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

Update on Ficus Trees Posted for removal

Expand Messages
  • cp00733
    Hello all, CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,

      CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and Echo Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

      Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

      I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.


      Field office for CD 13 is
      323-957-4500.
      Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <adam.bass@...>

      Let me know if you have further questions

      CP
    • Maria Gonzalez
      THank you Christine, i just don t want what happened to the AMAZING trees that were CUT down on Echo park and Sunset. I just think about how Everyone used to
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        THank you Christine, i just don't want what happened to the AMAZING trees that were CUT down  on Echo park and Sunset.  I just think about how Everyone used to wait for the bus in a shaded area...THANKS TO THE EXISTNG TREES.  I have seen SO many sidewalks and  trees SAVED without cutting them down.  For example Pico and Motor, around the Golf course.  They made these AMAZING trees work!  I know you have ALOT on your plate.  If you need me to help in someway please tell me.

        Sent from my iPad

        On Aug 16, 2013, at 6:10 PM, "cp00733" <peterscp007@...> wrote:

         

        Hello all,

        CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and hEcho Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

        Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

        I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.

        Field office for CD 13 is
        323-957-4500.
        Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <adam.bass@...>

        Let me know if you have further questions

        CP 
         

      • Trey Baskett
        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
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 order to do that effectively and constitutionally. For those willing to exit the gang life there are alternatives. The choice to modify behavior is always available and the social service community plays a strong role in intervention and prevention. Throw your support behind those agencies…not against this injunction.
          This injunction is not a tool to harass people of color or drive out the poor or those perceived to be under represented. To the contrary this is meant to make the community more healthy, safe and accessible for ALL who live, work or play here. Even those who are gang affiliated. DO NOT be intimidated or misled by people who would have you believe differently.
          So if you would like to see the further reduction of the above listed crimes, and more, in our community please voice your strong support for the pending injunction to:
          City Attorney Mike Feuer:
          http://www.atty.lacity.org/index.htm
          1945 S Hill St # 501  Los Angeles, CA 90007
          (213) 978-2400
          Chief of Police Charlie Beck:
          http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/834
          100 West First Street
          Suite 1072
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          213-486-0150
          District Attorney Jackie Lacey
          http://da.lacounty.gov/history/lacey.htm
          1933 Broadway 
          Los Angeles, CA 90007
          (213) 744-4201






          Captain Jeff Bert, Northeast Division LAPD
          http://www.lapdonline.org/northeast_community_police_station
          3353 San Fernando Rd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90065
          323-344-5701
          Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell
          http://council.lacity.org/Directory/CouncilDistrict13/ContactUs/index.htm
          200 N Spring St #450
          Los Angeles CA 90012
          213-473-7013 (O)
           
          Thanks,
          Trey


           
           
           
           
           
        • Lisa Magnusson
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 16, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 order to do that effectively and constitutionally. For those willing to exit the gang life there are alternatives. The choice to modify behavior is always available and the social service community plays a strong role in intervention and prevention. Throw your support behind those agencies…not against this injunction.
            This injunction is not a tool to harass people of color or drive out the poor or those perceived to be under represented. To the contrary this is meant to make the community more healthy, safe and accessible for ALL who live, work or play here. Even those who are gang affiliated. DO NOT be intimidated or misled by people who would have you believe differently.
            So if you would like to see the further reduction of the above listed crimes, and more, in our community please voice your strong support for the pending injunction to:
            City Attorney Mike Feuer:
            1945 S Hill St # 501  Los Angeles, CA 90007
            (213) 978-2400
            Chief of Police Charlie Beck:
            100 West First Street
            Suite 1072
            Los Angeles, CA 90012
            213-486-0150
            District Attorney Jackie Lacey
            1933 Broadway 
            Los Angeles, CA 90007
            (213) 744-4201






            Captain Jeff Bert, Northeast Division LAPD
            3353 San Fernando Rd.
            Los Angeles, CA 90065
            323-344-5701
            Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell
            200 N Spring St #450
            Los Angeles CA 90012
            213-473-7013 (O)
             
            Thanks,
            Trey


             
             
             
             
             

          • J8Payne@...
            I ve lived in Echo park since 1974 and seen many changes. I like your question, and would be interested in hearing a report about this from the police
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              I've lived in Echo park since 1974 and seen many changes.  I like your question, and would be interested in hearing a report about this from the police department.  I wonder if that is possible?



