ACLU challenges legal action against gang

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(04-08) 18:35 PDT OAKLAND --

The American Civil Liberties Union filed court papers Thursday challenging the city of Oakland's plans to sue a street gang in a bid to restrict its activity in a 100-block area near the Berkeley and Emeryville borders.

Under the civil gang injunction, 19 people police identified as gang members would be prohibited from associating with one another, loitering and possessing guns in the "safety zone" in North Oakland.

The injunction, which must be approved by an Alameda County Superior Court judge, would also impose a curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., with limited exceptions.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/08/BAIK1CS0D2.DTL

---

The Oakland gang injunction was also discussed on KQED-FM's "Forum" program - http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201002230900

An ACLU lawyer appeared on "Forum" criticizing the injunction as too far-reaching despite the good intentions.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I agree with the ACLU. nt

[earcandle]

2. Thanks for upholding our American values, rights, privileges that became law. Thanks for

remembering them.  

[Rebubula]

3. NAMBLA...

...gangs....whatever.

Sorry folks, there are some times when civil liberties SHOULD be restricted. If your intention is to cause harm, commit crimes or otherwise abuse other people - well then I have no problem with the authorities fucking with you.

Ask the people of Oakland\Richmond area if they like the gangs and how they operate. Try living in these areas and see how much support you give to the ACLU in this case.

[No Elephants]

6. ALL constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

There is, howeer, a difference between saying people go to jail for talking and saying people go to jail for raping a minor. NAMBLA's the easiest case, but where do you draw the line, and who draws it--and how clearly is it drawn?

How about an anti-war speech during a war? Or commending the leader of a country with whom the U.S. is at war? Many say either is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy and the demonstrators should be tried for treason. As long as you or I get to draw the line--and are clear enough about it, so people don't shut up about more than they should--I'm sure everything will be fine. What if someone whose judgment we DON'T respect gets to draw the line, though? If you don't keep the principle pristine by taking unpopular cases, it will be weak by then.

The one thing the Constitution never allows is having a principle go one way or another depending upon who is inovlved. NAACP members were held to have a right to organize together without releasing the names of their members to folks who might retaliate against them for being members. NAACP v. Button.

You can't protect that right for the NAACP without also protecting that right for despised groups. Otherwise, who decides what should be despised and what shouldn't? For that matter, who decides who is a gang member and who isn't? I can see where this law could be used to harass almost anyone in the "zone." And the ACLU is not saying there should be no injunction at all. It's saying the particular inunction that is in place is too broad.

Please see also, Reply # 5.

ETA: I just want to make clear that I am speaking to the general principle, not this specific case. I don't know enough about this case to comment on the specifics.

[Hepburn]

8. Sorry...

...but the protection of Civil Liberties should not and does not depend on whether it is or is not a popular cause.

[onpatrol98]

4. Gangs?

I own a house in a neighborhood with gang problems. Sometimes they sell drugs down the street in sight of the local elementary school. The people who live in the neighborhoods want them rounded up and removed. You can literally see the dollars and bags trading hands. They consistently vandalize the buildings, paint their gang symbols on the local buildings, shoot up the area, and always find a way to return to their stomping ground. Some of the local businesses actually lock their doors UNTIL a customer comes and then lock the door behind them.

The people in the neighborhood want them gone. Guess who insists they have a right to group up and hang out on every street corner, in front of your house, or in front of your business....people who live somewhere else.

In my humble opinion, the ACLU hasn't got a clue. Some of the people in organizations like these, aren't having their garage doors painted with drug symbols immediately after each fresh coat of paint. They're not picking up the beer bottles after a little "uninvited" get together in your front yard. Their kids don't walk by drug deals on their way to school. And, they're not worried about getting shot while driving through their own neighborhood.

So, I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of the ACLU on this one.

[No Elephants]

5. The ACLU defends civil rights, not gangs.

So, it's not a question of whether you are with the gangs. It's not even a question if you are with the ACLU. It's a question of whether you are with the Constitutional principle being defended here. If a principle is not defended all the time, it's not likely to be there when you or I need it.

That's why the ACLU has to do things like defend the right of Nazis to have a peaceful parade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

Failure to read Miranda rights allowed murderers to walk. That's a bitter pill to swallow, but you have to, if you believe that , people should be told they have right to remain silent and a right to an attorney before the police start questioning them. Just like having Nazis parade down your Main Street's is a bitter pill to swallow, but you have to, if you want to preserve the right of war protesters to have a peaceful parade.

Popular groups and popular views rarely need Constitutional protections. It's the principle, not the specific result, that must be defended, no matter how unpleasant or unpopular the result may be.

