gang crimes get the federal swift-kick

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Originally posted by Guy@May 13 2005, 11:31 AM
The problem with this legislation is that jail time/capital punishment/etc is not very effective in stopping crime, so adding more to the tax payers burden by stiffening penalties really is only to the benefit of those who are involved with the prison system (guards, suppliers, etc). It is similar to how people will advocate the death penalty because they think that it stops murder. If that were true, then we would expect the state with the highest rate of capital punishment to have the lowest murder rate, right? Im afraid Texas is far from the lowest. Same logic applies here; gang members (in the traditional sense or by the new definition) are not going to sit and contemplate the reprocussions of their actions before engaging in crimes, and no additional penalties will change that fact.
[post=498821]Quoted post[/post]​


No one ever said that penalties were going to stop crimes, they never will. However, if you lock up the head of gangs, or "gang bangers" then thats one less gang member on the streets.
 
Nice post Blanco, as usual you have no trouble defining and reinforcing your point, unlike others in this vicinity.
 
Originally posted by Blanco@May 13 2005, 05:00 PM
The point that you missed, is that people don't know half of what they think they know about gangs and gang activity. You can't beat something that you don't even understand. And you certainly can't claim the high road when you don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, I've seen that in action. Being in a highly gang populated area, that was one of the rules at my intermediate school. A group of five preppy girls standing around yakking about who's nails were looked more cute, constituted a gang. California's had the Three Strikes law for almost a decade, I'm quite familiar with how it works. What's the difference you ask? How about a lot of people getting tried for gang related crimes that weren't gang related? That's like locking up an Asprin user on marijuana trafficing charges, because it's still a drug afterall. It's ridiculous to say that three hooligans are a gang, in 2005. Three guys flying colors, throwing signs, whatever, is a different story. My area is seriously cracking down on gang members, the kind that have actual gang affiliations, by making a file on each and every gang member. You fly a flag, you get stopped. You throw your set up, you get stopped. You fit the profile, you get stopped. They photograph your tattoos, get your street tag along with your real name, obviously perform a search, et cetera. They're making it more difficult to "gangbang" by actually doing something about it at the lowest level. Want fewer kids in gangs? Give them some freaking hope instead of just trying to shovel them under even more shit.

You don't have to reward me with anything. My reward is the real ability to see this subject from both sides. I've been a criminal and now I'm not, by choice. Again, it's about understanding your enemy.

Then don't talk shit about how intelligent you are until you take one. It's bad form.


All nice and dandy. Did I ever elude to anything that lead you to believe that I personally feel this is the ultimate plan that will end gang related crimes? I don't think I did, yet you seem to think I did. I certainly don't think that this plan could take the nation in the wrong direction but only help.


I couldn't agree more with you about giving kids hope so they don't have to resort to joining gangs. In my opinion there shouldn't be a difference between someone abusing pills or someone abusing weed. If they're both selling a controlled substance then they should do the time.

Weren't you the hardass on the issue about the kid on the cell phone with his mother from Iraq saying, "if you do the crime, then you have to do the time"? ...or was that just for the sake of arguing?


***As for the IQ test, if you're so high in terms of intelligence in the population you should be well aware that the test means diddley squat.
Do you know that both the Sureno and norteno gangs are prison based? Those are the two largest gangs in California prisons. Almost all of the orders for the street gangs come from the leaders in prison. Do you know that the 18th Street gang is over 20k strong in Los Angeles alone, and that the gang actually extends all the way to the Bay Area? Not to mention how many Crips, bloods, and other various gang members there are.

Trying to take out a gang by putting people in prison is going to do as much good as its done in the War on Drugs. There will always be more members to fill the void. You have to make it less attractive to be in a gang, by giving hope and real opportunities to accel. Most teenage gangbangers are just scared kids, very few of them actually want to live the lifestyles they're living. Get them off of the streets and you're half way towards solving the problem. Keep throwing more shit on the fire and the problem is going to continue to grow.