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Lisa Magnusson <pbspeedo@...>
              To: EchoElysianNCForum <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 12:10 am
              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 order to do that effectively and constitutionally. For those willing to exit the gang life there are alternatives. The choice to modify behavior is always available and the social service community plays a strong role in intervention and prevention. Throw your support behind those agencies…not against this injunction.
              This injunction is not a tool to harass people of color or drive out the poor or those perceived to be under represented. To the contrary this is meant to make the community more healthy, safe and accessible for ALL who live, work or play here. Even those who are gang affiliated. DO NOT be intimidated or misled by people who would have you believe differently.
              So if you would like to see the further reduction of the above listed crimes, and more, in our community please voice your strong support for the pending injunction to:
              City Attorney Mike Feuer:
              1945 S Hill St # 501  Los Angeles, CA 90007
              (213) 978-2400
              Chief of Police Charlie Beck:
              100 West First Street
              Suite 1072
              Los Angeles, CA 90012
              213-486-0150
              District Attorney Jackie Lacey
              1933 Broadway 
              Los Angeles, CA 90007
              (213) 744-4201






              Captain Jeff Bert, Northeast Division LAPD
              3353 San Fernando Rd.
              Los Angeles, CA 90065
              323-344-5701
              Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell
              200 N Spring St #450
              Los Angeles CA 90012
              213-473-7013 (O)
               
              Thanks,
              Trey


               
               
               
               
               
            • pbspeedo@sbcglobal.net
              Shouldn t it be public information? I ve been in Echo Park 50 years. Back then, bullets and sirens were the Echo Park Serenade. ... Shouldn t it be public
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Shouldn't it be public information? 

                I've been in Echo Park 50 years. Back then, bullets and sirens were the Echo Park Serenade. 

                On Aug 17, 2013, at 12:42 AM, J8Payne@... wrote:

                 

                I've lived in Echo park since 1974 and seen many changes.  I like your question, and would be interested in hearing a report about this from the police department.  I wonder if that is possible?




                -----Original Message-----
                From: Lisa Magnusson <pbspeedo@...>
                To: EchoElysianNCForum <EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 12:10 am
                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 order to do that effectively and constitutionally. For those willing to exit the gang life there are alternatives. The choice to modify behavior is always available and the social service community plays a strong role in intervention and prevention. Throw your support behind those agencies…not against this injunction.
                This injunction is not a tool to harass people of color or drive out the poor or those perceived to be under represented. To the contrary this is meant to make the community more healthy, safe and accessible for ALL who live, work or play here
              • Trey Baskett
                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?
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 order to do that effectively and constitutionally. For those willing to exit the gang life there are alternatives. The choice to modify behavior is always available and the social service community plays a strong role in intervention and prevention. Throw your support behind those agencies…not against this injunction.
                  This injunction is not a tool to harass people of color or drive out the poor or those perceived to be under represented. To the contrary this is meant to make the community more healthy, safe and accessible for ALL who live, work or play here. Even those who are gang affiliated. DO NOT be intimidated or misled by people who would have you believe differently.
                  So if you would like to see the further reduction of the above listed crimes, and more, in our community please voice your strong support for the pending injunction to:
                  City Attorney Mike Feuer:
                  1945 S Hill St # 501  Los Angeles, CA 90007
                  (213) 978-2400
                  Chief of Police Charlie Beck:
                  100 West First Street
                  Suite 1072
                  Los Angeles, CA 90012
                  213-486-0150
                  District Attorney Jackie Lacey
                  1933 Broadway 
                  Los Angeles, CA 90007
                  (213) 744-4201






                  Captain Jeff Bert, Northeast Division LAPD
                  3353 San Fernando Rd.
                  Los Angeles, CA 90065
                  323-344-5701
                  Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell
                  200 N Spring St #450
                  Los Angeles CA 90012
                  213-473-7013 (O)
                   
                  Thanks,
                  Trey


                   
                   
                   
                   
                   


                • pbspeedo@sbcglobal.net
                  Geez. Relax. I asked a question. Can you answer it?
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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
                  • Trey Baskett
                    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
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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


                    • Carol Cetrone
                      from Wikipedia, not specific to Echo Park but still interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction In Los Angeles today, under current City Attorney
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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




                      • Trey Baskett
                        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
                        Message 11 of 19 , 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






                        • Tad Yenawine
                          Yay! ... -- Tad Yenawine VTS/Visual Understanding in Education www.vtshome.org *ôIgnorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Yay!


