WEATHER »

Group Airs Injunction Concerns in Letter to Council


Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Ahead of the City Council’s closed-session meeting on Tuesday — during which the proposed gang injunction was discussed — Pro-Youth Movement, an organization formed to find different ways to deal with the city’s at-risk youth and cofounded by Councilmember Cathy Murillo, sent a letter to the council and other city officials that outlines its issues over what the injunction could include. Among the group’s concerns with the proposed injunction — which will be ruled on in court in March — are the number of individuals it could target and whether it will affect them while riding public transportation or taking their kids to school. The full letter is at independent.com/opinions.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Don't they know that the gangster injunctificationing will solve all our crime problems and never take away from the opportunity to resolve other crime problems using existing enforcement methods?

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rest assured Ms Murillo, the gang injunction will do what it is intended to do; not what you claim it will do for whatever political posturing you continue to engage in.

Call off the attack dogs and get this injunction in place before more blood is shed on our sidewalks. There are no root causes besides the personal choices of those who make the decision to join gangs themselves.

Since they refuse to stop joining them and participating in their purely criminal enterprises, this decision process will be taken away from them by act of law. Happens.

We prevent children from smoking and drinking alcohol or pot by acts of law. This is no different. Sometimes people who can't make good decision for themselves have to be simply told no by someone else. This is one of those situations.

The persons most benefited by a gang injunction are the gang members themselves. You need to meditate on this deeply, Ms Murillo because there is now blood on your hands too the more you delay stopping this violent criminal enterprise within our midst.

Get out of the way, Ms Murillo. Let's put this issue behind us and institute the gang injunction as soon as possible. Then you can dedicate full time to your social revolution to cure whatever root causes that will prevent it from rearing its ugly head in our community ever again.

Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time; and most importantly keeping even more people locked into this dead-end gang existence.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

must be the holiday season or summat...becuz i actually agree with foofi here.

gang injunction helps fringe bangers to get a decent chance to avoid getting swept in.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Murillo is attempting to get political capital for what the gang injunction is not; not what it is.

Making the gang injunction symbolic for her personal agenda instead of dealing directly and immediately with the reign of gang crime on our streets is irresponsible. But what demagogue was ever stopped in their tracks by merely an appeal to reason and common sense.

A few more stabbings, a few more shootings and a few more innocent neighbors terrorized by gangs stealing their children too and perhaps someone with enough stature will finally rise up, point their finger at the howling mobs and say: Have you no shame, have you no shame?

An early Christmas present to us all including the gangs themselves, is a gang injunction that clearly spells out this behavior is not what our community stands for. Ever again. Amen.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

She's a PLAYA! She's playing the gangs and the Latino community with her "I feel your pain because I too am latina!" crockery. Anybody outside of the gang culture who buys into her song and dance is as foolish as as a gangsta.
The issue here is CRIMINAL GANG ACTIVITY, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, whatever.
It is a BEHAVIOR based on ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. What can't these people see here? It is pretty simple.
There ARE in FACT a couple of individuals slated to be placed on the injunction THAT ARE WHITE! So much for the "it only targets Latinos" malarchy we hear from Murillo and her gang affiliated support base.
So go ahead, let the city you love descend into being another gang infested ghetto, back Murillo's plan to empower the lowlife gang scum.
All she is to them is a mouthpiece in a position of power and that is a benefit for them. Latino or not, if you're in a gang, she's your voice!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anti gang = Pro youth

garfish (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The proposed gang injunction has been and will be a very expensive band aid solution to gang crime. Drop the injunction. Take the money saved on legal fees and use it to establish permanent neighborhood SBPD substations. One on the Eastside, Westside, Waterfront / lower state, and on the North side. A bonus would be that their would be no need for a new police station, more money saved.

The solution is crime prevention and criminal law enforcement not endless civil actions.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bring back more neighborhood bike-patrols; not police substations. BTW: The gang injunction is not expensive. Specious argument. NOt having the gang injunction is what is expensive.

No way will known gang members get confused with what you are claiming is Latino culture. Latino culture is so much more than just gangs. We know it, you know it and even gang members know this.

Gangs are just hormonally over-charged young men acting out. There is nothing Latino about this at all. It is biological and it is conduct any form of society cannot continue to tolerate.

It is as stupid as saying all Italians are members of the mafia, so don't go after the mafia as a violent criminal enterprise because you will sweep in innocent Italians at the same time. We know the difference. Or that all white people are greedy Wall Street bankers so sweep up all white people.