And, it's one of many reasons the Statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

That sais, I hate it when the ACLU finds itself conscience driven to do something like defending Nazis or defending gangs--because those pills are very bitter. But, understanding why I must swallow them anyway gets me through it. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association--all of these things are enshrined in our Constitution. If we want to keep it that way, we have to take some for the team.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations

[Hepburn]

7. +1,000

One of the hardest things I had to do -- considering my Jewish background -- was sort out my feelings about the march in Skokie in 1977 and the ACLU. When I thought about it, I realized they truly are in the defense of Civil Liberties -- no matter what way it cuts. Popularity is NOT the issue with them. So, I am now a card carrying member for a whole lot of years! I considered quitting back then, but did not and glad I did not do so.

[okieinpain]

9. sorry don't agree. if we take laws literally people would be dying

in the streets. I thought that's why we have judges and lawyers to apply the laws sensibly.

[joeglow3]

11. I wouldn't give a shit about this if I was dead

I oppose this action by the ACLU, it is rather clear cut. But, I am guessing YOU don't live in one of these neighborhoods either.

[brooklynite]

12. The ACLU doesn't defend ALL civil rights...

...because it doesn't have the resources to. I can't believe there isn't a more pressing case they could be spending their resources on.

[onpatrol98]

13. Agreed

[onpatrol98]

14. I understand what you're saying

I understand what you're saying. But, when its your children and your neighborhood, you begin to wonder if the ACLU isn't overlooking another case, to get a more controversial one just for media coverage.

This isn't the neighborhood I live in at the moment, but it's one I still have a house in. It's one I could be back in with the economy the way that it is. It's one where you look out of your windows and you see them outside of your home on the corner grabbing at their crotches IF they see you looking out of your window.

It's not on my television set, it's in front of my house. It's in front of a house, I can't send my sons out in front to play in, because I don't want them calling them over. Where do their rights end and my rights as well as my neighbors begin?

My neighbor (age 85) (next to the house) has his spare tires "chained" to his porch because they've stolen the last set. It's not ideology with me, when my front window has BB pellet holes in it, because they thought it would be funny.

There are good people in this neighborhood. People who can't let their children play in the neighborhood park because its overrun with gang nonsense...really grown men playing basketball without t-shirts and gang tattoos on their arms, yelling at every teenage girl that walks by. If she speaks, in their mind, she's encouraging more attention, and gets it. If she doesn't, then she really enough negative attention to almost make you cry.

I understand what you're saying. I've said it myself. But, there is still something inherently wrong with a system that supports this behavior as if its some great accomplishment.

Chances are I won't be living in this neighborhood again. I hope. But, hey. I'm blessed to even own that house. It's paid for. But, to sleep at night and have a "safer" neighborhood for my children, I'm renting another one. I can afford it, at the moment. But, some of these people can't afford to leave. Why can't the ACLU help them? Why is more important for a young group of gang members to hang out and less important for people to be able to enjoy a safe neighborhood?

I know this isn't what you suggested. It's just how I feel when I think about it.

[paulsby]

10. i agree with the ACLU and i deal with gang scumbags all the time

our rights matter...

[onpatrol98]

15. Where do you deal with them?

[paulsby]

16. on patrol, baby

a la your name

i arrested an MS-13 a couple of days ago.

one of my best friends was killed by a BGD

etc.

[onpatrol98]

17. Sorry to hear that...

Sorry to hear that you've lost a friend. I'm just a mother with kids. Maybe if I was a police officer, I'd feel better about it. Maybe if I didn't have a 15 year old son (a nice ripe target), I'd feel differently about it.

It just disturbs me. Currently, the way I deal with it, is quite frankly to live somewhere else until I can sell the place. It doesn't feel like we have any rights.

The young kids on the streets are actually pawns of grown men. And, there is safety in numbers for them. They don't live long outside of prison. There are some parents that not only turn a blind eye, but condone it. Any money coming in helps the family.

Maybe the ACLU should be suing gangs on behalf of the young men who feel pressured to join them. That, I could understand. Maybe it should be illegal for grown men and older teenage males to turn children into expendable dealers.

Well, stay safe.

[paulsby]

18. thanks

in brief, gangs are a scourge, but throwing away the constitution to fight them would be a bigger scourge

[onpatrol98]

19. I get what you're saying...

It's the truth and I know it. But, essentially the answer for the rest of us is to give them the neighborhood. We certainly don't seem to have a right to it anymore. And, we can't safely coexist.

So, those who can afford to leave do and those who can't stay and basically become prisoners in their home.

If this is the best answer we've got, we're screwed.