There isn't enough room in California's prisons to lock up all of the gangbangers in this state. Even if we let all of those non-violent potheads out. It would be far wiser to try to use our heads, as a nation, to come up with an actual solution instead of trying to throw muscle at a symptom.



Once again I couldn't agree more. Why do you always feel the need to argue about something that I agree on? I didn't say that this was the end-all-be-all solution that would solve the gang related problems in the nation because nothing ever will, it can only aid.

Regardless of whether gangs run from inner prison circles, taking gang members off the street is going to help to decrease the numbers. If you take care of corrupt prison officials then it will be far harder to operate as a leader from prison. Implement social reform plans that allow children somewhere to go, someone to talk to, a group to join coupled with this "no bullshit" policy and you have the begins of a solution.

You of all people should know that no one is going to ride on in on the gravy train and just solve this problem by only implementing one plan. There will forever be criminals.
 
Originally posted by Battle Pope@May 13 2005, 05:05 PM
Nice post Blanco, as usual you have no trouble defining and reinforcing your point, unlike others in this vicinity.
[post=498924]Quoted post[/post]​



...or is it just because this board is full of bleeding heart liberals that in some of their blissful ignorance could give a shit less what a conservative says?


I have zero problem debating in person and 99% of the time having the upper hand, but I come online and try to prove a point and there's a million and one naysayers that don't want to listen...

hmmmm.
 
You assume I was talking about you?

You talk enough about bleeding-heart liberals... sounds to me like that's the perfect excuse for a blatantly combative conservative.
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 13 2005, 11:14 PM
Weren't you the hardass on the issue about the kid on the cell phone with his mother from Iraq saying, "if you do the crime, then you have to do the time"? ...or was that just for the sake of arguing?



[post=498929]Quoted post[/post]​

He is trying to say that the laws, such as the three strike law, are applied incorrectly. The three strike law is made to put away carreer criminals, but has snared other that are not. As such, the very loose definition of a gang memeber is going to be and already has been applied wrong. Three kids hanging out is not a gang if they are not doing gang activities, but according to the laws definition they can be harassed as gangmembers. The phone issue was pretty clear cut in that, no phones in school = kid got in trouble for being on phone. There was no interepetation to be made, or gray area about it.
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx+May 13 2005, 05:27 PM-->
New2TheCarScene
@May 13 2005, 11:14 PM
Weren't you the hardass on the issue about the kid on the cell phone with his mother from Iraq saying, "if you do the crime, then you have to do the time"? ...or was that just for the sake of arguing?



[post=498929]Quoted post[/post]​

He is trying to say that the laws, such as the three strike law, are applied incorrectly. The three strike law is made to put away carreer criminals, but has snared other that are not. As such, the very loose definition of a gang memeber is going to be and already has been applied wrong. Three kids hanging out is not a gang if they are not doing gang activities, but according to the laws definition they can be harassed as gangmembers. The phone issue was pretty clear cut in that, no phones in school = kid got in trouble for being on phone. There was no interepetation to be made, or gray area about it.
[post=498934]Quoted post[/post]​



If the law defines a gang as three or more, then there's no interpretation to be made there either.
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 13 2005, 05:21 PM


...or is it just because this board is full of bleeding heart liberals that in some of their blissful ignorance could give a shit less what a conservative says?


I have zero problem debating in person and 99% of the time having the upper hand, but I come online and try to prove a point and there's a million and one naysayers that don't want to listen...

hmmmm.
[post=498930]Quoted post[/post]​


Why are you trying to turn this into a partisan issue?