C'mon. The real issue now is how can Murillo drop her opposition and save face at the same time. She dug herself into a hole on this one. Can she and will she rise to the occasions and do the right thing and stop bashing what she claims is her "culture".

No, Cathy you are much more than gangs too. Stop insulting everyone who is Latino who is not a gang member. And stop insulting everyone else who you think don't know the difference. That insults Anglos and just about everyone else We know the difference and so do 99% of Latinos. Gang members are thugs and their actions make them what they are.

Just drop it Cathy, okay. If you want to be our "Latina" city council person, start celebrating everything that is great about our shared Latino heritage; please stop defending violent criminal enterprises as "Latino" culture. Everyone deserves better than that.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Totally agree, that the race card is being played here, but I also agree that existing laws, and parole/probation, could be enforced in the proper manner to the point that the need for this type of tool would not be necessary. Let me tell you why there are no injunctions in AZ, because A) and foremost it invades civil rights and overreaches in a manner that the forefathers would have disapproved, and B) If you want to break the law with violence or dangerous drugs, they will give you so much time that your face will be full of those tattoo tears. White, black, brown, if you are up to no good you are going down.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2013 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there any better reason to support a gang injunction than foobar's comment here?:
"We prevent children from smoking and drinking alcohol or pot by acts of law. This is no different. Sometimes people who can't make good decision for themselves have to be simply told no by someone else. This is one of those situations."

"In 2011 the National Survey on Drug Use and HealthExternal Web Site Icon reported that 25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol and 16% reported binge drinking.

In 2011, the Monitoring the Future SurveyExternal Web Site Icon reported that 33% of 8th graders and 70% of 12th graders had tried alcohol, and 13% of 8th graders and 40% of 12th graders drank during the past month.

Each day in the United States, nearly 4,000 people younger than 18 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,000 youth in that age group become new daily cigarette smokers.2,6 This means that nearly 400,000 young people become daily smokers each year.

Percentage of high school students who smoked one or more cigarettes in the previous month in 2011: 18.1%

Recent publications by the Surgeon General and the Institute of Medicine outlined many prevention strategies that will require actions on the national, state, and local levels, such as enforcement of minimum legal drinking age laws, national media campaigns targeting youth and adults, increasing alcohol excise taxes, reducing youth exposure to alcohol advertising, and development of comprehensive community-based programs. These efforts will require continued research and evaluation to determine their success and to improve their effectiveness.

"teen marijuana use is at its highest in 30 years, and teens are now more likely to use marijuana than tobacco. In 2011, a national study showed that one in eight 8th graders, one in four 10th graders, and one in three 12th graders have used marijuana in the past year.
AACAP

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheet...
http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_a...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The better reason quite frankly is the gang injunction is good for the gang members themselves to make better decisions about their own lives; not just ours.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 29, 2013 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foobar - that's because laws including drug laws and gang injunctions have never had any long-term effect, right; because they don't work outside of your head.
"Sometimes people who can't make good decision for themselves have to be simply told no by someone else. This is one of those situations." - GREAT POINT HERE, FOOBAR- get some help.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2013 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Calif Supreme Court enthusiastically supports gang injunctions because they do work and are an important tool in fighting gang crime. Broaden your research on the topic, 14noscams.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2013 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Calif Supreme Court also enthusiastically opposed gay marriage, and boy were they wrong.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 30, 2013 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

California Supreme Court is correct finding gang injunctions are a lawful tool used to control gang conduct.

You are intentionally misstating the gay marriage issue in the state of California, for effect, AZ2SB. You left Tombstone for a reason?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"people who can't make good decisions for themselves have to be simply told no by someone else", and foobar needs to be told to stop posting comments that are lies.
In 1997, the CA Supreme Court decided that one particular gang injunction that named all individuals and that encompassed 4 square blocks didn't violate the constitutional rights of gang members. The court didn't address the effectiveness of gang injunctions or support them as a means of reducing gang membership or gang crime.
A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stanley Mosk warned that "The majority would permit our cities to close off entire neighborhoods to Latino youths who have done nothing more than dress in blue or black clothing or associate with others who do so; they would authorize criminal penalties for ordinary, nondisruptive acts of walking or driving through a residential neighborhood with a relative or a friend."
People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 1, 2013 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Readers are advised to google "Ganging Up on Criminals" published in legal newspaper The Daily Journal for further information about the scope and legality of gang injunctions in the state of California, reminding us yet again gang members themselves benefit from gang injunction more than anyone else:

"Though the use of gang injunctions is still evolving in the courts and on the streets, the underlying concept is simple - gang injunctions result from a lawsuit against an organization, not just individuals.

