Taped interviews recently filmed and released by Youth CineMedia — a nonprofit that works with at-risk youth by getting them off the streets and into the production room — depict individuals who say they were wrongfully named in the city’s gang injunction announced last week. The injunction seeks to limit the movement and activity of 30 men and women who law enforcement feels are at the root of Santa Barbara’s gang activity.
While The Independent has not been able to verify claims made in Youth CineMedia’s tapings, we nevertheless feel the footage warrants attention. Below you’ll find one of the interviews as well as a copy of the injunction itself.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Sorry kids, all the high tech production in the world can't change the fact that you're in a gang & therefore subject to the conditions of the injunction. So this offers 1 of 2 choices:
1) Stay in the gang thug life, whine about the "unfair treatment" & continue to visit the Graybar Hotel.
2) Get out of the gang thug life, make something of your life.
I think #2 is the best option, use it wisely :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More programs for the kids? No,no,no, we need to use that money to get the chief and other city employees housing.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A gang injunction is initiated while gang related crimes are dropping; because this injunction is politically motivated? So if these gang members are improperly processed can they stand before a tribunal of Hotchkiss, Francisco and Self and plead their case? Regardless of the injunctions' necessity or not, the list better be accurate or it will negate the interest earned and other benefits from the employee housing loan program in the form of damages awarded in our civil court system. Once again these 3 vagrant conservative council members may be proved full of rhetoric and obviously can't do budget.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don: "A gang injunction is initiated while gang related crimes are dropping."
So I guess that stabbing the other week was not really a gang related crime? :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So stay out of trouble and you're in the clear. What's the big deal? You were a banger in the past and that's you're reputation. Keep working hard, go to college and your past is history.
reality_check (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He can't go to college, at least not SBCC, because it is one of the safe zones.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The injunction is doing what the indulgent, spineless parents won't do...It puts a boot in their behind, and tells them to get their sH** together, so they can move on to be responsible adults and not resource-sucking gangsters who hide behind an excuse for everything that goes wrong with their lives.
Does PUEBLO or anyone else encourage responsibility, or do they just blame everyone else...as usual...and by encourage, I mean with results; not blah blah blah hater talk. This should save some fools from being lifers...I've seen 3 already..It ain't much, but it's a start.
azuresees (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And I call BS on the SBCC prohibition...Back that statement up or stand down....
azuresees (anonymous profile)
March 25, 2011 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its true, SBCC as a public school is forbidden territory to those named in the injunction. And how is all this happening without any kind of court order or process of law, just Sanchez's whim?
This is being penalized before even being convicted.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As I understand the injunction, the 30 gang members can still be individually in the safety zones, but cannot associate with each other there. Specifically,
"Do Not Associate: Standing, sitting, walking, driving, bicycling, gathering, or appearing anywhere in public view, in a public place, or in any place accessible to
the public, with any other known member of the Eastside or Westside gangs...in the Proposed Safety Zones."
Furthermore, it appears that gang members can associate with each other in the safety zone as long as they are in an educational institution.
"This prohibition shall not apply in
either of the following situations: (1) when an enjoined person is inside the premises of a
licensed school attending class or conducting school business"
So the 30 gang members are free to attend their Chicano Studies class at SBCC together.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe you should attend that class Revisionist. Blind bigotry isn't going to solve the problem. And Sanchez is violating people's Constitutional rights.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 26, 2011 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
these gang members will have to make some life changing decisions because of the injunction.
ultimately, if they forgo the gang life, they will eventually mature and reflect on this decision positively.
and that is what they need. the rest is just noise.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 28, 2011 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts."
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2011 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if EZK considers Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams as part of academia?
The progressive left has done as much to persecute academics as the facist right (not that there is much difference.) Chinese professors in the cultural revolution were sent to work in cement factories and rice paddies. The Khmer Rouge tortured and executed anyone who wore glasses suspecting that they were intellectuals.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2011 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And the last I saw, McD, Mayor Schneider praised the injunction and the city council consists of 6 members, none of whom stood up in opposition to the injunction.
If they're not now gang members they can make that clear when the injunction goes into effect; if they are now gang members, they can opt out - and remove themselves from the injunction. The only problem I can see is if they were wrongly targeted, were never part of any gang.
Both left and right have banned writers, intellectuals who have offended them. The USSR had probably a worse record than did Pinochet's Chile, for instance. All who believe they have the truth are blinded to others' truths, let alone the Truth itself when it varies from their own. ...That's visible here, even :::gasp::: here.
at_large (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2011 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And was not the the Khmer Rouge a form of Fascism in itself?
Who cares if Mayor Schneider supports it, are we supposed to be lap dogs? We'll save that for The Tea Party.
The injunction is going forth on the premise of guilty until proven innocent- as displayed by the very words of the supporters of the injunction. And since when has Chile had the same size population and land mass as China? And hasn't the current Chinese regime been in power far longer than Pinochet ever was? Talk about grasping at straws!
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2011 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now the Indy is recycling it's Progressive garbage. I guess that's ecologically responsible.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good parents drill it into their children that in life your actions have consequences. Behave badly and you lose some rights. These kids have behaved so badly that they have used up societies patience and are now losing some rights.
Putting on a clean shirt and speaking sincerely about your life now is fine but you must still live with the consequences of your actions. Call it a hassle but you earned it.
JHL (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lighten up JHL. These are our children and therefore deserve innumerable chances for perpetuity...again, we should be talking about why the vast majority of Latino's(in the case of this town)do not become lowlifes or gang bangers. If everything is so tough and racist and stacked against them there should be zero success stories.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
we need a CRAPPY PARENTS INJUNCTION!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a Latino raised by a single mom who worked 2 jobs to make ends meet, if I ever 'acted out" as the "progressives" liked to say, I would have my culo handed to me by my mom after she beat the mierda out of it.
So how'd I turn out? Law abiding, hard working, tax paying, respectful of those around me, respectful of the environment, respectful of my community, no sense of entitlement, grateful to have what I earn & able to earn what I have.
But alas, all those things are for naught, as the "progressives" make them out to be the reason these little thugs can "act out" as they wish.
What's left to say? Mom, muchas gracias por poniendome en el camino correcto. Te debo mi vida, te debo mi amor, te debo todo, siempre. God, I miss her! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hank- "por ponerme".
sbs124 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just find a pro-bono lawyer (a lawyer who works for free and gets a percent of the lawsuit amount when you win the lawsuit) and sue the City. They are violating your constitutional rights.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2011 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for telling everyone what a pro bono lawyer is. Who knew?
Thanks for finally settling the legal issue for Gang Injunctions as well. The California Supreme Court, the court that ruled them constitutional will be glad to hear that you've overturned their decisions.
There are almost 160 current gang injunctions legally in place around California. It's interesting that the Left still makes the mute argument here in their little cul-de-sac.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2011 at 2:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgy: "They are violating your constitutional rights."
REALLY? How so? Plees esplain :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2011 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Georgy-checked back this morning and we're still waiting for your unilateral genius explaining how you know more than our own California State Supreme Court that has proactively allowed almost 160 identical Gang Injunctions throughout California.
Hank, you were on to something with Thirst Mutilator, their new slogan should be "Prunilator, proudly enjoyed by hundreds of gang bangers everywhere, and here's the list of names to prove it!"..
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Italiansurg: "their new slogan should be "Prunilator, proudly enjoyed by hundreds of gang bangers everywhere, and here's the list of names to prove it!"..
HAHAHA! The 1st 30 customers get a free supply :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2011 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)