It is a tricky issue because proponents believe that these tactics have reduced crime. Jeff Reisig told the San Francisco Chronicle that “It’s absolutely worked… This works, and it’s legal.”
However, this is not just a nation built on positive outcomes but also policy and procedure. The ACLU filed lawsuit, but as I understand the court ruling, they never ruled on the constitutionality of the policy. In fact, it won on a technicality.
If this policy is legal, it is also marginal and troubling.
Perhaps most troubling was the way the injunction was enacted.
“In a move that still angers opponents, prosecutors gave notice of the suit to just one alleged member, and he lived in Rancho Cordova, 15 miles away. Reisig wrote in a court filing that the alleged Norteño, Billy Wolfington, would spread the word to compatriots.
Wolfington didn’t show up in court to contest the injunction, however, and neither did any other alleged members of the gang. With no opposition in attendance, Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner granted a permanent injunction on Feb. 3, 2005. “
This is the same Thomas Warriner who was the presiding judge in the Halema Buzayan criminal trial. He was a Deukmejian apointee to the bench and a right wing Republican.
Cosmo Garvin in August, 2005 ran an article on injunction. He quotes ACLU attorney Alan Scholesser.
“A lifetime curfew for an adult is an extraordinary punishment. I think if people had their day in court, there would have been some serious legal challenges and some very different outcomes.”
“But Deputy District Attorney Reisig told SN&R that the Broderick Boys have an active communication network, through which the individual who was served notice of the injunction was able to spread word to the rest of the gang.
Reisig added that serving notice on each individual who would be subject to the injunction would have expended “a tremendous amount of resources.”
“The law simply doesn’t require us to do that. The judge even said it was OK,” added Reisig.”
Therein lies the rub–a judge with a notorious reputation for favoring the prosecution has legitimated this process. This is precisely the problem with the criminal justice system in Yolo County.
Is this targeting just gang members? Or are innocent people getting caught up in this legal net?
For example:
“In one declaration to the court, Benjamin Juarez said that he had been in trouble with the police as a juvenile but had completed his probation two years ago. Now 24, Juarez has a steady job and has purchased a home with his wife and young son in the “safety zone.”
“Although I complied with all conditions of my juvenile probation, and in fact was released from probation early for ‘good behavior,’” Juarez explained in his statement, “the permanent injunction virtually imposes a lifetime of probation conditions for me.”
Is this guy a dangerous criminal or someone who just got caught up in this system? Then there is the 45-year-old grandfather who has a few tattoos and some very minor convictions from over 30 years ago as a youth.
Warriner’s ruling on the gang injunction is outrageous. This from the SNR’s follow up piece on December 1, 2005.
“All four of the ACLU’s clients in the case claim that they are not members of the Broderick Boys gang. (In fact, many West Sacramento residents say there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys and that local police and prosecutors have exaggerated the existence of the supposed gang.) And all said they received no notice that the gang injunction was being sought in the courts or that they would be subject to its restrictions.
But Judge Warriner ruled that the four had no standing to challenge the law, because they claim they are not gang members. The injunction “binds only defendant Broderick Boys and its members and authorized representatives” wrote Warriner in his ruling.
Furthermore, he ruled, “any person who is charged with criminal contempt for violating the terms of the injunction is entitled to the protection of numerous rights when defending such a charge.”
This ruling makes no sense, since the clients of the ACLU were in fact affected directly by the injunction.
“The judge’s logic exasperated opponents of the injunction. Jory Steele, an attorney with the ACLU, said, “Obviously, we vehemently disagree with the judge’s ruling. Our clients were indeed directly affected by the injunction.” Directly affected because they have been labeled as gang members by police and prosecutors and because–even though they deny gang membership–they nevertheless risk arrest if they are stopped by police after 10 p.m. in West Sacramento or if they are seen in public with anyone else identified as a Broderick Boy.”
So yes, a judge ruled not on the constitutionality of the injunction, but rather that they had no legal standing to challenge it. A ruling that on its face fundamentally makes no sense.
Everyone is against gangs and wants to reduce crimes, but this once again appears to be a fundamental violation of the basic protections of our constitution. And frankly what Judge Warriner has done here is criminal.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Normally, people are punished for doing something aginst the law. This injunction punishes people for “potentially” breaking the law.
This is not as bad as the case of the Lodi cherry picker who was given a 30 year sentence for potentially being a terrorist (based on the Bush definition of justice). However, the injunction goes down a path where innocent people’s rights are trampled on.
Almost certainly, a percentage (I would guess at least 10%-20%) of those people identified as gang members are in fact not gang members. The list was developed by local law enforcement and they make mistakes. They are lucky the DPD was not involved because the error rate would have doubled if they were involved.
I suppose if you presume that most of the people on the list are low life Hispanics who do not have a political voice then is is ok to make a “few” mistakes. That is were we are and it is wrong!SAH
Normally, people are punished for doing something aginst the law. This injunction punishes people for “potentially” breaking the law.
This is not as bad as the case of the Lodi cherry picker who was given a 30 year sentence for potentially being a terrorist (based on the Bush definition of justice). However, the injunction goes down a path where innocent people’s rights are trampled on.
Almost certainly, a percentage (I would guess at least 10%-20%) of those people identified as gang members are in fact not gang members. The list was developed by local law enforcement and they make mistakes. They are lucky the DPD was not involved because the error rate would have doubled if they were involved.
I suppose if you presume that most of the people on the list are low life Hispanics who do not have a political voice then is is ok to make a “few” mistakes. That is were we are and it is wrong!SAH
Normally, people are punished for doing something aginst the law. This injunction punishes people for “potentially” breaking the law.
This is not as bad as the case of the Lodi cherry picker who was given a 30 year sentence for potentially being a terrorist (based on the Bush definition of justice). However, the injunction goes down a path where innocent people’s rights are trampled on.
Almost certainly, a percentage (I would guess at least 10%-20%) of those people identified as gang members are in fact not gang members. The list was developed by local law enforcement and they make mistakes. They are lucky the DPD was not involved because the error rate would have doubled if they were involved.
I suppose if you presume that most of the people on the list are low life Hispanics who do not have a political voice then is is ok to make a “few” mistakes. That is were we are and it is wrong!SAH
Normally, people are punished for doing something aginst the law. This injunction punishes people for “potentially” breaking the law.
This is not as bad as the case of the Lodi cherry picker who was given a 30 year sentence for potentially being a terrorist (based on the Bush definition of justice). However, the injunction goes down a path where innocent people’s rights are trampled on.
Almost certainly, a percentage (I would guess at least 10%-20%) of those people identified as gang members are in fact not gang members. The list was developed by local law enforcement and they make mistakes. They are lucky the DPD was not involved because the error rate would have doubled if they were involved.
I suppose if you presume that most of the people on the list are low life Hispanics who do not have a political voice then is is ok to make a “few” mistakes. That is were we are and it is wrong!SAH
It is quite errie how this parallels the Bush administration’s preemptive war philosophy and trampling of civil rights by the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, etc. There does appear to finally be a national public recognition that the our government is going down the wrong path. With the help of People’s Vanguard as a vehicle of information and serious discussion as well as local political action, this tide of fear and hysteria with its authoritarian trappings will also recede in Yolo.
It is quite errie how this parallels the Bush administration’s preemptive war philosophy and trampling of civil rights by the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, etc. There does appear to finally be a national public recognition that the our government is going down the wrong path. With the help of People’s Vanguard as a vehicle of information and serious discussion as well as local political action, this tide of fear and hysteria with its authoritarian trappings will also recede in Yolo.
It is quite errie how this parallels the Bush administration’s preemptive war philosophy and trampling of civil rights by the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, etc. There does appear to finally be a national public recognition that the our government is going down the wrong path. With the help of People’s Vanguard as a vehicle of information and serious discussion as well as local political action, this tide of fear and hysteria with its authoritarian trappings will also recede in Yolo.
It is quite errie how this parallels the Bush administration’s preemptive war philosophy and trampling of civil rights by the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, etc. There does appear to finally be a national public recognition that the our government is going down the wrong path. With the help of People’s Vanguard as a vehicle of information and serious discussion as well as local political action, this tide of fear and hysteria with its authoritarian trappings will also recede in Yolo.