Whether personally named in the lawsuit or not, individuals are bound by the injunction when the evidence is sufficient to prove they are members of the gang.

This makes gang injunctions a powerful and effective tool in fighting gang violence, discouraging gang membership in the bargain."

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Want to know what makes gang scum different than the law abiding citizen? It is pretty simple: They can't make choices on their own, therefore need a little "prodding" (like cattle) in the proper direction.
Come on you liberals, this is yet another perfect opportunity to use big government, big brother, the nanny state @ the cost of the taxpayers!
I figured the LAST folks to be against the injunction are the nanny state for taxes folks! I am disappointed!
AZ2SB, you're 100% correct, the injunction IS a tool. But you question the "un-Constitutionality" it.
Well, apparently some judges, liberal as well as conservative, have approved gang injunctions in certain cities.
Want to know why? Because they saw the suppression of the law abiding citizen's right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" by the gang vermin to be exactly what it is: A terroristic and un-Constitutional act.
Since when did criminal behavior become a Constitutional Right? Oh, that's right, when our society started rewarding bad behavior.
In order to get these gang idiots to do the right thing maybe their "Constitutional Rights" need to be suppressed a little or a lot.
Yeah, yeah, I know, first they came after the Jews and I didn't speak out, then they came after the foreigners and I didn't speak out, then they came after the... whatever.
This isn't nazi Germany circa 1938. We're talking CRIMINALS here, not an ethnic group, not a sexual orientation, not a religious sect, whatever. CRIMINALS.
By the way, hell froze over because I actually agree, with Hershey about the police substations, but dude, the injunction in place will also help.
Want to know why it is costing so much? LITIGATION IN COURTS.
And that litigation if being waged by those who feel these poor, misguided youths have done nothing wrong and feel they should be rewarded for such hardship. There's your cost of the injunction.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We really need a whole lot more blahblahblahblahblah in the news.

Gang injunctions, including the injunction that was the basis of the CA Supreme court case Gallo v Carlos Acuna, are lawsuits based on violation of public nuisance statutes that apply to barking dogs, not terrorists.
Current gang injunctions name gang members, not institutions. This was the basis of the Supreme court decision - the injunction couldn't be used as racial profiling because since all enjoined members were named, and the injunction applied to a geographically small area, it wasn't unconstitutionally vague. The sixth district appeals court decision invalidated 15 of the 24 provisions in the preliminary injunction sought by the Santa Clara District Attorney in February 1993.
The California Court of Appeals also ruled that the "harassing, intimidating and annoying" language of the injunction was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that the prohibition of the gang members congregating in Rocksprings violated their First Amendment right to free association.
The $28 million lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles: The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the lawsuit this fall and a decision is not expected for months.The lawsuit has already forced the Los Angeles police to stop enforcing gang injunction curfews, according to a 2012 department order. Los Angeles also could be forced to permanently stop using curfews, Orange (Olu Orange, defendants' attorney) said.
http://www.sbsun.com/article/20130914...

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We need no more 14scamsgalore expressing a pro gang culture in the news. Is this the same Supreme Court that struck down gay marriage?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions a legal, effective and necessary to break the degrading cycle of gang violence in our neighborhoods and among our children. MSP.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blahblahblahblahblahblahblah: Try to find your quote in the Supreme Court decision blahblahblah. - or are you implicitly accusing Ca Supreme Court Justices of "expressing a pro gang culture'?
Always go for ad hominem attacks when you have nothing to say.
foobar of course gang injunctions are legal -that's why LA and the bay area have stopped enforcing parts of their injunctions to avoid lawsuits and why LA has a $28 million lawsuit pending - connect the dots much?

14noscams (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nah, see foofighter, here's the issue, injunctions ARE illegal according to the courts, therefore by the same logic, so is gay marriage. Ban them both, no favoritism, no questions asked. makes about as much sense as letting gang scum run wild huh? Got to love selective Constitutionalism, which apparently 14allscams is all about.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
December 2, 2013 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: