<b>CITY HALL SOLILOQUY:</b> Brandon Morse, an activist Republican, took 18 minutes to say a gang injunction would depress property values, kill business on State Street, and chase tourists away from Santa Barbara.

Paul Wellman

CITY HALL SOLILOQUY: Brandon Morse, an activist Republican, took 18 minutes to say a gang injunction would depress property values, kill business on State Street, and chase tourists away from Santa Barbara.

Council Hears Tsunami of Criticism over Gang Injunction

Authorities Argue Action Needed to Combat Mexican Mafia

Thursday, January 9, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

It was perhaps the shortest honeymoon in Santa Barbara’s political history. For a few brief minutes, Mayor Helene Schneider and Councilmembers Gregg Hart, Frank Hotchkiss, and Bendy White were allowed the customary indulgence of some effusively warm rhetoric after being sworn into office this Tuesday, having won last November’s council elections.

Hart ​— ​who first served on the council 10 years ago ​— ​described his election to a second stint as “the highlight of my life.” White opted to lay out a blueprint for expanded infrastructure investments, all but calling for a tax increase to foot the bill. And Mayor Schneider, dressed in a dramatic red dress, described her “sense of renewed optimism,” and exclaimed how Santa Barbara was special. “We’re not just Any City, U.S.A.,” she said. “We’re Santa Barbara.” Looking out at a room packed to at least twice its legal capacity, the mayor declared, “The level of civic engagement here is unparalleled. It makes us better. It makes us stronger.”

If Schneider felt similarly two hours later, it could only have been in the same way things that don’t kill you outright are said to make you stronger. Critics of the city’s proposed gang injunction had assembled en masse before the meeting ​— ​after having marched down State Street chanting slogans against police brutality ​— ​and verbally teed off on the proposed injunction for more than two hours straight. No one spoke on its behalf. Although the issue wasn’t on the council agenda, members of the public are allowed to comment on non-agendized issues during the public comment period scheduled at the beginning of each council meeting. Never before has any group seized upon public comment to wage so lengthy a critique of a city policy.

Fueling the outburst of renewed opposition ​— ​to an injunction first proposed three years ago ​— ​were several things. News leaked out just this week that City Hall had filed court papers back in December asking Judge Colleen Sterne to approve a preliminary injunction on January 27. That’s just two months before the judge was slated to conduct a hearing on the merits of a permanent injunction limiting the right of assembly of 30 named individuals with gang histories. The activists, led by the group PODER, objected that attorneys representing those named were given only a month to respond to the city’s 450-page legal brief.

<b>HERE AND HEARD:</b> Chanting “No Justice, No Peace” and “S-BP-D, no police brutality,” about 60 anti-gang-injunction activists affiliated with PODER marched down State Street and into the City Council pews.
Click to enlarge photo

Kelsey Brugger

HERE AND HEARD: Chanting “No Justice, No Peace” and “S-BP-D, no police brutality,” about 60 anti-gang-injunction activists affiliated with PODER marched down State Street and into the City Council pews.

Lawyers for City Hall and the District Attorney’s Office argued in their filing papers that the interim measure was necessary to combat the growing influence of the Mexican Mafia in the affairs of Santa Barbara’s rival gangs. Although gang violence has not increased dramatically in the past three years ​— ​police say gangs were responsible for 53 violent Type I crimes in 2011, 50 in 2012, and 62 for the first 11 months of 2013 ​— ​they say that the Mexican Mafia’s influence has grown.

They contend that local gang members, acting as agents for the Mexican Mafia, have been extorting taxes from drug dealers and that when dealers balk, they’re either killed or seriously beaten. “In the past two years, Santa Barbara has seen a significant increase in the Mexican Mafia and Sureno prison gang influence on local street gangs,” they argued, citing the increased incidence of graffiti of the Maya number 13, which signifies the 13th letter of the alphabet ​— ​the letter “M” ​— ​which stands for the Mexican Mafia.

Although attorneys representing those named in the injunction knew of City Hall’s intention since last October, the filing took many following the issue by surprise. And many speakers strenuously objected to language in the filing describing Santa Barbara as a “war zone” between rival gang members. Brandon Morse ​— ​a City College activist affiliated with the Republican Party who has emerged in recent months as a prominent voice in the choir of critics ​— ​argued the gang injunction would effectively chase tourists away from Santa Barbara, shoppers off State Street, and depress real estate property values throughout most of Santa Barbara. “Why?” he asked during an 18-minute soliloquy. “Because you are declaring State Street the front line of a ‘war zone.’”

Morse likened the proposed injunction ​— ​which would divide the city into three zones of gang activity ​— ​to the controversial Light Blue Line that Schneider had proposed when still a city councilmember to visually demonstrate the rise of sea level in response to climate change. Morse estimated City Hall had spent $1.5 million on the gang injunction thus far and predicted it would have to spend millions more on legal fees. “We do not feel afraid,” he declared. “We don’t feel our city is a war zone.”