Davisite: I do not think it is a coincidental at all. I think that the city of Davis, the DPD, and the DA’s office all operate with a Bush mentality.
I hope that information is the tonic for this problem–that people when they are actually exposed to this, will do something. But I have to tell you, all of the information in this article basically comes either from the SF Chronicle article that ran in the Davis Enterprise last week and two SNR articles from Cosmo Garvin. This information has been available to the public since 2005.
Then again, I knew a little bit about the gang injunction but it hit me on a whole new level when I looked at Thomas Warriner’s ruling. That’s the court decision that makes Reisig claim its legal.
Davisite: I do not think it is a coincidental at all. I think that the city of Davis, the DPD, and the DA’s office all operate with a Bush mentality.
I hope that information is the tonic for this problem–that people when they are actually exposed to this, will do something. But I have to tell you, all of the information in this article basically comes either from the SF Chronicle article that ran in the Davis Enterprise last week and two SNR articles from Cosmo Garvin. This information has been available to the public since 2005.
Then again, I knew a little bit about the gang injunction but it hit me on a whole new level when I looked at Thomas Warriner’s ruling. That’s the court decision that makes Reisig claim its legal.
Davisite: I do not think it is a coincidental at all. I think that the city of Davis, the DPD, and the DA’s office all operate with a Bush mentality.
I hope that information is the tonic for this problem–that people when they are actually exposed to this, will do something. But I have to tell you, all of the information in this article basically comes either from the SF Chronicle article that ran in the Davis Enterprise last week and two SNR articles from Cosmo Garvin. This information has been available to the public since 2005.
Then again, I knew a little bit about the gang injunction but it hit me on a whole new level when I looked at Thomas Warriner’s ruling. That’s the court decision that makes Reisig claim its legal.
Davisite: I do not think it is a coincidental at all. I think that the city of Davis, the DPD, and the DA’s office all operate with a Bush mentality.
I hope that information is the tonic for this problem–that people when they are actually exposed to this, will do something. But I have to tell you, all of the information in this article basically comes either from the SF Chronicle article that ran in the Davis Enterprise last week and two SNR articles from Cosmo Garvin. This information has been available to the public since 2005.
Then again, I knew a little bit about the gang injunction but it hit me on a whole new level when I looked at Thomas Warriner’s ruling. That’s the court decision that makes Reisig claim its legal.
the gang injunction is part of a more profound anxiety in Yolo County, fear of Latinos, and it is addressed by subjecting them to a system of law enforcement different than the one applied to whites
the Buzayan and Berny case are illustrations that Muslims, as they are present in Yolo County in small numbers, are to be harassed by law enforcement and the DAs Office, so as to discourage others from coming here
in that respect, the Lodi case is significant, I think it greenlighted the notion in the non-urban sections of the Valley, that Muslims can be targeted for harassment as the general populace with accept it
sadly, the response of many in Davis has confirmed the accuracy of this notion
the really odd thing is, DA Pattie Fong publishes a civil rights publication for “Davis Asians for Racial Equality”, and used it as platform for Officer Ly to defend himself
perhaps, a Monty Pythoneseque name change is order for the organization: Davis Asians for Racial Equality with the Exception of Muslims
–Richard Estes
the gang injunction is part of a more profound anxiety in Yolo County, fear of Latinos, and it is addressed by subjecting them to a system of law enforcement different than the one applied to whites
the Buzayan and Berny case are illustrations that Muslims, as they are present in Yolo County in small numbers, are to be harassed by law enforcement and the DAs Office, so as to discourage others from coming here
in that respect, the Lodi case is significant, I think it greenlighted the notion in the non-urban sections of the Valley, that Muslims can be targeted for harassment as the general populace with accept it
sadly, the response of many in Davis has confirmed the accuracy of this notion
the really odd thing is, DA Pattie Fong publishes a civil rights publication for “Davis Asians for Racial Equality”, and used it as platform for Officer Ly to defend himself
perhaps, a Monty Pythoneseque name change is order for the organization: Davis Asians for Racial Equality with the Exception of Muslims
–Richard Estes
the gang injunction is part of a more profound anxiety in Yolo County, fear of Latinos, and it is addressed by subjecting them to a system of law enforcement different than the one applied to whites
the Buzayan and Berny case are illustrations that Muslims, as they are present in Yolo County in small numbers, are to be harassed by law enforcement and the DAs Office, so as to discourage others from coming here
in that respect, the Lodi case is significant, I think it greenlighted the notion in the non-urban sections of the Valley, that Muslims can be targeted for harassment as the general populace with accept it
sadly, the response of many in Davis has confirmed the accuracy of this notion
the really odd thing is, DA Pattie Fong publishes a civil rights publication for “Davis Asians for Racial Equality”, and used it as platform for Officer Ly to defend himself
perhaps, a Monty Pythoneseque name change is order for the organization: Davis Asians for Racial Equality with the Exception of Muslims
–Richard Estes
the gang injunction is part of a more profound anxiety in Yolo County, fear of Latinos, and it is addressed by subjecting them to a system of law enforcement different than the one applied to whites
the Buzayan and Berny case are illustrations that Muslims, as they are present in Yolo County in small numbers, are to be harassed by law enforcement and the DAs Office, so as to discourage others from coming here
in that respect, the Lodi case is significant, I think it greenlighted the notion in the non-urban sections of the Valley, that Muslims can be targeted for harassment as the general populace with accept it
sadly, the response of many in Davis has confirmed the accuracy of this notion
the really odd thing is, DA Pattie Fong publishes a civil rights publication for “Davis Asians for Racial Equality”, and used it as platform for Officer Ly to defend himself
perhaps, a Monty Pythoneseque name change is order for the organization: Davis Asians for Racial Equality with the Exception of Muslims
–Richard Estes
Wow! The injunction simply means that two or more REGISTERED criminal gang members cannot come together.
Do any of you know how these young men and woman join gangs? Do any of you know what it takes to stay in a gang? Do you realize that gangs are created solely for criminal activity?
Folks, gangs are a scourge on society. Most of you sound as if you have led sheltered lives…good for you. However, I think you would feel differently if you lived in a neighborhood terrorized by a criminal street gang. You would be a champion of these types of injunctions.
Wow! The injunction simply means that two or more REGISTERED criminal gang members cannot come together.
Do any of you know how these young men and woman join gangs? Do any of you know what it takes to stay in a gang? Do you realize that gangs are created solely for criminal activity?
Folks, gangs are a scourge on society. Most of you sound as if you have led sheltered lives…good for you. However, I think you would feel differently if you lived in a neighborhood terrorized by a criminal street gang. You would be a champion of these types of injunctions.
Wow! The injunction simply means that two or more REGISTERED criminal gang members cannot come together.
Do any of you know how these young men and woman join gangs? Do any of you know what it takes to stay in a gang? Do you realize that gangs are created solely for criminal activity?
Folks, gangs are a scourge on society. Most of you sound as if you have led sheltered lives…good for you. However, I think you would feel differently if you lived in a neighborhood terrorized by a criminal street gang. You would be a champion of these types of injunctions.
Wow! The injunction simply means that two or more REGISTERED criminal gang members cannot come together.
Do any of you know how these young men and woman join gangs? Do any of you know what it takes to stay in a gang? Do you realize that gangs are created solely for criminal activity?
Folks, gangs are a scourge on society. Most of you sound as if you have led sheltered lives…good for you. However, I think you would feel differently if you lived in a neighborhood terrorized by a criminal street gang. You would be a champion of these types of injunctions.
First of all, the injunction does more than merely prevent association it establishes a curfew of 10 pm.
Second, and most importantly, not all of the people who are being labeled as gang members are gang members. I’ve talked to a number who are not gang members, and have never been gang members, but have had their rights violated.
There is NEVER an excuse to do away with the due process of the law. Never.
First of all, the injunction does more than merely prevent association it establishes a curfew of 10 pm.
Second, and most importantly, not all of the people who are being labeled as gang members are gang members. I’ve talked to a number who are not gang members, and have never been gang members, but have had their rights violated.
There is NEVER an excuse to do away with the due process of the law. Never.
