Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

33377Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Gang injunction/repost

Expand Messages
  • Trey Baskett
    Aug 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Carol. Think of an injunction as a restraining order. The community is the battered spouse. The criminal gangs are the primary aggressors in the pattern of abuse.

      Many municipalities promote the trifecta of prevention, intervention and enforcement when it comes to suppressing gang activity. LA does. Very simply the cost of being in a gang should outweigh the benefits. Tension evolves when individuals or families who do not share healthier community values act out. The question then becomes how to address that. Was the jump in numbers at Blythe Street a direct result of the injunction, or effective/ineffective administration of the injunction or another anomaly? Should we shy from that fight?

      A restraining order is one of many tools available to us to make our neighborhoods safer. Other tools like business development, school reform and programs, social services (think Homeboy and Homegirl Industries and Police Explorers or Activities League), parental education, neighborhood/political activism (love Echo Park for this) are all at work in Los Angeles now. Layering on a restraining order will support the lasting social change referenced in final sentence of Carol's post.

      And can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEEEEEEEASE get past this statement found Carol's post:

      "As Barajas writes, the gang emerges as a response to social, economic, and political repression experienced by low-income people of color."

      Let me just say that I grew up in a Lilly white town in another part of the country. Guess what? The Lilly white police officers used to harangue the Lilly white teenagers in the town which made us kids uncomfortable and angry. That police scrutiny was warranted. The cops were just another set of eyes and ears for our parents (who shared good, healthy values and a desire for order) to help keep us on the straight and narrow (for the most part). And if you asked me about it then I would have told you the police were "harassing" me and that the "Man" was trying to keep me down. Now I get it. I get it. I hope everyone else does too.

      As I said before, the choices available to gang members to modify behavior for the better are readily available. The documented, predicate criminal activities by the gangs to be affected in this matter are abundant. I believe that will be borne out by a more critical look by the presiding judge in this matter. It is time to stop tolerating criminal gangs in any shape or form.
      Trey
       
       


      From: Carol Cetrone <perpetua99@...>
      To: EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 8:24 AM
      Subject: Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Gang injunction/repost

       
      from Wikipedia, not specific to Echo Park but still interesting:


      In Los Angeles today, under current City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, there are 37 gang injunctions covering 57 gangs and 11,000 gang members in the City of Los Angeles. Many attribute the 33% decline in gang membership in L.A. over the past five years (from 57,000 members in 2001 to roughly 39,000 members today) to the effective use of civil gang injunctions by City law enforcement officials.

      but then this:

      Effectiveness[edit source | editbeta]

      In March 2011, a study entitled the "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Gang Injunctions in California" was published in the Journal of Criminal Justice Research (JCJR). The purpose of the study was to determine whether gang injunctions reduce crime, when compared to baseline and matched control areas. Twenty-Five (25) gang injunctions from four California counties were evaluated by extracting crime data from court records and police agencies. The control areas (communities with a similar gang problem, but no gang injunctions) were matched for similar gang ethnicity, gang size, proximity, and gang activity. Criminological deterrence, association, environmental, and economic theories served as theoretical foundations for the study. Calls for service were evaluated for one year, pre-injunction, and one year, post-injunction, using paired t-tests which revealed that gang injunctions reduce crime. Calls for service were significantly reduced compared to baseline and compared to matched controls. It was found that Part 1 (violent crime) calls decreased 11.6% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 0.8%, a net benefit of 12.4%. Part 2 (less serious) calls decreased 15.9% compared to baseline, while controls averaged a mild increase of 1.6%, a net benefit of 17.5%. Total calls for service decreased 14.1% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 2.3%, a net benefit of 16.4%. This study confirmed that gang injunctions can be a very beneficial tool if used and implemented correctly and that they can have a corresponding impact on reducing gang crime in the communities they are implemented.[2]
      Grogger (2002) found that gang injunctions reduce violent crime by 5-10% dependent upon the injunction. The Los Angeles Grand Jury (2004) found that gang injunctions reduce violent crime by 10% in the target areas. Maxson (2005) found that the community perceptions of people living in the Verdugo Flats neighborhood in San Bernardino had less fear of crime following the implementation of the gang injunction evaluated. However many studies show that gang injunctions only deter violence for a limited amount of time. Four neighborhoods under the jurisdiction of the LAPD saw a 5-10% decrease of violent crime after the first year of implication,[3] while Oxnard, California saw a decrease in homicide over the next 3 years.[4] However, a separate study of five San Bernardino neighborhoods showed that the imposition of gang injunctions spurred conflicting results. While most neighborhoods experienced immediate benefits of fewer homicides, violent crime, or gang presence following an injunction, the benefits did not persist.[3][4][5] Alternatively, one of the San Bernardino neighborhoods saw an increase of gang activity immediately post-injunction.[5] A 1991 – 1996 ACLU study on the Blythe Street Gang revealed that violent crime tripled in the months immediately following the issuance. Additionally, Myers has concluded that gang repression leads to increased gang cohesion and police-community tension as well as dispersion. Additionally, while gang injunctions might lead to diminished crime in their specified locations, they can also divert crime into the surrounding areas, as was the case with the Blythe Street Gang. In the months following the institution of the gang injunction, violent crime almost doubled in the surrounding districts.[6] Critics also note that the 1990s also saw a sharp downturn of violent crime throughout the nation, which many studies that report decreased crime fail to acknowledge. Thus, simple calculations of before and after statistics may be exaggerating the effects of gang injunctions.[6] Other studies take on a more systemic approach to problematizing the gang. As Barajas writes, the gang emerges as a response to social, economic, and political repression experienced by low-income people of color. As the state function as a site of violence and disidentification for particular populations, the gang constitutes a community through which youth can collectively furnish identity and social needs.[4] For these reasons injunctions are severely limited in their capability to bring about lasting social change since they don't challenge the social arrangement from which gangs emerge as logical ends.


      c






      On Aug 17, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Trey Baskett wrote:

       

      The answer is the police department Crime Analysis Detail and the City Attorney's office will have the stats. Maybe the Rampart and Northeast Senior Leads and a CA rep can break down a before and after picture too in the communities that have injunctions.



