Cities Sue Gangs in Bid to Stop Violence

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

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.

"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.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3426251

[2Design]

1. I like this - good n/t

[ret5hd]

9. Hobby: Always question authority

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Quit it! Stop! You're killin' me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Exultant Democracy]

18. that is pretty ironic.

[ret5hd]

2. Passing laws for the EXPRESS purpose of giving police...

an excuse to stop, question, and search citizens. Passing laws that make it illegal to associate with other members of a persons neighborhood, whether in a car, on the street, OR ANYWHERE ELSE in certain areas.

This is disgusting. And just as disturbing to me is people here support things like this.

I wish there was more discussion on this thread.

[JudyM]

3. Understand your POV re:civil liberties, but it seems targeted at known members of gangs who have

a pattern of committing violent crimes... for the sake of argument, how is this less palatable to you than an injunction against a pedophile that prevents him from going anywhere near a schoolyard, or associating with minors?

I think it's overbroad to prevent them from associating, but if they are found associating, checking them for weapons seems like an unfortunate but 'valid state's interest' type of preventive action. I question whether, if they are found with an unlicensed weapon, or with drugs, they could be prosecuted criminally, though, since presumably the criminal search and seizure requirements hadn't been met. Probably just confiscated.

IMO a rash of drive-by shootings requires extreme measures, so many kids are killed just by being bystanders... as long as people's constitutional rights are somehow preserved... this article doesn't give enough info on that.

[Posteritatis]

24. If they've already been charged/convicted with something, that's one thing

and I don't have a problem with that.

Just saying "do not associate with these people" without that condition beforehand, though... I know that it's not a bill of attainder, but it's close enough to make me uncomfortable. I don't like restricting liberties, no matter who they're directed against, unless the person has their day in court in the first place.

Put another way, if they're Obviously Violent Criminal Thugs(tm), then it shouldn't be that hard to charge and try them for something they're doing or attempting to do or whatnot. As you say, preventing them from associating seems over the line, particularly on private property or what-have-you, and there've gotta be options short of that.

Of course, considering how emotive things like this are, I'm sure there's a few score readers already saying I must be pro-gangbanger or something. That's the other aggravating thing about situations like this; being opposed to taking things too far seems to be treated the same as advocating the problem in the first place. I try to be as black-and-white as I can on civil liberties issues, though - even if I also don't find much of a problem with dogfacedboy's suggestion, in post #21, of neighborhood residents driving them out by force if need be.

I just don't know what lines I draw in these kinds of situations, or where I should draw them.

[dogfacedboy]

4. Have you ever lived in the middle of a gang infested area?

I have, and I've been a victim (shot in head) of these cucarachas. It's a battle zone.

I understand your feelings, but there comes a time when any means necessary must be applied to remove gang scum from Our Great Society. In the neighborhood where I grew up, the cops did nothing about these scum.
It turned out some of the cops in the district where I lived were actually members of the Latina, er, Latin Kings street gang. A few good men, and a few good Louisville Sluggers solved a part of our neighborhood gang problem; not the cops. I have no respect for the "rights", or for that matter, the lives of these vermin.

In solving the street gang problems in the US, I say Any Means Necessary.

[ret5hd]

5. Cucarachas? Any means necessary? Yeah, right.

Mandatory curfews for "certain" neighborhoods?
Random searches of "certain" types of people?

Hey, don't get me wrong! I am SURE you would be OK with it...I just don't know about anyone else.

[dysfunctional press]

6. sounds good to me.

nt

[ret5hd]

7. Give up YOUR rights, not mine...

You want mandatory curfews, stay inside! You're as safe as if the entire neighborhood was under curfew. But i can still go to the store.

[dogfacedboy]

13. Nowhere in that article are general curfews mentioned.

The cops know who the gangs are. Gang members don't just "hang out". They sell drugs, rob, rape, and shoot. Innocent people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is taken away by the mere presence of these street rats.

It sounds like you're defending them. I want to see and end put to them and their activities.

[eagler]

19. You could not be more right

[dysfunctional press]

14. i'm all for giving up the rights of the known gangbangers.

that's what the article is addressing.

[dogfacedboy]

11. Don't put words in my mouth. The cops know who the gangbangers are.

Let me explain something to you.

I don't know about where you live, but here in Chicagoland, we have a very serious street gang problem. The unfortunate fact is, about 90% of these gang members are Latino or African-American. At one time, one of the largest gangs in Chicago was an all-White gang. People took to the streets, and ran those a-holes into extinction. Why can't the good people of all neighborhoods do the same?
Good kids have to try and grow up around these scum. There are people who think all Latino or African-American kids are gangbangers just because of the filthy bastards that infest their neighborhoods. I support giving the police tools to clean the gang shit off the streets.
I'm sorry if you can't deal with that reality.

[TommyO]

16. Any Means Necessary?

Why don't we just build a wall around Manhattan and send all known gang members there? Problem solved.

How long before new gangs spring up to take their place?

The way to get rid of massive gang problems is to eliminate the reasons that people join gangs, though it's much "sexier" for a politician to stage a "war on gangs" than it is to fight the economic disparity and despair that allow gangs to flourish in the first place.

[dogfacedboy]

17. Lot's of people deal with economic disparity and despair

without becoming criminal gang scum. Actually, the vast majority of people living in poverty are not in criminal gangs. I know. I grew up in that world.

This has nothing to do with politicians. I'm a guy who saw all of this crap first hand.
It took something on the order of vigilanteism to clear the gangbangers out of the area where I grew up. The cops did nothing. People need to raise their children the right way. Poverty does not prevent that.

[depakid]

8. Suing for damages is one thing

The Southern Poverty Law Center did that successfully:

In 1988, Tom and John Metzger sent their best White Aryan Resistance (WAR) recruiter to organize a Portland Skinhead gang. After being trained in WAR's methods, the gang killed an Ethiopian student. Tom Metzger praised the Skinheads for doing their "civic duty."

Center attorneys filed a civil suit, Berhanu v. Metzger, asserting the Metzgers and WAR were as responsible for the killing as the Portland Skinheads. In October 1990, a jury agreed and awarded $12.5 million in damages to the family of the victim, Mulugeta Seraw.

However, injunctions like this are quite another. Seems to me this sets a very dangerous precedent.

[flashl]

10. Withdrawal of neighborhood policing

as indicated by an earlier poster give rise to some untenable situations in 'certain' neighborhoods across the country. I remember reading about this 'reduction' of public service and became very disturbed because these neighborhoods turned to law enforcement for harsher punishment. There are alternatives, like genuine support for community policing.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. oy

any gang member arrested would have the easiest habeus corpus case. A first-week legal aid attorney could get them back on teh street in no time.

Waste of time, if you ask me.

[dogfacedboy]

15. But when it happens over and over, a message gets sent.

If these cockroches get put into the penalty box two to three times a week, sooner or later it might make them think about a new course in life.

[Socal31]

20. What in the fuck happened....

to the right to assemble peacefully?


So the Gov. can now interdict into a gathering to prevent "future" crimes? Felons on parole are already prohibited from being around other felons. So why the hell do we need this??? Just wait until the next Greenpeace protest is considered a gang...I bet some of you will change your tune.

[dogfacedboy]

21. I suspect you know nothing about the culture of street gangs.

These street gangs are criminal organizations--nothing more; nothing less. They sell drugs, murder, rape, and steal. I was shot in the head at the age of 19 as part of a gang initiation. Singled out on the street one night simply because I was a "white boy". To join this particular gang, one had to "kill a white boy or a nigger"(it was a Latino gang). I was supposed to be murdered by someone who didn't even know me, just so he could join this stupid fucking gang! Luckily, all I lost was my right eye, if you can call that lucky. My ambitions of being a Chicago fire fighter went right down the sewer that night. After losing the eye, I was physically un-acceptable for the job.

Poverty is no excuse.

I know from where I speak. I grew up in a poor, gang infested neighborhood in Chicago. Neither myself, nor any of my childhood friends, were sucked into the gangs. Anyone knows that the vast majority of poor people are not criminals. These characters assemble for one reason, and one reason only--criminal activity. The cops know who the bad guys are, and given the tools to combat them, the cops can be very effective. I never saw the cops harass anyone in the neighborhood of my youth that didn't deserve it. What did even more than the police department to combat these low-lifes where I grew up was citizen involvement. When reason didn't make them go away, Louisville Sluggers did. I'm a veteran of too many years of battling these gang-banger a-holes to see it any other way. I have less than zero tolerance for them, and always will.

[Marrah_G]

22. I'm so sorry that happened to you

People have romantic idea about gangs sometimes.

[dogfacedboy]

23. Thanks for your concern. n/t

[Socal31]

25. Hmmm...you suspect wrong.

Having been locked up and rolling with the Peckerwoods, I think I may know just a tad. But until someone is convicted of a crime, there should be now law preventing them from hanging out with whoever they choose.