First of all, the injunction does more than merely prevent association it establishes a curfew of 10 pm.
Second, and most importantly, not all of the people who are being labeled as gang members are gang members. I’ve talked to a number who are not gang members, and have never been gang members, but have had their rights violated.
There is NEVER an excuse to do away with the due process of the law. Never.
First of all, the injunction does more than merely prevent association it establishes a curfew of 10 pm.
Second, and most importantly, not all of the people who are being labeled as gang members are gang members. I’ve talked to a number who are not gang members, and have never been gang members, but have had their rights violated.
There is NEVER an excuse to do away with the due process of the law. Never.
As I understand it, judicial process requires that if one side of an injunctive challenge fails to appear, then the judge is pretty much obligated to rule against the challenge. The issue of Standing is legally pretty well delineated as well. My sources tell me that Judge Warriner administers the law in a competent, even-handed manner. We saw that in his handling of the Buzayan case.
As I understand it, judicial process requires that if one side of an injunctive challenge fails to appear, then the judge is pretty much obligated to rule against the challenge. The issue of Standing is legally pretty well delineated as well. My sources tell me that Judge Warriner administers the law in a competent, even-handed manner. We saw that in his handling of the Buzayan case.
As I understand it, judicial process requires that if one side of an injunctive challenge fails to appear, then the judge is pretty much obligated to rule against the challenge. The issue of Standing is legally pretty well delineated as well. My sources tell me that Judge Warriner administers the law in a competent, even-handed manner. We saw that in his handling of the Buzayan case.
As I understand it, judicial process requires that if one side of an injunctive challenge fails to appear, then the judge is pretty much obligated to rule against the challenge. The issue of Standing is legally pretty well delineated as well. My sources tell me that Judge Warriner administers the law in a competent, even-handed manner. We saw that in his handling of the Buzayan case.
Davisite:
I have to disagree with you here, Warriner is a notorious prosecutor friendly judge. He almost never dismisses case even bad ones. That’s what made the Buzayan case all the more remarkable. We were told that Warriner would never dismiss the case. But he did. He did it though based on the procedural reason rather than on the merits, which gave the prosecution some cover. I thought Gonzalez had made an error at the time, looking over Warriner’s history, I see why he was so eager to just get it dropped and deal with the rest in civil court.
Davisite:
I have to disagree with you here, Warriner is a notorious prosecutor friendly judge. He almost never dismisses case even bad ones. That’s what made the Buzayan case all the more remarkable. We were told that Warriner would never dismiss the case. But he did. He did it though based on the procedural reason rather than on the merits, which gave the prosecution some cover. I thought Gonzalez had made an error at the time, looking over Warriner’s history, I see why he was so eager to just get it dropped and deal with the rest in civil court.
Davisite:
I have to disagree with you here, Warriner is a notorious prosecutor friendly judge. He almost never dismisses case even bad ones. That’s what made the Buzayan case all the more remarkable. We were told that Warriner would never dismiss the case. But he did. He did it though based on the procedural reason rather than on the merits, which gave the prosecution some cover. I thought Gonzalez had made an error at the time, looking over Warriner’s history, I see why he was so eager to just get it dropped and deal with the rest in civil court.
Davisite:
I have to disagree with you here, Warriner is a notorious prosecutor friendly judge. He almost never dismisses case even bad ones. That’s what made the Buzayan case all the more remarkable. We were told that Warriner would never dismiss the case. But he did. He did it though based on the procedural reason rather than on the merits, which gave the prosecution some cover. I thought Gonzalez had made an error at the time, looking over Warriner’s history, I see why he was so eager to just get it dropped and deal with the rest in civil court.
To validate a gang member police officers must prove several key points. These points are laid out in the law.
Gang members do not want to be validated…obviously. They almost always deny it verbally BUT the tatoos, flashing gang signs, hanging out with other registered gang members, selling drugs, prostitution, guns and gun running, assault, homicide all eventually lead to the same conclusion.
Registration is not arbitrary nor easy to obtain. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Reisig is trying to do something to help the decent citizens of West Sacramento that want to raise their families in a peaceful safe environment. Would you rather law enforcement does NOTHING. The broderick boys have turned W.Sac into a ____hole. Reisig is trying to change that.
To validate a gang member police officers must prove several key points. These points are laid out in the law.
Gang members do not want to be validated…obviously. They almost always deny it verbally BUT the tatoos, flashing gang signs, hanging out with other registered gang members, selling drugs, prostitution, guns and gun running, assault, homicide all eventually lead to the same conclusion.
Registration is not arbitrary nor easy to obtain. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Reisig is trying to do something to help the decent citizens of West Sacramento that want to raise their families in a peaceful safe environment. Would you rather law enforcement does NOTHING. The broderick boys have turned W.Sac into a ____hole. Reisig is trying to change that.
To validate a gang member police officers must prove several key points. These points are laid out in the law.
Gang members do not want to be validated…obviously. They almost always deny it verbally BUT the tatoos, flashing gang signs, hanging out with other registered gang members, selling drugs, prostitution, guns and gun running, assault, homicide all eventually lead to the same conclusion.
Registration is not arbitrary nor easy to obtain. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Reisig is trying to do something to help the decent citizens of West Sacramento that want to raise their families in a peaceful safe environment. Would you rather law enforcement does NOTHING. The broderick boys have turned W.Sac into a ____hole. Reisig is trying to change that.
To validate a gang member police officers must prove several key points. These points are laid out in the law.
Gang members do not want to be validated…obviously. They almost always deny it verbally BUT the tatoos, flashing gang signs, hanging out with other registered gang members, selling drugs, prostitution, guns and gun running, assault, homicide all eventually lead to the same conclusion.
Registration is not arbitrary nor easy to obtain. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Reisig is trying to do something to help the decent citizens of West Sacramento that want to raise their families in a peaceful safe environment. Would you rather law enforcement does NOTHING. The broderick boys have turned W.Sac into a ____hole. Reisig is trying to change that.
Doug,
If I follow what you wrote, you believe a gang member cannot be validated unless they admit to it?
Police would make very few arrests if they had to rely upon admissions of guilt. Only in the movies does the bad guys concieous get to him and make him want to confess.
Doug,
If I follow what you wrote, you believe a gang member cannot be validated unless they admit to it?
Police would make very few arrests if they had to rely upon admissions of guilt. Only in the movies does the bad guys concieous get to him and make him want to confess.
Doug,
If I follow what you wrote, you believe a gang member cannot be validated unless they admit to it?
Police would make very few arrests if they had to rely upon admissions of guilt. Only in the movies does the bad guys concieous get to him and make him want to confess.
Doug,
If I follow what you wrote, you believe a gang member cannot be validated unless they admit to it?
Police would make very few arrests if they had to rely upon admissions of guilt. Only in the movies does the bad guys concieous get to him and make him want to confess.
Here’s what I think. The Boderick street gang is primarily made up of very young gang members. So it is a redflag when you get people in their 40s and 50s tagged with the label. That does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, what I have heard at the street level is that the reward system for police officers is set up in such a way to reward people for certifying gang members. And again, I’ve heard from people that they have been pulled over and forced to sign statements that they are gang members.
These are not people with money to fight these injunctions. These are not people with experience and education to know when they are being taken advantage. It’s a bad scene.
I understand the concerns about crime and making crime fighting and gang prevention more effective, but I don’t think you do that by labeling people with little or not background as gang members and that is what I believe to be happening.
Here’s what I think. The Boderick street gang is primarily made up of very young gang members. So it is a redflag when you get people in their 40s and 50s tagged with the label. That does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, what I have heard at the street level is that the reward system for police officers is set up in such a way to reward people for certifying gang members. And again, I’ve heard from people that they have been pulled over and forced to sign statements that they are gang members.
These are not people with money to fight these injunctions. These are not people with experience and education to know when they are being taken advantage. It’s a bad scene.
I understand the concerns about crime and making crime fighting and gang prevention more effective, but I don’t think you do that by labeling people with little or not background as gang members and that is what I believe to be happening.
