City Drops 16 More Defendants from Gang Injunction

Friday, April 25, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Three days after the city council voted to uphold Santa Barbara’s proposed gang injunction, the city attorney’s office formally dismissed 16 of the 27 defendants, which now leaves only 11 names in the filing. On Tuesday, several dozen people packed City Hall to claim that an injunction was costly and unnecessary — among many arguments — in Santa Barbara. But only councilmembers Cathy Murillo and Gregg Hart — who have long opposed it — concurred and voted to throw out the case.

Earlier this month, three individuals — two identified as “Smurf” and “Lil Nightmare” in the court filing — had been dismissed from the injunction. At the city council meeting, Hart said that the number of people who would be affected by the gang injunction had “dropped significantly” and was approximately a dozen, but he said he could not get into specifics. “We’re spending an enormous amount of money on a disproportionate number of individuals,” Hart asserted. When the injunction was initially filed in 2011, law enforcement officials identified 30 individuals as the “worst of the worst.” About half of those were represented by attorneys, who have been working pro bono.

Criminal defense attorney Tara Haaland-Ford said many of her clients have been dismissed. “I think what they finally did was review the people that they had named and looked at whether or not those people were active gang members,” she said, explaining that there is spectrum of defendants who were dismissed. On one end is Ruben Mize, who was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison in 2011 for his role in a 2007 murder. On the other end, Haaland-Ford explained, are those who have cleaned themselves up and now have families and jobs. “I think what they did was appropriate,” she said of the dismissal. But, “when you’re looking at the trial itself, it puts them in a worse position when they have multiple defendants who were not properly named.”

Murillo argues the number of dismissals is an indication that traditional police techniques are proving effective. “I stand by my opposition to the gang injunction,” she said.

City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there were a “variety of reasons” that the 16 individuals were dropped but that he could not elaborate. Of those dismissed — “Mini,” “Psycho Mike,” “Gangster Loko,” and “Lonely Boy,” among others — none are currently in custody in county jail. “They no longer present the same kind of nuisance concerns that we originally had,” Calonne said. “We still believe that we have a strong case.”


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Psycho" Mike was dropped off the injunction because he recently got life in prison for murdering George Ied.

dogsnsand (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, there's 14 of us you can drop.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Message is already working: gangs are definitely not the place you want to be in this town. Some get dropped and others will be added; if they are too stupid to get the new message this city is sending. The work on the gang injunction was worth every penny.

Gregg Hart, you are on the wrong side of this one completely, but I guess you want to keep your political creds spread as far as you can fling them. Stop and think a gang injunction helps the gang members first; then the rest of us. If they can't make good decisions for themselves, then we make them for them.

Get out of gangs and do not associate with gangs. Worth every penny.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunction or not. I could live the rest of my life without having to see gangbangers, and not feel like I was missing anything.
Good luck Santa Barbara.

zuma7 (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like that proposed gang injunction worked-got those guys to clean up their acts-we are all winners,except for their attorneys, Murillo,and Hart-
Cost of that?

garfish (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, no; others will not be added.
That is not an option the way the legal request is written.

With only 11 defendants and if the Court of Law still allows this to be enacted, that is a cost of $63 thousand per injunctioned or enjoined defendant.

And that would be Dumb On Crime and the wholesale opposite of "fiscal conservative".

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2014 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Figure each gang-banger who ends up in court easily costs us $500,000 each, to get them behind bars. Then another $46,000 a year thereafter to keep them off the streets and in jail. The lives that were lost and damaged in the commission of gang violence naturally are beyond price.

Here is where the real $$$$$ gets spent:

Gang killings and mayhem = police search and arrest, crime scene investigation, free court appointed lawyers for each defendant, court translators, district attorney office personnel, extra sheriff dept security for courtroom and transit, judge and court personnel, appeals.

Such is the price for our judicial system -- after the fact. Gang injunction goal is to keep people out of the court system, instead of picking up the pieces after the fact. This saves lives as well as dollars. Put a price on that.

A gang injunction getting gangs off the streets and out of our lives in this town is the cheapest possible option, for the maximum results. Anyone complaining about the "costs" of a gang injunction has another agenda and needs to come clean because they have not done their homework.

BTW: ever hear of a gang-banger getting acquitted once they hit the court system? Nope, the after-the-fact expenses prosecuting gang-banging crime is the most expensive option of all.

Shape up, Hart. You prove should not be in charge of public funds.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Help me out here foo. How does the gang injunction save money on gang prosecution? They would still have to be prosecuted, and would still go to jail for violating the injuction.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like the most outspoken boosters of the proposed gang injunction, foo barely knows anything about the actual facts about what the injunction really would do or how it would be enacted.

