33404Re: [EchoElysianNCForum] Re: Gang injunction/repost
- Aug 18, 2013A perspective from the LA Times:
From: cp00733 <peterscp007@...>
To: EchoElysianNCForum <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 11:35 pm
Subject: [EchoElysianNCForum] Re: Gang injunction/repost
I'm with you Trey.
Charupha Wongwisteri died because she had the nerve to cook dinner with her mom in her kitchen, while 2 rival gang members shot at each other outside her home. She died, and they are walking the streets because the shooting was "self defense". Michael Lezay died in the alley behind then EXP leaders home, (now dead, shot in his own front yard in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon.) Mikey was a young teen who deserved better. He comes from a good family, who still live here and still miss him, and DO NOT understand why he had to die. Roberto Lopez's was 4 yrs old. never even got to go to school...all of Court St. mourned him...there are more names and stories.
We'll all have to agree to disagree on this one as people with guns, are not victims. They are the bad guys. EXP gang members are not victims, and not the product of forming due to not having equal opportunities. They have a long generational history in the area...
Anyway, we have a chance to stop future stray bullets killing another innocent...
--- In EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com, Trey Baskett <gcbthree@...> wrote:
> What is unrealistic and naive in your reponse Tad, is to expect entrenched criminal groups and some of their members, who chose crime as a lifestyle, to respond to hugs and social programs. Regardless of how some gangs came about; the truth is that some of today's will only respond to enforcement.
> That said, did you happen to read the entirety of the thread?. In my responses I made clear my belief in the value of a multifaceted approach to the problem. My resume includes a stint in social services. I strongly advocate alternatives to enforcement while wholeheartedly supporting this injunction. Â
> It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 7:06 PM PDT pbspeedo@... wrote:
> >You said it best.
> >On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine <strictlyty@...> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > First I want to say that my former job as CIO of GEPENC made it necessary for me to forward postings by community members, which may have given the impression that I had an opinion or agenda about what I was passing on. I did not offer an opinion at the time, but will feel free to do so now.
> > Trey, no one wants more crime. I think others have correctly pointed out that crime has dropped significantly, which from every point of view is accurate. To say you have zero tolerance for crime is perhaps noble, but unrealistic. If you are relying on the police to prevent those crimes from occurring, with or without special injunctions, that unrealistic expectation becomes more of an insane expectation--not going to happen, ever.
> > The idea of catching criminals and punishing them is reactionary and will never solve the problem of crime. Preventing crime, from a scientific point of view, means educating people, providing jobs, a supportive community and encouraging an inclusive culture, instead of divergent cultures. If you are not interested in supporting the things that prevent crime, stop talking about zero tolerance or injunctions. If you want to yell loudly in support of injunctions and giving police additional tools to fight crime, be prepared to either support other solutions, or keep living in a world that is far from free of crime, and most likely keep yelling about it.
> > In America, the depression proved that good people will do anything to feed their family. That resulted in a social safety net that people cry about to this day. The miracle of welfare is that a very small amount of money prevents a huge amount of crime and essentially prevents the advent of class warfare, occupy movements not with standing. Paying people to do nothing? You bet, and worth every penny.
> > Gangs formed to protect communities that did not get equal protection under the law and from the police. Arguably, about the time the police reformed, the economic infrastructure of this country changed to privatize and off shore a whole lot of jobs that used semi skilled labor, like the port of Long Beach. The resulting economic vacuum created an opportunity within the street gangs, supported by declining education and racist policies going underground. Ignoring the roots of educational and economic inequality has sustained gangs and created entirely self sustaining black market economies, and parallel cultures to support them. All of this independent of a mainstream that continues to find the tools to create social and economic equality controversial, while spending huge amounts of money to deal with the fall out. Add to this that there is absolutely nothing rehabilitative about the penal system, and gang injunctions start to look like a pretty
> poor response to a serious problem.
> > Additionally, kids that are starting to become involved with gangs might benefit from a different form of intervention than police harassment, no matter what they have been up to. It might be worth a few minutes of our time to discuss things with some people with some actual insight. Homeboy industries was founded down the street, and injunctions had nothing to do with it, but jobs do...
> > Just saying.
> > Thank you for your time.
> > Tad
> > --
> > Tad Yenawine
> > VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
> > www.vtshome.org
> > âIgnorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.â EJ Potter, RIP 2012
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>