Here’s what I think. The Boderick street gang is primarily made up of very young gang members. So it is a redflag when you get people in their 40s and 50s tagged with the label. That does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, what I have heard at the street level is that the reward system for police officers is set up in such a way to reward people for certifying gang members. And again, I’ve heard from people that they have been pulled over and forced to sign statements that they are gang members.
These are not people with money to fight these injunctions. These are not people with experience and education to know when they are being taken advantage. It’s a bad scene.
I understand the concerns about crime and making crime fighting and gang prevention more effective, but I don’t think you do that by labeling people with little or not background as gang members and that is what I believe to be happening.
Here’s what I think. The Boderick street gang is primarily made up of very young gang members. So it is a redflag when you get people in their 40s and 50s tagged with the label. That does not pass the smell test.
Moreover, what I have heard at the street level is that the reward system for police officers is set up in such a way to reward people for certifying gang members. And again, I’ve heard from people that they have been pulled over and forced to sign statements that they are gang members.
These are not people with money to fight these injunctions. These are not people with experience and education to know when they are being taken advantage. It’s a bad scene.
I understand the concerns about crime and making crime fighting and gang prevention more effective, but I don’t think you do that by labeling people with little or not background as gang members and that is what I believe to be happening.
” . . . if walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . “
translation: looks young, Latino and speaks Spanish
gang profiling is one of the most notoriously, inexact endeavors in recent memory, going back to the efforts of the San Jose Police Department in the 1990s, where the police, as noted by Doug, had a practice of taking pictures of poor young kids encountered during vehicle stops and detentions (understand why the police resist efforts to stop racial profiling? it is through vehicle stops and detentions that they develop the purported gang database), creating an ever growing photo album and describing them as probable gang members
Doug’s analogy to Bush is right on the mark, because it eerily parallels the way that the government identifies purported terror threats for airport security
the goal here is to take a population of people who haven’t committed any crimes, but who are peceived to constitute a threat in some vague, unsubstantiated way, and turn them into a group subjected to increased oversight and restraint upon their movements
sort of like extending probation and parole to young people, without them having committed any actual crimes
” . . . if walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . “
translation: looks young, Latino and speaks Spanish
gang profiling is one of the most notoriously, inexact endeavors in recent memory, going back to the efforts of the San Jose Police Department in the 1990s, where the police, as noted by Doug, had a practice of taking pictures of poor young kids encountered during vehicle stops and detentions (understand why the police resist efforts to stop racial profiling? it is through vehicle stops and detentions that they develop the purported gang database), creating an ever growing photo album and describing them as probable gang members
Doug’s analogy to Bush is right on the mark, because it eerily parallels the way that the government identifies purported terror threats for airport security
the goal here is to take a population of people who haven’t committed any crimes, but who are peceived to constitute a threat in some vague, unsubstantiated way, and turn them into a group subjected to increased oversight and restraint upon their movements
sort of like extending probation and parole to young people, without them having committed any actual crimes
” . . . if walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . “
translation: looks young, Latino and speaks Spanish
gang profiling is one of the most notoriously, inexact endeavors in recent memory, going back to the efforts of the San Jose Police Department in the 1990s, where the police, as noted by Doug, had a practice of taking pictures of poor young kids encountered during vehicle stops and detentions (understand why the police resist efforts to stop racial profiling? it is through vehicle stops and detentions that they develop the purported gang database), creating an ever growing photo album and describing them as probable gang members
Doug’s analogy to Bush is right on the mark, because it eerily parallels the way that the government identifies purported terror threats for airport security
the goal here is to take a population of people who haven’t committed any crimes, but who are peceived to constitute a threat in some vague, unsubstantiated way, and turn them into a group subjected to increased oversight and restraint upon their movements
sort of like extending probation and parole to young people, without them having committed any actual crimes
” . . . if walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . “
translation: looks young, Latino and speaks Spanish
gang profiling is one of the most notoriously, inexact endeavors in recent memory, going back to the efforts of the San Jose Police Department in the 1990s, where the police, as noted by Doug, had a practice of taking pictures of poor young kids encountered during vehicle stops and detentions (understand why the police resist efforts to stop racial profiling? it is through vehicle stops and detentions that they develop the purported gang database), creating an ever growing photo album and describing them as probable gang members
Doug’s analogy to Bush is right on the mark, because it eerily parallels the way that the government identifies purported terror threats for airport security
the goal here is to take a population of people who haven’t committed any crimes, but who are peceived to constitute a threat in some vague, unsubstantiated way, and turn them into a group subjected to increased oversight and restraint upon their movements
sort of like extending probation and parole to young people, without them having committed any actual crimes
I would hope that the ACLU lawyers are available to these clients who were denied Standing if and when they are stopped and arrested after 10 PM or for associating with reputed Brodrick Boys as their civil rights are being violated.
I would hope that the ACLU lawyers are available to these clients who were denied Standing if and when they are stopped and arrested after 10 PM or for associating with reputed Brodrick Boys as their civil rights are being violated.
I would hope that the ACLU lawyers are available to these clients who were denied Standing if and when they are stopped and arrested after 10 PM or for associating with reputed Brodrick Boys as their civil rights are being violated.
I would hope that the ACLU lawyers are available to these clients who were denied Standing if and when they are stopped and arrested after 10 PM or for associating with reputed Brodrick Boys as their civil rights are being violated.
Trial judges have little discretion and are charged with administering the Law as it is written. I would guess that the legislature set up the “gang laws” that permited Reisig to seek the injunction.
Trial judges have little discretion and are charged with administering the Law as it is written. I would guess that the legislature set up the “gang laws” that permited Reisig to seek the injunction.
Trial judges have little discretion and are charged with administering the Law as it is written. I would guess that the legislature set up the “gang laws” that permited Reisig to seek the injunction.
Trial judges have little discretion and are charged with administering the Law as it is written. I would guess that the legislature set up the “gang laws” that permited Reisig to seek the injunction.
Warriner had the discretion twice in this case. First, he had the discretion as to whether or not to issue the injunction absent notification. Second, he had the discretion as to whether or not the plaintiffs had standing due to their accusations despite their denial of allegiances to the gang. The ACLU attorney according to my information will appeal the latter decision and that will be heard in April.
Warriner had the discretion twice in this case. First, he had the discretion as to whether or not to issue the injunction absent notification. Second, he had the discretion as to whether or not the plaintiffs had standing due to their accusations despite their denial of allegiances to the gang. The ACLU attorney according to my information will appeal the latter decision and that will be heard in April.
Warriner had the discretion twice in this case. First, he had the discretion as to whether or not to issue the injunction absent notification. Second, he had the discretion as to whether or not the plaintiffs had standing due to their accusations despite their denial of allegiances to the gang. The ACLU attorney according to my information will appeal the latter decision and that will be heard in April.
Warriner had the discretion twice in this case. First, he had the discretion as to whether or not to issue the injunction absent notification. Second, he had the discretion as to whether or not the plaintiffs had standing due to their accusations despite their denial of allegiances to the gang. The ACLU attorney according to my information will appeal the latter decision and that will be heard in April.
For better or worse, California judges need to run for office. A judicial decision that appears to dilute the gang laws followed by a gang crime plastered across the headlines can quickly result in the judge being challenged for reelection.. at a personal cost of perhaps $100,000+ in campaign expenses(remember what happened to Dukaukis with the political ads about Willie Horton). This results in trial judges often being “gun-shy” while still adhering to the letter of the law in these situations. Appeals and Supreme Court decisions are more insulated from local popular scrutiny and the decisions represent a group majority opinion.. This is where these politically inflamatory issues are usually addressed.
For better or worse, California judges need to run for office. A judicial decision that appears to dilute the gang laws followed by a gang crime plastered across the headlines can quickly result in the judge being challenged for reelection.. at a personal cost of perhaps $100,000+ in campaign expenses(remember what happened to Dukaukis with the political ads about Willie Horton). This results in trial judges often being “gun-shy” while still adhering to the letter of the law in these situations. Appeals and Supreme Court decisions are more insulated from local popular scrutiny and the decisions represent a group majority opinion.. This is where these politically inflamatory issues are usually addressed.