And pointing that you have the "upper hand" in 99 percent of your debates... what does that have to do with anything? I mean if you are going on to the short bus to debate politics, what do you expect? Is it frusterating you that people are pointing out that you have an overly simplistic attitude with regards to this?
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+May 14 2005, 01:31 AM-->
Originally posted by 92b16vx@May 13 2005, 05:27 PM
New2TheCarScene
@May 13 2005, 11:14 PM
Weren't you the hardass on the issue about the kid on the cell phone with his mother from Iraq saying, "if you do the crime, then you have to do the time"? ...or was that just for the sake of arguing?



[post=498929]Quoted post[/post]​

He is trying to say that the laws, such as the three strike law, are applied incorrectly. The three strike law is made to put away carreer criminals, but has snared other that are not. As such, the very loose definition of a gang memeber is going to be and already has been applied wrong. Three kids hanging out is not a gang if they are not doing gang activities, but according to the laws definition they can be harassed as gangmembers. The phone issue was pretty clear cut in that, no phones in school = kid got in trouble for being on phone. There was no interepetation to be made, or gray area about it.
[post=498934]Quoted post[/post]​



If the law defines a gang as three or more, then there's no interpretation to be made there either.
[post=498960]Quoted post[/post]​

Are you retarded? No, really, are you?


Rule = apple, definition = orange
 
Christ, I'm not reading all of those responses. lol
 
Originally posted by Guy+May 13 2005, 07:36 PM-->
New2TheCarScene
@May 13 2005, 05:21 PM


...or is it just because this board is full of bleeding heart liberals that in some of their blissful ignorance could give a shit less what a conservative says?


I have zero problem debating in person and 99% of the time having the upper hand, but I come online and try to prove a point and there's a million and one naysayers that don't want to listen...

hmmmm.
[post=498930]Quoted post[/post]​


Why are you trying to turn this into a partisan issue?

And pointing that you have the "upper hand" in 99 percent of your debates... what does that have to do with anything? I mean if you are going on to the short bus to debate politics, what do you expect? Is it frusterating you that people are pointing out that you have an overly simplistic attitude with regards to this?
[post=498961]Quoted post[/post]​



Not in the least because people are claiming that I'm saying things that I'm not.


I'd be the first one to say that this isn't THE solution, as in the only solution, but it sure as hell can't hurt. Although people here made it out to be as if that was the way I felt.
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx@May 13 2005, 07:55 PM

Are you retarded? No, really, are you?


Rule = apple, definition = orange



...and is the law supposed to explicitly say, "gang activies are flying a flag, putting a tag on a wall, dressing a certain way, appearing as if you're in a gang, etc, etc" and list every instance?


My point was that they defined a gang as a group of three or more people. I'm one to believe that three people are comminting felonies, one of which is violent, then why the hell should they not get locked up for the same amount of time as the next criminal? So, yes of course people who are not actually in an organized gang that has strong numbers can be prosecuted as gang members but whats the difference? Once again, the prosecutor isn't going to be prosecuting three young kids as gang members if they're stealing a pack of gum, now if they steal a car at gun point, beat the shit out of someone in it, and go on a joyriding spree they might... and would that be so bad to see those three people get locked up just as if they were in a gang?

I understand "gang crime" was left up to interpretation but they certainly defined what a gang was, maybe not what you see a gang as but in this case three or more people constitutes a gang. Its that gang of three kids or the latin kings are a gang
 
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+May 14 2005, 02:59 PM-->
@May 13 2005, 07:55 PM

Are you retarded? No, really, are you?


Rule = apple, definition = orange



...and is the law supposed to explicitly say, "gang activies are flying a flag, putting a tag on a wall, dressing a certain way, appearing as if you're in a gang, etc, etc" and list every instance?


My point was that they defined a gang as a group of three or more people. I'm one to believe that three people are comminting felonies, one of which is violent, then why the hell should they not get locked up for the same amount of time as the next criminal? So, yes of course people who are not actually in an organized gang that has strong numbers can be prosecuted as gang members but whats the difference? Once again, the prosecutor isn't going to be prosecuting three young kids as gang members if they're stealing a pack of gum, now if they steal a car at gun point, beat the shit out of someone in it, and go on a joyriding spree they might... and would that be so bad to see those three people get locked up just as if they were in a gang?