      From: "pbspeedo@..." <pbspeedo@...>
      To: "EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com" <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 1:16 AM
      Subject: Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Gang injunction/repost

       
      Geez. Relax. I asked a question. Can you answer it?

      On Aug 17, 2013, at 1:15 AM, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:

       
      Speedo, are you arguing there are an acceptable number of gang crimes? I know what my number is. But if you even say one, then I respond by asking which one? There is not a single gang related crime that does not involve an element of actual or implied violence or intimidation visited upon a community in some form or another. So who really is responsible for sowing fear in our neighborhoods?

      Understand this. Criminal gangs as defined by California Penal Code Sections 186.20-186.33 are in no way legitimate social or political groups elbowing for a seat at the table of democracy.

      This is not about a single gang but rather multiple gangs and their collectively destructive behavior on the community as a whole.



      From: Lisa Magnusson <pbspeedo@...>
      To: "EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com" <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:00 PM
      Subject: Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Gang injunction/repost

       
      Practically speaking, how many crimes committed in Echo Park are directly related to gangs, as opposed to 5 years? How much time do the Echo Park police spend on gang crime today, as opposed to then. Perhaps this would ma bke things more clear, rather than fear. 

      Sent from my iPad

      On Aug 16, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:

       
      Neighbors,
      It has come to my attention there might some misunderstanding about the value of the pending gang injunctions here in the Echo Park area. Make no mistake about it, a gang injunction is one of the most effective tools available to law enforcement to protect communities and save lives...everybody's lives. Every living, breathing form of life, human or otherwise, within the safety zone and beyond will be safer and healthier. It's a demonstrated fact.
      Street gangs of today's type are essentially classified as unincorporated, criminal organizations as defined in California Penal Code Section 186.20.
      A broader take on that penal code section covering gangs can be found here:
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=186.20-186.33

      Pay particular attention to the list of crimes undertaken by criminal gangs in furtherance of their goals, often referred to as the Dirty 33:
      (1) Assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, as defined in Section 245.   
      (2) Robbery, as defined in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 211) of Title 8 of Part 1.   
      (3) Unlawful homicide or manslaughter, as defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 187) of Title 8 of Part 1.   
      (4) The sale, possession for sale, transportation, manufacture, offer for sale, or offer to manufacture controlled substances as defined in Sections 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057, and 11058 of the Health and Safety Code.   
      (5) Shooting at an inhabited dwelling or occupied motor vehicle, as defined in Section 246.   
      (6) Discharging or permitting the discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle, as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 12034 until January 1, 2012, and, on or after that date, subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 26100.   
      (7) Arson, as defined in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 450) of Title 13.   
      (8) The intimidation of witnesses and victims, as defined in Section 136.1.   
      (9) Grand theft, as defined in subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 487.   
      (10) Grand theft of any firearm, vehicle, trailer, or vessel.   
      (11) Burglary, as defined in Section 459.   
      (12) Rape, as defined in Section 261.   
      (13) Looting, as defined in Section 463.   
      (14) Money laundering, as defined in Section 186.10.   
      (15) Kidnapping, as defined in Section 207.   
      (16) Mayhem, as defined in Section 203.   
      (17) Aggravated mayhem, as defined in Section 205.   
      (18) Torture, as defined in Section 206.   
      (19) Felony extortion, as defined in Sections 518 and 520.   
      (20) Felony vandalism, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 594.   
      (21) Carjacking, as defined in Section 215.   
      (22) The sale, delivery, or transfer of a firearm, as defined in Section 12072 until January 1, 2012, and, on or after that date, Article 1 (commencing with Section 27500) of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6.   
      (23) Possession of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12101 until January 1, 2012, and, on or after that date, Section 29610.   
      (24) Threats to commit crimes resulting in death or great bodily injury, as defined in Section 422.   
      (25) Theft and unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, as defined in Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code.   
      (26) Felony theft of an access card or account information, as defined in Section 484e.   
      (27) Counterfeiting, designing, using, or attempting to use an access card, as defined in Section 484f.   
      (28) Felony fraudulent use of an access card or account information, as defined in Section 484g.   
      (29) Unlawful use of personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, or medical information, as defined in Section 530.5.


      (30) Wrongfully obtaining Department of Motor Vehicles documentation, as defined in Section 529.7.   
      (31) Prohibited possession of a firearm in violation of Section 12021 until January 1, 2012, and on or after that date, Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.   
      (32) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of Section 12025 until January 1, 2012, and, on or after that date, Section 25400.   
      (33) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of Section 12031 until January 1, 2012, and, on or after that date, Section 25850.
      Collectively or individually, every single one of the gangs and many of their members, to be impacted by this latest injunction, have verifiable demonstrated histories of the perpetration of some or all of these crimes within the community decade after decade after decade. These are not insignificant crimes. Blood has run in the streets of LA for too long. It has to stop. These gangsters are calculating and commit many of the above crimes by design and with intention. 
      The great thing about injunctions is that they criminalize what some might consider INSIGNIFICANT behavior, which, in turn gives police and prosecutors tools to prevent SIGNIFICANT violent and destructive crimes by documented gang members. Identification and documentation of gang affiliation is not an arbitrary process and police officers receive ongoing training in ord






    • Show all 19 messages in this topic