For better or worse, California judges need to run for office. A judicial decision that appears to dilute the gang laws followed by a gang crime plastered across the headlines can quickly result in the judge being challenged for reelection.. at a personal cost of perhaps $100,000+ in campaign expenses(remember what happened to Dukaukis with the political ads about Willie Horton). This results in trial judges often being “gun-shy” while still adhering to the letter of the law in these situations. Appeals and Supreme Court decisions are more insulated from local popular scrutiny and the decisions represent a group majority opinion.. This is where these politically inflamatory issues are usually addressed.
For better or worse, California judges need to run for office. A judicial decision that appears to dilute the gang laws followed by a gang crime plastered across the headlines can quickly result in the judge being challenged for reelection.. at a personal cost of perhaps $100,000+ in campaign expenses(remember what happened to Dukaukis with the political ads about Willie Horton). This results in trial judges often being “gun-shy” while still adhering to the letter of the law in these situations. Appeals and Supreme Court decisions are more insulated from local popular scrutiny and the decisions represent a group majority opinion.. This is where these politically inflamatory issues are usually addressed.
if a judge issues decisions based upon political considerations instead of a fair reading of the law . . . then, maybe he shouldn’t be judge
by the way, as additional background, Warriner is the same judge, who, when deposed in the current case involving a challenge to the composition of the Yolo County Grand Jury, testified that he did not know how it had been selected, despite being the judge assigned to oversee it
if a judge issues decisions based upon political considerations instead of a fair reading of the law . . . then, maybe he shouldn’t be judge
by the way, as additional background, Warriner is the same judge, who, when deposed in the current case involving a challenge to the composition of the Yolo County Grand Jury, testified that he did not know how it had been selected, despite being the judge assigned to oversee it
if a judge issues decisions based upon political considerations instead of a fair reading of the law . . . then, maybe he shouldn’t be judge
by the way, as additional background, Warriner is the same judge, who, when deposed in the current case involving a challenge to the composition of the Yolo County Grand Jury, testified that he did not know how it had been selected, despite being the judge assigned to oversee it
if a judge issues decisions based upon political considerations instead of a fair reading of the law . . . then, maybe he shouldn’t be judge
by the way, as additional background, Warriner is the same judge, who, when deposed in the current case involving a challenge to the composition of the Yolo County Grand Jury, testified that he did not know how it had been selected, despite being the judge assigned to oversee it
That’s a good point, Warriner is involved in three of the cases that are pending in Yolo County that we know of. He’s involved in the Serena suit against the Grand Jury, he’s involved in the Gang Injunction, and he’s involved in Buzayan case, and only in the Buzayan case is he not going to have a blemish and that’s just indicative of how bad that case was. I know he’s been involved with other stuff as well.
That’s a good point, Warriner is involved in three of the cases that are pending in Yolo County that we know of. He’s involved in the Serena suit against the Grand Jury, he’s involved in the Gang Injunction, and he’s involved in Buzayan case, and only in the Buzayan case is he not going to have a blemish and that’s just indicative of how bad that case was. I know he’s been involved with other stuff as well.
That’s a good point, Warriner is involved in three of the cases that are pending in Yolo County that we know of. He’s involved in the Serena suit against the Grand Jury, he’s involved in the Gang Injunction, and he’s involved in Buzayan case, and only in the Buzayan case is he not going to have a blemish and that’s just indicative of how bad that case was. I know he’s been involved with other stuff as well.
That’s a good point, Warriner is involved in three of the cases that are pending in Yolo County that we know of. He’s involved in the Serena suit against the Grand Jury, he’s involved in the Gang Injunction, and he’s involved in Buzayan case, and only in the Buzayan case is he not going to have a blemish and that’s just indicative of how bad that case was. I know he’s been involved with other stuff as well.
Doug,
Two things, first the Broderick Boys have been around a long time. It is made up of a variety of ages. There are a lot of older members and some of them are protesting this enjunction.
Did you know that once you join a gang that there is NO way to leave that gang other then DEATH…Fact! Another fact, a gang members priority is to enlist more gang members and guess what, they will never admit that either.
Second, REWARD for registering gang members? That is non sense. Police officers are given nothing but a salary for doing their job. The only reward is in knowing that you made society a little bit safer by putting someone away that wants to hurt people.
Doug,
Two things, first the Broderick Boys have been around a long time. It is made up of a variety of ages. There are a lot of older members and some of them are protesting this enjunction.
Did you know that once you join a gang that there is NO way to leave that gang other then DEATH…Fact! Another fact, a gang members priority is to enlist more gang members and guess what, they will never admit that either.
Second, REWARD for registering gang members? That is non sense. Police officers are given nothing but a salary for doing their job. The only reward is in knowing that you made society a little bit safer by putting someone away that wants to hurt people.
Doug,
Two things, first the Broderick Boys have been around a long time. It is made up of a variety of ages. There are a lot of older members and some of them are protesting this enjunction.
Did you know that once you join a gang that there is NO way to leave that gang other then DEATH…Fact! Another fact, a gang members priority is to enlist more gang members and guess what, they will never admit that either.
Second, REWARD for registering gang members? That is non sense. Police officers are given nothing but a salary for doing their job. The only reward is in knowing that you made society a little bit safer by putting someone away that wants to hurt people.
Doug,
Two things, first the Broderick Boys have been around a long time. It is made up of a variety of ages. There are a lot of older members and some of them are protesting this enjunction.
Did you know that once you join a gang that there is NO way to leave that gang other then DEATH…Fact! Another fact, a gang members priority is to enlist more gang members and guess what, they will never admit that either.
Second, REWARD for registering gang members? That is non sense. Police officers are given nothing but a salary for doing their job. The only reward is in knowing that you made society a little bit safer by putting someone away that wants to hurt people.
So what you are telling me is that people would be in a gang for 20 years plus and would have only a minor drug possession convictions for 20 years ago on their record? Even if they were gang members (a big if given the lack of record), they don’t seem like very dangerous people.
Second, come on, police officers get both awards and promotions. My understanding is one way that departments can get more money is from gang taskforce funding. You have institutional incentives at work here which means that individuals officers would get encouraged by identifying more gang members. You’re telling me that doesn’t happen?
So what you are telling me is that people would be in a gang for 20 years plus and would have only a minor drug possession convictions for 20 years ago on their record? Even if they were gang members (a big if given the lack of record), they don’t seem like very dangerous people.
Second, come on, police officers get both awards and promotions. My understanding is one way that departments can get more money is from gang taskforce funding. You have institutional incentives at work here which means that individuals officers would get encouraged by identifying more gang members. You’re telling me that doesn’t happen?
So what you are telling me is that people would be in a gang for 20 years plus and would have only a minor drug possession convictions for 20 years ago on their record? Even if they were gang members (a big if given the lack of record), they don’t seem like very dangerous people.
Second, come on, police officers get both awards and promotions. My understanding is one way that departments can get more money is from gang taskforce funding. You have institutional incentives at work here which means that individuals officers would get encouraged by identifying more gang members. You’re telling me that doesn’t happen?
So what you are telling me is that people would be in a gang for 20 years plus and would have only a minor drug possession convictions for 20 years ago on their record? Even if they were gang members (a big if given the lack of record), they don’t seem like very dangerous people.
Second, come on, police officers get both awards and promotions. My understanding is one way that departments can get more money is from gang taskforce funding. You have institutional incentives at work here which means that individuals officers would get encouraged by identifying more gang members. You’re telling me that doesn’t happen?
Doug,
The older gang members direct the younger gang members to commit crimes so that they can stay clear of law enforcement. Benefit of being an elder.
Gangs have a very defined command structure. Newer members prove their worth to the gang by committing crimes that is also another way they rise in rank.
Yes, I am telling you there is no incentive for the street cop other then the feeling of making a difference.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I think you put me on the defensive because your rhetoric makes me believe that you MIGHT actually think gangs are innocent victims and the true enemy of the people is the police. Please tell me you do not believe that. Police are good honest people doing a job. They are a force for GOOD.
Doug,
The older gang members direct the younger gang members to commit crimes so that they can stay clear of law enforcement. Benefit of being an elder.
Gangs have a very defined command structure. Newer members prove their worth to the gang by committing crimes that is also another way they rise in rank.