Simply being desperately against gangs, as if anyone really is for gangs, to most of the commenting boosters like foo is simply enough substance to pontificate about why a gang injunction is so necessary and so allegedly effective.

Actual facts do not matter to foo and his ilk, despite the far more effective alternatives and law enforcement redundancies that council member Hart and his allies have been promoting in the public discourse.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at noon (Suggest removal)

I guess none of you are thinking about how council member Hotchkiss must feel knowing those eleven dropped won't be held responsible for the sixteen that died since the 1990s... Breaks your heart huh!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and Francisco only sees it as "a reduction of your civil rights", kinda like a reduction in your food stamps....

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel, if you honestly think an after-the-fact capital murder/mayhem case prosecution costs the same as gang injunction violation, I won't be able to help you. Sorry. You will just have to figure this one out for yourself.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A thought occurred to me earlier today: Would those who support the gang injunction support more gun laws? If not, why? In other words, the argument against more gun laws is often that we already have laws on the books, why would one support the gang injunction when we already have laws against assault, stabbing, etc.?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Help me out here foo. How does the gang injunction save money on gang prosecution? They would still have to be prosecuted, and would still go to jail for violating the injuction.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 11:37 a.m

I know you asked Foo, and not me, but I will take a stab...uh...shot...uhm, make a go of it.

The answer: With or without the injunction, the laws get enforced, they to to court, and they get convicted or freed. All the injunction does is add to the paranoia that runs deep in our post- 9/11 society and broaden the gray zone of what illegal means. (How one dresses, their body language, etc)

Like the Patriot Act, The NDAA, and the Drug War, it doesn't address root causes.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hershel, stay with me here. The goal of the gang injunction is to minimize gang activity and ultimately drive it from our town. Then go back and do your math and see where the cost savings are.

. For the money and lives at stake, it is an important and constitutionally encouraged tool in the gang prevention kit. And if it proves not to make a material difference in gang activity reduction, then ditch it. I will be happy toss the first handful of dirt on its grave.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo have you even taken the time to read the proposed injunction? What is in there that would lead you to believe that it would minimize gang activity? It will simply move underground. Stop kidding yourself.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you move a gang "underground" in a town like this. Please be specific.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They could meet inside homes or businesses. / backyards. They could start wearing Dodger hats. They could change the name of the gangs, recruit new members, hell, they could incorporate. Humans are amazingly adaptable. Now, please answer my question.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Humans are amazingly adaptable"

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 9:24 p.m.

So are we Herschel, and the sea levels are rising...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First a gang injunction, then as the waters rise a dolphinjunction.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2014 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, not so: with a gang injunction, a reduction in visibility as they burrow underground; with sea level rise an added visibility of dolphins who now will swim closer to our homes and waterfront businesses.

at_large (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No problem with gangs gang-banging themselves inside their own homes. But if they set one foot out in public, they are busted.

The issue is the gang's culture of violence, and that is what will be stopped because that is our new message. And they can pay for their own damn medical bills when they drop the bodies off at Cottage after their underground backyard shenanigans.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance once they leave the confines of their own property. Got it now, Hersh.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter on "'Party Patrol' Raids Isla Vista Homes" : Love it, keep it up IV foot patrol.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've got it Foo, you clearly have not taken the opportunity to actually read the proposed injunction. As usual you are talking out of your ass.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

as four-flushin' foo usually does, H-G, and he seldom bothers to read anything, which is also difficult to do where his head is usually placed.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two things Hershel (1) : the gang injunction in specifics and (2) the message of the gang injunction itself. See if you can get your brain to multi-task and it will be obvious, instead of now running on only one channel.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One thing Foo, what is the penalty for violating this proposed injunction?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Q: What is the penalty for violating this proposed injunction?
A: Reading Foo's missives.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PC 166. 6666

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this thread is getting silly.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2014 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My question to Chief Sanchez, is why wasn't the list reviewed by either the Detectives or line officers to verify that the targeted offenders would still pose a threat or had changed their spots and are living legal lives?
The number was quite high, maybe because it was to cast a net far and wide and catch additional members of the local Latin gangs but maybe the list was not verified because the larger the number the more interest it would draw. The Cost is the same either way if it takes the threat off the streets or deters additional bangers from their chosen life of crime; then the Injunction did its job, to remove the threats that were posed by the gangs.
As for those gang members with an "Ex" next to their names, are they gone underground so to speak and are recruiting new members with talk of the glory days of banging, are they raising their children to either follow a life of truth or a life of crime? Time will tell if little Jose' is sporting a brand new colored bandana of the local gang or school uniform when he starts his first day of first grade in the Fall.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loko was removed from the injunction because he was convicted of killing Robert Simpson at Hendry's. He was sentenced to 60 years to life. "Lonely Boy" was convicted in the 2009 slaying of Leal on De La Vina.

dogsnsand (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gangs in Santa Barbara = drugs, booze, violence, crime, promiscuous procreation, derelict fatherhood, vandalism, negative peer pressure, intimidation, mayhem, murder, death, destroyed neighborhoods and non-existent impulse control.

