Fighting gangs -- San Francisco's approach

[rbain]

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!

Of course you mean "spanish" not "hispanic", right???
-Rob

[Boris]

Correctomundo, Bon.

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

...and it's "Tico" in Costa Rica.

[berwynson]

If you do not break the law you do not have to worry about your rights being violated.

Historically, this statement was true in America. Today, it is wishful thinking. If you believe otherwise, make inquiry of the illegally incarcerated, the innocent who lost their property via "Rico" implementation, or the non-conformist dragged away to jail while attempting to use the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech.

[Bonster]

hmmm...what about Rico Petrocelli?

[Chancellor]

Gangs, in the sense of this discussion, are organized groups that make money in illegal commerce:  usually narcotics, prostitution, and human smuggling.  They are as powerful a societal force as La Cosa Nostra was years ago.  Their turf wars are, as one federal judge once put it, "a menace to navigation."

The San Francisco law that is summarized in the news article does not criminalize being a "member" of a street gang.  It criminalizes "gang loitering," which Chicago has done for some time, and which the Illinois courts have upheld, in its second incarnation.  How "gang loitering" laws work is complex, but they do not focus on mere association.

The Cicero ordinance went farther, but before saying that the people who supported it don't care about the Constitution, realize the pressure for some kind of street safety.  The point is that when parents are not doing their job:  raising children that respect the rights of others; it places enormous pressure on local governments, particularly at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.  Their efforts to respond can go too far, but it does not follow that they were taken in bad faith, or because of an anomosity to the Constitution and individual freedoms.  By the same token, expressing criticism of new efforts to fight gang activity because a perceived infringement of individual rights is not to embrace gang activity.

Our gang problem is a serious one, and the criminal and law enforcement efforts to curb it complicated and difficult.  Gangs do not care about individual freedom or the rule of law.  Fighting that kind of enemy creates temptations.

Both sides here have better points here than each is willing to admit.

[Bonster]

By the same token, expressing criticism of new efforts to fight gang activity because a perceived infringement of individual rights is not to embrace gang activity.

Our gang problem is a serious one, and the criminal and law enforcement efforts to curb it complicated and difficult.  Gangs do not care about individual freedom or the rule of law.  Fighting that kind of enemy creates temptations.

Got that right.



...but my Berwyn blue collar mentality is OK at times with "street justice."

[Bear]

Some free advice to bangers from Chris Rock

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6VzsEkfSAdQ

[mustang54]

hmmm...what about Rico Petrocelli?

Nice ball player! My point about the word Rico is I have only seen the statute used against Italians, not against street gangs. And yes tgoddess I was joking. You read into my sarcastic side very well!

[apatriot]

mustang, its been used against others besides Italians.  Irish, jews, germans.  I'm sure we are getting in the latinos now too.

[Artanis1215]

Some free advice to bangers from Chris Rock

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6VzsEkfSAdQ

Hilarious Bear!

[Ana]

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>.

They don't incorporate, legally, but they incorporate.  They are run like a corporation, with a BOD, officers, staff, etc.  I agree with you Ted . . . if only it could be done, and then we could sue them.  Of course, we would still run the risk of being shot or our families being murdered in retaliation. . .

[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.

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.

http://www.berwyntalk.com/smf/index.php?topic=3891.0

[Bear]

Ass whoopin or taser?

This police taser spokesperson shares his thoughts.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OOJ9_CApGfg

[A.Malina]

Ass whoopin or taser?

This police taser spokesperson shares his thoughts.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OOJ9_CApGfg

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/20/take_that_you_brute_bzzt_jeez_lady/
Taser markets electric cattleprod gun to the laydeez
By Lewis Page
Published Friday 20th July 2007 15:27 GMT

It's well known that if you want to sell women stuff, it needs to be pink. There's just something about the colour that triggers a possessive lust in their illogical minds, forcing them to buy things. Apparently.
pink taser

Taser C2: the handbag just got more dangerous.


The pink girly-marketing phenomenon is already established (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/28/nintendo_pink_ds_lite/), but today it crossed a new frontier.

Taser, maker of electric cattleprod-dart stunguns to the world's police forces, yesterday  began shipments of the "highly anticipated C2 Personal Protector".

The company is making a strong push to sell this to all those girls out there who don't like nasty guns, riot gas, telescopic truncheons, or suchlike boy's toys; but who still want to be able to leave annoying people thrashing and sizzling in the dirt, Dark-Jedi style.

The C2 boasts a "non-gun design" which is "light, sleek, hand-held... can fit in a pocket or a purse." It's available in "four designer colours: Black Pearl, Titanium Silver, Electric Blue, and" - of course - "Metallic Pink."

"We designed the Taser™ C2 by listening to our customers," said Kathy Hanrahan, president of Taser. This seems a bit odd, as her customers at the moment are mainly coppers looking for an alternative to shooting people.

"Our focus since 1998 has primarily been in the law enforcement arena," admits Hanrahan. "However, over the past year our engineers were able to provide our technology for consumer self defense at an affordable price."

Base price is $300 - a trifling sum, no doubt, to see a tiresome boyfriend's skeleton flashing on and off through his skin.

"I will control my own destiny," says the Taser C2 webpage. "In today's world, maintaining self confidence involves the need for self protection. For independent, self-reliant women, the TASER™ C2 is an effective protection device that fits any lifestyle ... Buy Now."
My own destiny - pink taser billboard

And if you get in my way I will electrocute you.

"It is a woman's product," Ms Hanrahan told  the New York Times, which obligingly filed its writeup in the "Fashion and Style" section.(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/fashion/19taser.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=0af6e192ee7a03f7&ex=1342497600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

[berwynson]

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

Combatting gangs by suing them seems to me to be a little bit like the tax the State of Arizona implemented against illegal drugs: those arrested for drug possession are levied a tax, based on the estimated street value of the stuff found. It seemed redundant, though, to us, as the authorities had already confiscated the individual's cash and property, so the tax was to be paid how, by taking out a loan??  Berwynson