Yes, I am telling you there is no incentive for the street cop other then the feeling of making a difference.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I think you put me on the defensive because your rhetoric makes me believe that you MIGHT actually think gangs are innocent victims and the true enemy of the people is the police. Please tell me you do not believe that. Police are good honest people doing a job. They are a force for GOOD.
Doug,
The older gang members direct the younger gang members to commit crimes so that they can stay clear of law enforcement. Benefit of being an elder.
Gangs have a very defined command structure. Newer members prove their worth to the gang by committing crimes that is also another way they rise in rank.
Yes, I am telling you there is no incentive for the street cop other then the feeling of making a difference.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I think you put me on the defensive because your rhetoric makes me believe that you MIGHT actually think gangs are innocent victims and the true enemy of the people is the police. Please tell me you do not believe that. Police are good honest people doing a job. They are a force for GOOD.
Doug,
The older gang members direct the younger gang members to commit crimes so that they can stay clear of law enforcement. Benefit of being an elder.
Gangs have a very defined command structure. Newer members prove their worth to the gang by committing crimes that is also another way they rise in rank.
Yes, I am telling you there is no incentive for the street cop other then the feeling of making a difference.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I think you put me on the defensive because your rhetoric makes me believe that you MIGHT actually think gangs are innocent victims and the true enemy of the people is the police. Please tell me you do not believe that. Police are good honest people doing a job. They are a force for GOOD.
What I think is the following:
(1) Some of the people being labeled as gang members are not gang members, and I’ve seen evidence of that
(2) I believe in the due process of law for all people whether they are gang members or grandmas walking across the street
(3) I believe that there has been an abuse of procedural power in this case stemming from Judge Warriner’s allowance of the injunction to be placed on people who were not given the opportunity to defend themselves
(4) I believe there are good cops but I think there are bad cops. Unfortunately, I have been working on cases and with people who have dealt with too many bad cops recently and more importantly the failure of leadership to properly direct people who would probably otherwise be good cops.
(5) The belief in the Latino community is that Hispanics are getting labeled as gang members whether or not they are gang members. They believe this is an effort to target Hispanics in an overly broad sweep.
(6) Gang members and other criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law IF they have broken actual laws. So a guy beats someone up, they should go to jail. A guy steals something they should go to jail. A guy stands on the street corner should not be going to jail.
What I think is the following:
(1) Some of the people being labeled as gang members are not gang members, and I’ve seen evidence of that
(2) I believe in the due process of law for all people whether they are gang members or grandmas walking across the street
(3) I believe that there has been an abuse of procedural power in this case stemming from Judge Warriner’s allowance of the injunction to be placed on people who were not given the opportunity to defend themselves
(4) I believe there are good cops but I think there are bad cops. Unfortunately, I have been working on cases and with people who have dealt with too many bad cops recently and more importantly the failure of leadership to properly direct people who would probably otherwise be good cops.
(5) The belief in the Latino community is that Hispanics are getting labeled as gang members whether or not they are gang members. They believe this is an effort to target Hispanics in an overly broad sweep.
(6) Gang members and other criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law IF they have broken actual laws. So a guy beats someone up, they should go to jail. A guy steals something they should go to jail. A guy stands on the street corner should not be going to jail.
What I think is the following:
(1) Some of the people being labeled as gang members are not gang members, and I’ve seen evidence of that
(2) I believe in the due process of law for all people whether they are gang members or grandmas walking across the street
(3) I believe that there has been an abuse of procedural power in this case stemming from Judge Warriner’s allowance of the injunction to be placed on people who were not given the opportunity to defend themselves
(4) I believe there are good cops but I think there are bad cops. Unfortunately, I have been working on cases and with people who have dealt with too many bad cops recently and more importantly the failure of leadership to properly direct people who would probably otherwise be good cops.
(5) The belief in the Latino community is that Hispanics are getting labeled as gang members whether or not they are gang members. They believe this is an effort to target Hispanics in an overly broad sweep.
(6) Gang members and other criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law IF they have broken actual laws. So a guy beats someone up, they should go to jail. A guy steals something they should go to jail. A guy stands on the street corner should not be going to jail.
What I think is the following:
(1) Some of the people being labeled as gang members are not gang members, and I’ve seen evidence of that
(2) I believe in the due process of law for all people whether they are gang members or grandmas walking across the street
(3) I believe that there has been an abuse of procedural power in this case stemming from Judge Warriner’s allowance of the injunction to be placed on people who were not given the opportunity to defend themselves
(4) I believe there are good cops but I think there are bad cops. Unfortunately, I have been working on cases and with people who have dealt with too many bad cops recently and more importantly the failure of leadership to properly direct people who would probably otherwise be good cops.
(5) The belief in the Latino community is that Hispanics are getting labeled as gang members whether or not they are gang members. They believe this is an effort to target Hispanics in an overly broad sweep.
(6) Gang members and other criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law IF they have broken actual laws. So a guy beats someone up, they should go to jail. A guy steals something they should go to jail. A guy stands on the street corner should not be going to jail.
Doug,
Thank you. I think we can agree on all points except number 1.
I don’t know what your evidence is other then the gang member told you he/she was not one.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…then it is a duck.
It is just too hard to validate a gang member. It is not something easily done.
I would like to know what your evidence is if you are allowed to tell me.
Doug,
Thank you. I think we can agree on all points except number 1.
I don’t know what your evidence is other then the gang member told you he/she was not one.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…then it is a duck.
It is just too hard to validate a gang member. It is not something easily done.
I would like to know what your evidence is if you are allowed to tell me.
Doug,
Thank you. I think we can agree on all points except number 1.
I don’t know what your evidence is other then the gang member told you he/she was not one.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…then it is a duck.
It is just too hard to validate a gang member. It is not something easily done.
I would like to know what your evidence is if you are allowed to tell me.
Doug,
Thank you. I think we can agree on all points except number 1.
I don’t know what your evidence is other then the gang member told you he/she was not one.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…then it is a duck.
It is just too hard to validate a gang member. It is not something easily done.
I would like to know what your evidence is if you are allowed to tell me.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I want to highlight this point. What this point fails to consider is that there is still a supervisory and hierarchical system. What you are arguing is that the average street cop does not have a monetary incentive to behave in a certain way. I agree.
But who sets the incentive structure? Those who are in supervisory positions who want more in the way of resources. Resources in state government are always scarce. So you set up a system that rewards these officers for focusing on certain elements over other elements. Promotions are based on what? Pleasing the superiors? They certainly are not earned by scorning the superior.
Is that far a jump that the department commends and promotes people who adhere to the priorities of the department? That’s how these type of bureaucratic structures work. You do not get promoted if you are not a company player.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I want to highlight this point. What this point fails to consider is that there is still a supervisory and hierarchical system. What you are arguing is that the average street cop does not have a monetary incentive to behave in a certain way. I agree.
But who sets the incentive structure? Those who are in supervisory positions who want more in the way of resources. Resources in state government are always scarce. So you set up a system that rewards these officers for focusing on certain elements over other elements. Promotions are based on what? Pleasing the superiors? They certainly are not earned by scorning the superior.
Is that far a jump that the department commends and promotes people who adhere to the priorities of the department? That’s how these type of bureaucratic structures work. You do not get promoted if you are not a company player.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I want to highlight this point. What this point fails to consider is that there is still a supervisory and hierarchical system. What you are arguing is that the average street cop does not have a monetary incentive to behave in a certain way. I agree.
But who sets the incentive structure? Those who are in supervisory positions who want more in the way of resources. Resources in state government are always scarce. So you set up a system that rewards these officers for focusing on certain elements over other elements. Promotions are based on what? Pleasing the superiors? They certainly are not earned by scorning the superior.
Is that far a jump that the department commends and promotes people who adhere to the priorities of the department? That’s how these type of bureaucratic structures work. You do not get promoted if you are not a company player.
Managers seek grant funding for special programs. The average police officer has nothing to do with funding nor does he/she care. If an agency gets extra funding or loses extra funding, it does not impact the street cop. A street cops job is secure either way once they are off probation.
I want to highlight this point. What this point fails to consider is that there is still a supervisory and hierarchical system. What you are arguing is that the average street cop does not have a monetary incentive to behave in a certain way. I agree.