No gangs in this town. No way. Ask more of your self than choosing gang values, over life. If you want to flirt with danger, pick something else because gangs are the life of a loser.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"promiscuous procreation"??!!! What next Foo, burkas?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know, but honestly I don't think I've even seen a gang member in like 6 or 8 months.

foofighter may as well have a grudge against the boogie man, I wouldn't know any difference.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, that is a good benchmark. If loon pit has not seen a gang member, there are no gang members doing violence in this town. Now folks, we have heard the Holy Writ from the Me Generation.

Might want to check the "stabbing clock" on SB View - hardly a full month goes by without a gang stabbing. Let alone a few weeks a while back. Guess all this attention about the gang injunction is cooling a few jets in the hood.

Do and get it done and get back to devoting full time to the numerous gang alternatives in this town, which have always been there, yet the gangs still banged.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo and Loon, or Foon if I may..
How would either of you know a gang member just by seeing "one"? The only way you could know for sure is to ask them, but then you'd be guilty of associating with gangmembers and subject to the injunction..!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Foo and Loon could be one of the Does to be named later especially if they are wearing Dallas Cowboys, Spurs, or Cardinals gear.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all know Foo is a Clippers fan.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Foo and Loon could be one of the Does to be named later especially if they are wearing Dallas Cowboys, Spurs, or Cardinals gear.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 6:44 p.m. (

Watch your arse Hersh, they may amalgamate into one blogger called Foolpt and then we'd all be screwed.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the deal: willful association with the injunction-listed individuals.

No guessing. No racial profiling. No inadvertent or coincidental contact is a problem - riding a bus, sitting in class, sharing a church picnic. Theses guys are on the list because of very bad and verified conduct.

Don't do the crime and you don't get in line. Simple as that. Learn the difference between rap songs and rap sheets and you'll be cool.

The injunction works, so your fears are unfounded. The threat of it already is working because the gang-bangers know their next rumble is going to slap that injunction on them faster than they can flash their hand signs out a passing car window.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why the dress code?
What next?
Is Mayor Schneider going to go around measuring women's skirts to make sure they don't go too far above the knee?
Dale Francisco, El Fascisto Fashionista?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2014 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The racism of the Clippers owner is interesting in light of the racial tensions caused by the gang injunction.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt, you changed your name!

Botany (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nope, I am a whole different person.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am the best combination of Loonpt and Foofighter. I am a kinder, and gentler blogger.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I stand not only for the freedoms espoused by Loonpt, but also the moral responsibility promoted by Foofighter. I am the first hybrid blogger in the entire history of The Independent.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heh, heh, heh …my evil plan worked.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow... a virtual lovechild.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just don't let that UCSB porn prof get anywhere near this new love spawn with her scissors.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No Foofighter, there is nothing evil about this. You see, I learned something today: You make good points about personal responsibility, while Loonpt makes good points about freedom. With freedom comes responsibility, and in a responsible society we are less likely to have laws that curtail freedom.

We all basically want the same thing, security. Everybody makes good points, and really, there is no need to fight. As Charlie Chaplin said in the iconic movie, The Great Dictator:

"I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible- jewish, Gentile, black men, white…

We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each others’ happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls; has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind.

We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery ,we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in man; cries out for universal brotherhood; for the unity of us all.

Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women, and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

To those who can hear me, I say “Do not despair.”

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Soldiers! Don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you; who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder!

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men—machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have a love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate!

Only the unloved hate; the unloved and the unnatural.

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(part two of two)
Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

In the seventeenth chapter of St. Luke, it’s written “the kingdom of God is within man”, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy, let us use that power.

Let us all unite.

Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill their promise. They never will!

Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people!

Now let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers! To do away with greed, with hate and intolerance!

Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.

Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite"!

FoolPt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You sound like Stan Marsh.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I retract any prior paternity claims for this ersatz spawn. Nope, you can have it loonpt. You touched it last.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2014 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sad fact is that FoolPt filed paternaty claims against both of you and won in court.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So the court actually ruled FoolPt has two biological daddies? Let's sell this story to the National Enquirer.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: