticed. Many arrests are now made of persons dealing "prescription" drugs on the street. Oxycodone, hydrocodone, percodan, and many others are favorites. However, what really surprised me to no end, is that Amphetamine is also a "prescription" drug. I use quotes to emphasize that the big no-no drug can be prescribed by any doctor, for any person. The kicker: several of the most commonly used drugs to treat ADHD in CHILDREN, mind you, are actually amphetamines. So we are feeding our kids meth. Don't believe it? Look at the back of any advertisement in Redbook, Womens' Day, etc., for Adderall, I think that's one of them, and you will find the fine print- amphetamines can cause addiction, etc., etc.

I almost fell out of my chair as I read this: think of the utter hypocrisy here- pouring billions of dollars down the bottomless pit of the "drug war", only to legally on the other hand, feed those same drugs to the kids.

It's shameful, fraudulent, and disgusting. Those "experts" who speak in support of such drug use claim dosage and term of use control and rule out possible addiction. Hell, give a drunk just one hit, and he won't want another, will he (she, sorry)? As you can see, I am livid about this issue.

[Taylor St. Kid]

Cicero did do this a few years ago, but the courts agreed with the Al Sarptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the world that the scumbags have more rights than the average citizen, Cicero even passed an ordinance that if you were caught doing a gang activity you were  :usa:forced to move out of town, regardless if you were a minor, if mommy and daddy didn't like it, too bad, then they can move too and they were also barred from the town.

[Ted]

Cicero did do this a few years ago, but the courts agreed with the Al Sarptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the world that the scumbags have more rights than the average citizen, Cicero even passed an ordinance that if you were caught doing a gang activity you were  :usa:forced to move out of town, regardless if you were a minor, if mommy and daddy didn't like it, too bad, then they can move too and they were also barred from the town.

  How did Cicero define  "gang activity" ?  What was the definition of a "gang"?  Was the definition so broad that it could have included legitimate organizations such as the Elks Club or the Moose Lodge? 

  And, by what constitutional principle did The Town Of Cicero believe it had a right to deny housing to someone if that person belonged to an organization but had never committed a crime?

  Just wondering.
   Ted

P.S.  I've always thought one way to fight gangs is using RICO laws and IRS laws. Gangs rarely incorporate as limited liabilty partnerhsips or Chapter S corporations  <LOL>.

[Bonster]

Cicero did do this a few years ago, but the courts agreed with the Al Sarptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the world that the scumbags have more rights than the average citizen, Cicero even passed an ordinance that if you were caught doing a gang activity you were  :usa:forced to move out of town, regardless if you were a minor, if mommy and daddy didn't like it, too bad, then they can move too and they were also barred from the town.

  And, by what constitutional principle did The Town Of Cicero believe it had a right to deny housing to someone if that person belonged to an organization but had never committed a crime?

Where did he say they never committed a crime?
I'm curious to hear the answer to your first question.

Just wondering,
Susan Kaminga

[Ted]

Where did he say they never committed a crime?
I'm curious to hear the answer to your first question.

Just wondering,
Susan Kaminga

  Does the phrase  "caught doing gang activity"  mean being in a gang or does it mean getting caught committing a crime?

  If it means only that a person is in a gang, then I see no constitutional way to prohibit that person from living in Cicero.

  Even if it means having gotten caught doing a crime, if a person has served out their sentence, can that person be prevented from living anywhere?  I know that is true for sex offenders but that law is within distance of a school?

  If someone is convicted of a crime such as shop lifting or graffitti and they have paid their fines and/or served their sentence in jail, does that city have a right to prevent that person from living there?

  If so, please point to the wording in the constitution that would allow a city to do that?

  Ted

[mustang54]

Cicero did do this a few years ago, but the courts agreed with the Al Sarptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the world that the scumbags have more rights than the average citizen, Cicero even passed an ordinance that if you were caught doing a gang activity you were  :usa:forced to move out of town, regardless if you were a minor, if mommy and daddy didn't like it, too bad, then they can move too and they were also barred from the town.

 
P.S.  I've always thought one way to fight gangs is using RICO laws and IRS laws. Gangs rarely incorporate as limited liabilty partnerhsips or Chapter S corporations  <LOL>.

Ted I have been wondering the same thing for years. They do not hesitate to use it on U.S citizens who happen to be Italian. Is it because the word Rico is Italian? Well then come up with a Jose or Hose B law. Lack of border patrol is only half the problem. Being an illegal is a crime in it self and nothing is ever done. Then when they commit another crime they do not deport them. The entire system is a joke. A very costly joke that is not a bit funny anymore.

[Taylor St. Kid]

I'm sure Ted that if one of these scumbags lived on either side of you, you would be in favor of giving them the boot. I know what the constitution reads. I passed it in school, and I believe in it. But doesn't the constitution give me the right not to have to worry about idiot gangbangers sitting on their porch and being shot at because the assholes shooting at them couldn't hit the side of a barn 10 ft away. How much do you think they lower my property value. I know Mr Ted that what Cicero did was agaisn't the scumbags rights, but at least they had the best interest of the other law abiding citizens in mind. I don't know Ted, hope you never run for president, Al-Quida would be our neighbors. Here's another thought Ted, have you ever held a kid who was shot in your arms because he was an innocent victim of a drive by shooting, when a kid who is just 13 and he's crying and asking for his mother, and you watch him take his last breath, when you do, and I hope to God you never have too, but if you do, you tell me then that these scumbags have rights, where were the rights protecting that kid that night.

[Crunchie]

Puh-lease. Bush has taken away enough of our rights as it is. You don't need to volunteer to give the rest of them away out of some confused sense of justice.

[mustang54]

Puh-lease. Bush has taken away enough of our rights as it is. You don't need to volunteer to give the rest of them away out of some confused sense of justice.

What has Bush himself taken away? I am so tired of hearing that shit. If you do not break the law you do not have to worry about your rights being violated. Its that simple. Wake up people or someday we all might not. I could give a damn about the rights of a criminal. If taping someones phone will prevent another 9/11,do it. Ask the people who were in the world trade center how much good their rights are doing them now.

[Ted]

...  I know what the constitution reads. I passed it in school, and I believe in it.

  Actually, it doesn't sound like you do.  It sounds like you believe that the Bill of Rights is an inconvvenience that you would prefer not exist or apply to your neighbors.

[tgoddess]

Cicero did do this a few years ago, but the courts agreed with the Al Sarptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the world that the scumbags have more rights than the average citizen, Cicero even passed an ordinance that if you were caught doing a gang activity you were  :usa:forced to move out of town, regardless if you were a minor, if mommy and daddy didn't like it, too bad, then they can move too and they were also barred from the town.

 
P.S.  I've always thought one way to fight gangs is using RICO laws and IRS laws. Gangs rarely incorporate as limited liabilty partnerhsips or Chapter S corporations  <LOL>.

Ted I have been wondering the same thing for years. They do not hesitate to use it on U.S citizens who happen to be Italian. Is it because the word Rico is Italian?

Mustang, I'm going to ASSUME you were joking.

RICO=Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (An acronym, not a "word.")

And I agree with Ted, here.  Isn't that how they ended up getting Capone; by getting him on IRS charges? 

Gangs are gangs.  If they can be fought with laws we already HAVE, why not?

[Bonster]

RICO= acronym, word, what have you...doesn't matter...it's how it sounds.

Unfortunately it snot Italian at all.  It's hispanic.  Sorry Mustang!

[tgoddess]

Correctomundo, Bon.

"Ricco" in Italian is the word for "rico" in Spanish.