But who sets the incentive structure? Those who are in supervisory positions who want more in the way of resources. Resources in state government are always scarce. So you set up a system that rewards these officers for focusing on certain elements over other elements. Promotions are based on what? Pleasing the superiors? They certainly are not earned by scorning the superior.
Is that far a jump that the department commends and promotes people who adhere to the priorities of the department? That’s how these type of bureaucratic structures work. You do not get promoted if you are not a company player.
Interesting that you agreed with point No.3.
So you are telling me that you are absolutely certain that no person who is not a gang member has been implicated in this policy?
In my view, people with almost no criminal backgrounds and no violent criminal backgrounds: one guy I spoke to was convicted of marijuana possession like 25 years ago, another had a DUI.
Now if I see a guy with a long violent rap sheet and he wants to claim he is not a gang member I’m going to be more suspicious. But a 45 year old, who is a grandfather and no violent history has some credibility with me.
The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.
But the problem then becomes you are taking a class of people who do not have resources, they generally do not have education, and then you are putting them into a spot where they have a PD trying to defend them from a gang certification. I talked to a woman last year whose son was taken in for something minor and he was forced to sign a gang certification. Once he signed it, he could not contest it. He didn’t even know what he was signing and he had no gang tattoos.
Sorry, but you are going to have to prove to me that these guys are gang members and even then I’m uncomfortable with the law.
Interesting that you agreed with point No.3.
So you are telling me that you are absolutely certain that no person who is not a gang member has been implicated in this policy?
In my view, people with almost no criminal backgrounds and no violent criminal backgrounds: one guy I spoke to was convicted of marijuana possession like 25 years ago, another had a DUI.
Now if I see a guy with a long violent rap sheet and he wants to claim he is not a gang member I’m going to be more suspicious. But a 45 year old, who is a grandfather and no violent history has some credibility with me.
The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.
But the problem then becomes you are taking a class of people who do not have resources, they generally do not have education, and then you are putting them into a spot where they have a PD trying to defend them from a gang certification. I talked to a woman last year whose son was taken in for something minor and he was forced to sign a gang certification. Once he signed it, he could not contest it. He didn’t even know what he was signing and he had no gang tattoos.
Sorry, but you are going to have to prove to me that these guys are gang members and even then I’m uncomfortable with the law.
Interesting that you agreed with point No.3.
So you are telling me that you are absolutely certain that no person who is not a gang member has been implicated in this policy?
In my view, people with almost no criminal backgrounds and no violent criminal backgrounds: one guy I spoke to was convicted of marijuana possession like 25 years ago, another had a DUI.
Now if I see a guy with a long violent rap sheet and he wants to claim he is not a gang member I’m going to be more suspicious. But a 45 year old, who is a grandfather and no violent history has some credibility with me.
The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.
But the problem then becomes you are taking a class of people who do not have resources, they generally do not have education, and then you are putting them into a spot where they have a PD trying to defend them from a gang certification. I talked to a woman last year whose son was taken in for something minor and he was forced to sign a gang certification. Once he signed it, he could not contest it. He didn’t even know what he was signing and he had no gang tattoos.
Sorry, but you are going to have to prove to me that these guys are gang members and even then I’m uncomfortable with the law.
Interesting that you agreed with point No.3.
So you are telling me that you are absolutely certain that no person who is not a gang member has been implicated in this policy?
In my view, people with almost no criminal backgrounds and no violent criminal backgrounds: one guy I spoke to was convicted of marijuana possession like 25 years ago, another had a DUI.
Now if I see a guy with a long violent rap sheet and he wants to claim he is not a gang member I’m going to be more suspicious. But a 45 year old, who is a grandfather and no violent history has some credibility with me.
The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.
But the problem then becomes you are taking a class of people who do not have resources, they generally do not have education, and then you are putting them into a spot where they have a PD trying to defend them from a gang certification. I talked to a woman last year whose son was taken in for something minor and he was forced to sign a gang certification. Once he signed it, he could not contest it. He didn’t even know what he was signing and he had no gang tattoos.
Sorry, but you are going to have to prove to me that these guys are gang members and even then I’m uncomfortable with the law.
I do agree with you on number 3. I think more people should have been given the opportunity to express their concerns. However, I DO believe it would not change anything because the Broderick Boys are a scourge upon West Sacramento. The injunction is necessary.
“The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.”
In this country the burden is always on law enforcement. Innocent until prove guilty.
Yes, if you want to get promoted it helps to kiss a little ___. However, those type of things are not considered when going through a promotion process. There is usually a written test, an outside oral board, an inside oral board, and in basket excercise, etc. Then there is a total score created and a promotional list is generated.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
Most new gang members do not have tattoos. They have gotten wise to the fact that it is an easy way to be identified by law enforcement. The young man in question was probably associating with gang members, flashing gang signs, and then when he made the admission (signing the document) he was classified a gang member.
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
I do agree with you on number 3. I think more people should have been given the opportunity to express their concerns. However, I DO believe it would not change anything because the Broderick Boys are a scourge upon West Sacramento. The injunction is necessary.
“The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.”
In this country the burden is always on law enforcement. Innocent until prove guilty.
Yes, if you want to get promoted it helps to kiss a little ___. However, those type of things are not considered when going through a promotion process. There is usually a written test, an outside oral board, an inside oral board, and in basket excercise, etc. Then there is a total score created and a promotional list is generated.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
Most new gang members do not have tattoos. They have gotten wise to the fact that it is an easy way to be identified by law enforcement. The young man in question was probably associating with gang members, flashing gang signs, and then when he made the admission (signing the document) he was classified a gang member.
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
I do agree with you on number 3. I think more people should have been given the opportunity to express their concerns. However, I DO believe it would not change anything because the Broderick Boys are a scourge upon West Sacramento. The injunction is necessary.
“The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.”
In this country the burden is always on law enforcement. Innocent until prove guilty.
Yes, if you want to get promoted it helps to kiss a little ___. However, those type of things are not considered when going through a promotion process. There is usually a written test, an outside oral board, an inside oral board, and in basket excercise, etc. Then there is a total score created and a promotional list is generated.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
Most new gang members do not have tattoos. They have gotten wise to the fact that it is an easy way to be identified by law enforcement. The young man in question was probably associating with gang members, flashing gang signs, and then when he made the admission (signing the document) he was classified a gang member.
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
I do agree with you on number 3. I think more people should have been given the opportunity to express their concerns. However, I DO believe it would not change anything because the Broderick Boys are a scourge upon West Sacramento. The injunction is necessary.
“The burden of proof should be on the side of law enforcement here.”
In this country the burden is always on law enforcement. Innocent until prove guilty.
Yes, if you want to get promoted it helps to kiss a little ___. However, those type of things are not considered when going through a promotion process. There is usually a written test, an outside oral board, an inside oral board, and in basket excercise, etc. Then there is a total score created and a promotional list is generated.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
Most new gang members do not have tattoos. They have gotten wise to the fact that it is an easy way to be identified by law enforcement. The young man in question was probably associating with gang members, flashing gang signs, and then when he made the admission (signing the document) he was classified a gang member.
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
My chief question is how do you know this for certain?
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
But this presumes that the individuals caught up will not get coerced into false confessions and that they have the resources to get counsel that will fight these convictions.
The people who will get their day in appeals court are very fortunate that the ACLU was willing to argue on their behalf. I know a number of families involved in other sorts of situations who lack the resources for good counsel and though they have strong cases, they still do not get their wrongs righted. If you set up a system that puts people without resources at an even greater disadvantage you are asking for people to get wronged here.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
And a small percentage of them are innocent. At the very least we can rest knowing that they have due process of law. I do not feel like that has happened in this case, I point again to No.3 three because it seems to be so key here.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
My chief question is how do you know this for certain?
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
But this presumes that the individuals caught up will not get coerced into false confessions and that they have the resources to get counsel that will fight these convictions.