I understand "gang crime" was left up to interpretation but they certainly defined what a gang was, maybe not what you see a gang as but in this case three or more people constitutes a gang. Its that gang of three kids or the latin kings are a gang
[post=499152]Quoted post[/post]​


Yes, the law is supposed to be clear and concise. If you define a gang as three or more people hangin out, than say goodbye to car shows, races, going to the track, because then you and your friends have just become gangstas y0!!!!
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx@May 14 2005, 03:00 PM

Yes, the law is supposed to be clear and concise. If you define a gang as three or more people hangin out, than say goodbye to car shows, races, going to the track, because then you and your friends have just become gangstas y0!!!!
[post=499239]Quoted post[/post]​



Okay and does this legislation say, "people are not allowed to gather in large groups known as gangs"?

No it does not.

This legislation doesn't include speeding or racing, it includes felonies, three felonies one of which is deemed violent, infact.

This is where I'm not seeing eye to eye with you guys. I don't care if you're in the bloods, crips, latin kings, or a group of school yard boys, if you're committing felonies and one is violent then you should do time.

This isn't a group of guys bullying a kid thats a misdemeanor. This isn't a group of guys beating the crap out of one guy, even if that is felony its only one, this is a group of guys that has committed crime after crime after crime.

Pay the time.
 
Originally posted by Blanco
three "rough" guys get drunk one night and decide to go commit a crime, they do not deserve to be classified as a gang or to be charged with gang related crimes. That's what we're all saying here. The definition is ridiculous and laughable.



Read the legislation again. One crime by one group of boys would not constitute as a gang.

I don't care if you've been in a gang, I don't care where you think I grew up, I don't care what you think I experienced, I care that people committing three felonies, one of which is violent go to jail for a long long time...even if its on my dollar. I don't care if you don't think they're a real gang or if they're just being posers, I care that they do the maximum time possible if they keep repeating felonies especially if one is violent.

Sure take your group of friends and rob a store, get the usual penalties.

Take that same group of guys that don't learn their lesson and rob two more stores and beat the shit out of some guy. To me, thats a "gang" of guys that haven't learned their lesson that need to go to jail for a long time or else they're just going to keep commiting crimes. Prosecute them as a 'gang' if need be to put them away.

All legislation is left up to interpretation for a reason, this is why we have judges and juries.
 
You have completely missed the whole point, and I don't think you will get it....ever.
 
Originally posted by 92b16vx@May 15 2005, 03:37 PM
You have completely missed the whole point, and I don't think you will get it....ever.
[post=499594]Quoted post[/post]​



...because I see both the positives and negatives of the legislation and feel that it should be up to the prosecutor to interupt the law?

Now I may not agree with the prosecutor in every single case, I rather that someone gets punished for "a little too much time" then someone gets slap on the wrist and walks away to commit another crime. Never put yourself in that position and you won't have a problem. I don't plan on committing a felony, let alone three so I'm not worried.

If you don't commit a crime you'll never have a problem, so why are you worried?
 

He's right. You never will get it. Trying to talk about anything with you is about as productive as running head first into a brick wall. You say you have the ability to look at things from both sides but you consistantly prove that the only side you truly look at anything from, is your own.
[post=500620]Quoted post[/post]​



Brilliant.


...because I don't agree with a bunch of people who can collectively have the brain capacity of an amoeba, for all I know, I fail to see both sides of the issue. No, I see both sides of the issue and choose the a side that I agree with most.

It does not bother me that someone goes to jail for a gang related crime that you don't see as a "y0 thug g funk this is the real deal crip walkin mofo shit" "real gang". The law created a definition of a gang, if you don't agree with that definition thats fine. I see how three or more people could be classified as a gang and where it can prove to be beneficial legislation.
 
Back
Top