                            On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM, cp00733 <peterscp007@...> wrote:
                             

                            Hello all,

                            CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and Echo Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

                            Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

                            I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.

                            Field office for CD 13 is
                            323-957-4500.
                            Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <adam.bass@...>

                            Let me know if you have further questions

                            CP




                            --
                            Tad Yenawine
                            VTS/Visual Understanding in Education
                            www.vtshome.org

                            “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                          • Tad Yenawine
                            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
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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

                              “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                            • pbspeedo@sbcglobal.net
                              You said it best. ... You said it best. On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Tad Yenawine wrote: Hello All, First I want to say that my former
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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

                                “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.”  EJ Potter, RIP 2012

                              • Trey Baskett
                                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
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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.  

                                  It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                                  Trey

                                  ------------------------------
                                  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
                                  >
                                  > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                                  >
                                • Judith Raskin
                                  What about other trees marked for removal?  I worked at the Edendale Library book sale today, which was set up in front, on the Sunset Blvd. side.  The two
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    What about other trees marked for removal?  I worked at the Edendale Library book sale today, which was set up in front, on the Sunset Blvd. side.  The two shade trees out front made it possible for the ELFs to have some shade and to protect the buyers from the heat of the sun.  Why are these marked?  They can't be that old or dangerous.
                                     
                                    Judy Raskin

                                    From: cp00733 <peterscp007@...>
                                    To: EchoElysianNCForum@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 6:10 PM
                                    Subject: [EchoElysianNCForum] Update on Ficus Trees Posted for removal
                                     
                                    Hello all,

                                    CD 13 had a meeting yesterday with Bureau of Street Services. We reviewed the original plans presented to the community and requested that the 4 Ficus on Sunset between Logan and Echo Park Ave be removed from the list. Those trees wil be trimmed and root pruned, and the tree wells enlarged. There is a small chance that once the pruning happens IF one of the trees on the North Side is compromised and considered unsafe, they may have to be removed at a later date. The one very large Ficus at McDuff in fron of Dr. Perez's office will remain posted. It was determined to be too large to safely root prune and not risk tipping over. It will remain posted. The other trees posted for removal in CD 13 are mostly the failing Chitalpas, the rogue Olives and Redbush, and one rogue Banana. Those are all part of the original plan and will be replaced with either Pistache or African Fern Pine. These plantings and removals along with the streetscape improvements will likely begin in January.

                                    Any posted trees on the South of Sunset, east of EP Ave are in CD 1. So if you are filing protests please contact their office as well.

                                    I personally witnessed the posting being removed from the Logan/EP/Sunset Ficus this morning.

                                    Field office for CD 13 is
                                    323-957-4500.
                                    Adam Bass is the EP Field Deputy and is briefed on this issue <mailto:adam.bass%40lacity.org>

                                    Let me know if you have further questions

                                    CP

                                  • cp00733
                                    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
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Aug 17, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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...

                                      cp


                                      --- 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.  
                                      >
                                      > It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                                      > Trey
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------
                                      > 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
                                      > >
                                      > > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • suzigaukroger
                                      A perspective from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story ... From: cp00733
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        A perspective from the LA Times:

                                        http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        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...

                                        cp

                                        --- 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.  
                                        >
                                        > It's about saving lives...of all races. Not real estate comps.
                                        > Trey
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------------
                                        > 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
                                        > >
                                        > > “Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even usually surpassing knowledge.” EJ Potter, RIP 2012
                                        > >
                                        >

                                      • Trey Baskett
                                        The injunction does not prevent family members in a gang from associating with one another. ... pretty
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Aug 18, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          The injunction does not prevent family members in a gang from associating with one another.



                                          ------------------------------
                                          On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 7:19 AM PDT noelgr@... wrote:

                                          >A perspective from the LA Times:
                                          >
                                          >http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-echo-park-20130818,0,2673257.story
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >-----Original Message-----
                                          >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...
                                          >
                                          >cp
                                          >
                                          >--- 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.
                                          >> Trey
                                          >>
                                          >> ------------------------------
                                          >> 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
                                          >> >
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.