The people who will get their day in appeals court are very fortunate that the ACLU was willing to argue on their behalf. I know a number of families involved in other sorts of situations who lack the resources for good counsel and though they have strong cases, they still do not get their wrongs righted. If you set up a system that puts people without resources at an even greater disadvantage you are asking for people to get wronged here.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
And a small percentage of them are innocent. At the very least we can rest knowing that they have due process of law. I do not feel like that has happened in this case, I point again to No.3 three because it seems to be so key here.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
My chief question is how do you know this for certain?
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
But this presumes that the individuals caught up will not get coerced into false confessions and that they have the resources to get counsel that will fight these convictions.
The people who will get their day in appeals court are very fortunate that the ACLU was willing to argue on their behalf. I know a number of families involved in other sorts of situations who lack the resources for good counsel and though they have strong cases, they still do not get their wrongs righted. If you set up a system that puts people without resources at an even greater disadvantage you are asking for people to get wronged here.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
And a small percentage of them are innocent. At the very least we can rest knowing that they have due process of law. I do not feel like that has happened in this case, I point again to No.3 three because it seems to be so key here.
If someone said that their son was FORCED to sign a document claiming he is a gang member, then that person lied to you. It just does not happen.
My chief question is how do you know this for certain?
A superior court judge could always overturn the validation if the police were in the wrong (after a hearing). I assume that did not happen though.
But this presumes that the individuals caught up will not get coerced into false confessions and that they have the resources to get counsel that will fight these convictions.
The people who will get their day in appeals court are very fortunate that the ACLU was willing to argue on their behalf. I know a number of families involved in other sorts of situations who lack the resources for good counsel and though they have strong cases, they still do not get their wrongs righted. If you set up a system that puts people without resources at an even greater disadvantage you are asking for people to get wronged here.
If you ever get a chance go take a tour of the county jail. EVERYONE in that jail claims their innocent.
And a small percentage of them are innocent. At the very least we can rest knowing that they have due process of law. I do not feel like that has happened in this case, I point again to No.3 three because it seems to be so key here.
“My chief question is how do you know this for certain?”
Because I know how law enforcement operates. I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired. The profession requires honesty. The profession hires honest people. There is no grey area or little white lies allowed. If a Police Officer lies or purposely abuses the constitution they are fired. No grey area allowed. Not many jobs are that stringent.
If a defendant does not have the resources to get an attorney the courts will appoint one for him. The public defenders are all very good and take their mission to defend the public very seriously.
Concerning everyone is innocent at the jail…yes a percentage of them are probably innocent. I was being sarcastic. However, lots of people that get off get off because of technicalities in the law not because they are innocent. The reason they get off is because of our competent public defenders. For someone to end up in jail there has to be probably cause that they committed the crime. Probably cause takes proof in the form of evidence or testimony.
“My chief question is how do you know this for certain?”
Because I know how law enforcement operates. I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired. The profession requires honesty. The profession hires honest people. There is no grey area or little white lies allowed. If a Police Officer lies or purposely abuses the constitution they are fired. No grey area allowed. Not many jobs are that stringent.
If a defendant does not have the resources to get an attorney the courts will appoint one for him. The public defenders are all very good and take their mission to defend the public very seriously.
Concerning everyone is innocent at the jail…yes a percentage of them are probably innocent. I was being sarcastic. However, lots of people that get off get off because of technicalities in the law not because they are innocent. The reason they get off is because of our competent public defenders. For someone to end up in jail there has to be probably cause that they committed the crime. Probably cause takes proof in the form of evidence or testimony.
“My chief question is how do you know this for certain?”
Because I know how law enforcement operates. I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired. The profession requires honesty. The profession hires honest people. There is no grey area or little white lies allowed. If a Police Officer lies or purposely abuses the constitution they are fired. No grey area allowed. Not many jobs are that stringent.
If a defendant does not have the resources to get an attorney the courts will appoint one for him. The public defenders are all very good and take their mission to defend the public very seriously.
Concerning everyone is innocent at the jail…yes a percentage of them are probably innocent. I was being sarcastic. However, lots of people that get off get off because of technicalities in the law not because they are innocent. The reason they get off is because of our competent public defenders. For someone to end up in jail there has to be probably cause that they committed the crime. Probably cause takes proof in the form of evidence or testimony.
“My chief question is how do you know this for certain?”
Because I know how law enforcement operates. I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired. The profession requires honesty. The profession hires honest people. There is no grey area or little white lies allowed. If a Police Officer lies or purposely abuses the constitution they are fired. No grey area allowed. Not many jobs are that stringent.
If a defendant does not have the resources to get an attorney the courts will appoint one for him. The public defenders are all very good and take their mission to defend the public very seriously.
Concerning everyone is innocent at the jail…yes a percentage of them are probably innocent. I was being sarcastic. However, lots of people that get off get off because of technicalities in the law not because they are innocent. The reason they get off is because of our competent public defenders. For someone to end up in jail there has to be probably cause that they committed the crime. Probably cause takes proof in the form of evidence or testimony.
“I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired.”
And so that never happens?
“I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired.”
And so that never happens?
“I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired.”
And so that never happens?
“I know that if a police officer did force a confession THAT police officer could be fired.”
And so that never happens?
“Never” is an absolute. No I cannot say never.
However, why would a police officer jeapardize his career and his/her life over something such as this. The answer is 9999 out of 10,000 times he/she would not.
For that one bad apple that comes along now and then that is why internal affairs is mandatory for all law enforcement organizations.
“Never” is an absolute. No I cannot say never.
However, why would a police officer jeapardize his career and his/her life over something such as this. The answer is 9999 out of 10,000 times he/she would not.
For that one bad apple that comes along now and then that is why internal affairs is mandatory for all law enforcement organizations.
“Never” is an absolute. No I cannot say never.
However, why would a police officer jeapardize his career and his/her life over something such as this. The answer is 9999 out of 10,000 times he/she would not.
For that one bad apple that comes along now and then that is why internal affairs is mandatory for all law enforcement organizations.
“Never” is an absolute. No I cannot say never.
However, why would a police officer jeapardize his career and his/her life over something such as this. The answer is 9999 out of 10,000 times he/she would not.
For that one bad apple that comes along now and then that is why internal affairs is mandatory for all law enforcement organizations.
Fair enough. I think what this boils down to is that you have a sense and trust and belief in the ethics of some police officers that I do not share. My personal belief is that especially in situations where there is a failure of leadership within the department and the DA’s, officers will not believe they are taking a risk by pushing against or violating the law.
This is not merely an idol statement on my part. I have listened to hours of tapes that show exactly those type of violations by officers. They get somebody who they feel lacks resources and knowledge of their rights and they can coerce them into doing all sorts of things. I am not saying that I have heard this specific thing on tape, but I have heard other violations on tape.
Fair enough. I think what this boils down to is that you have a sense and trust and belief in the ethics of some police officers that I do not share. My personal belief is that especially in situations where there is a failure of leadership within the department and the DA’s, officers will not believe they are taking a risk by pushing against or violating the law.
This is not merely an idol statement on my part. I have listened to hours of tapes that show exactly those type of violations by officers. They get somebody who they feel lacks resources and knowledge of their rights and they can coerce them into doing all sorts of things. I am not saying that I have heard this specific thing on tape, but I have heard other violations on tape.
Fair enough. I think what this boils down to is that you have a sense and trust and belief in the ethics of some police officers that I do not share. My personal belief is that especially in situations where there is a failure of leadership within the department and the DA’s, officers will not believe they are taking a risk by pushing against or violating the law.
This is not merely an idol statement on my part. I have listened to hours of tapes that show exactly those type of violations by officers. They get somebody who they feel lacks resources and knowledge of their rights and they can coerce them into doing all sorts of things. I am not saying that I have heard this specific thing on tape, but I have heard other violations on tape.
Fair enough. I think what this boils down to is that you have a sense and trust and belief in the ethics of some police officers that I do not share. My personal belief is that especially in situations where there is a failure of leadership within the department and the DA’s, officers will not believe they are taking a risk by pushing against or violating the law.
This is not merely an idol statement on my part. I have listened to hours of tapes that show exactly those type of violations by officers. They get somebody who they feel lacks resources and knowledge of their rights and they can coerce them into doing all sorts of things. I am not saying that I have heard this specific thing on tape, but I have heard other violations on tape.