If approved by Judge Sterne, the gang injunction would limit the legal rights of the 30 named individuals ​— ​all adults ​— ​from associating in public with other gang members. (All but 12 are currently behind bars or have been deported. Of those 12, one activist contended, three were working, three were in school, and three were mothers.) It would also limit what kind of clothes they could wear in these designated safety zones. The theory is that by restricting the ability of known gang members to congregate in public spaces ​— ​near schools and in parks frequented by younger teens ​— ​their ability to recruit new members would be greatly reduced.

At Tuesday’s meeting, critics objected to what they termed “guilt by association” and complained the injunction allows police to file charges against the enjoined for engaging in perfectly lawful behavior. They warned that other municipalities have enacted injunctions that have resulted in lawsuits that have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. City Hall’s attorneys have insisted that they’ve crafted a measure that is uniquely surgical and that targets only “the baddest of the bad.”

Fueling the opponents’ ire is the fact that the council approved the injunction without ever having held any public hearings. Matters involving litigation are exempt from the state’s open-government laws and allow closed-door government deliberations. Although the council did hold one after-the-fact hearing ​— ​another vent-fest ​— ​that did little to assuage critics. The only councilmember to go on record against the injunction thus far has been Cathy Murillo, but she was elected after the plan was hatched. During the recent election campaign, candidate Gregg Hart spoke out against the injunction. His election presumably gives Murillo at least one ally. While that’s not enough for the council to rescind the injunction, it achieves the two-vote threshold needed for any councilmember to place an issue of public interest on the agenda.

Hart did not speak during Tuesday’s discussion. No councilmember did. By law, if councilmembers were to engage with those who spoke during public comment, they’d be violating state open-government codes limiting such back-and-forth to agendized items. Perhaps loudest in his silence was Councilmember Dale Francisco, who made little effort to disguise the fact he was reading a book ​— ​on how to save the United States from economic collapse ​— ​during long stretches of the public commentary. Even when he was blistered by one speaker for doing so, Francisco did not look up, nor did he stop reading. A student advisor from Santa Barbara City College also took offense to Francisco’s lack of attention, stating, “It’s insulting,” adding “I took time out of work to be here.”

In sharp contrast, no one from the public had anything at all to say about City Hall’s plans to officially declare the beginning of a drought this March, assuming predictions for a dryer-than-average winter hold true. With Lake Cachuma at only 42 percent capacity ​— ​and rainfall 65 percent below normal ​— ​the first stage of a drought declaration would trigger only voluntary reductions in water consumption. About half the city’s water use is attributed to outdoor irrigation. If that doesn’t yield results, a Stage II drought will be declared about six months later, meaning higher water rates will be charged for higher rates of water consumption.

Only with the declaration of a Stage III alert would City Hall impose water use restrictions as happened during the late 1980s. While the City of Santa Barbara has adequate water supplies to meet normal demand through the rest of the year, Councilmember White ​— ​who served on the Water Commission during the last drought ​— ​said he had “the hair-on-the back-of-the-neck sense that something’s not right.” He expressed alarm that the natural variations in Santa Barbara’s weather patterns could be “accelerating” and asked city water planners to move with urgency to ensure the city’s long-mothballed desalination plant still had the necessary permits needed to pass muster with the Coastal Commission.

Editor’s Note: This story was corrected on January 10, 2014, to reflect that Brandon Morse is a member of no Tea Party organizations.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"Brandon Morse, Tea Party Republican, took 18 minutes to say a gang injunction would depress property values, kill business on State Street, and chase tourists away from Santa Barbara", REALLY?!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 5:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

He ain't in my Tea party!!!

Why is it that the "Vocal minority" is always held up to something bigger than it is? Just because they WHINE louder doesn't make them more important or what the rest of us want.

Mayor Schneider said, “The level of civic engagement here is unparalleled. It makes us better. It makes us stronger.” Does she really understand how it works or is she as dumb as the rest of the politicians in this country?? The room was filled with thugs, the weak, the soft on crime crowd, "Community activists", lawyers wanting their 15 min of shame, etc..

Glad I don't live in that dump of a town anymore. I also take my business elsewhere. Any of you walk down State St. lately? Go to a park, go to the beach or in a parking structure? Have at it, you want gangs and an unlimited number of homeless, keep catering to them or build another shelter. Because obviously you've never heard of the phrase, "Build it and they will come"…...

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, all of you that are FOR the gang injunction, where were you for this? Not one person was FOR the injunction during this meeting.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The gang injunction is / will be very expensive. It would do very little to stop gang crime. Time to drop this feel good band aid approach.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Letting this noisy and noisome mob take over city hall is as bad as letting gangs take over our streets and neighborhoods.

It is insulting to listen these faux racist arguments regarding racial profiling. We all know the difference between known gang members and law-abiding citizens.

Just sit in court during a gang violence hearing and you will know these are not your typical community members at all, regardless of color of skin, name or ethnic background. These are clearly bad actors.

Eliminating gang member associations is the best thing to do for gangs themselves. Just do it.

Agree, there is no "tea party" in SB so this flack speaks for no one other than their own few voices in this town.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Facing down this angry mob is not for the faint of heart, and that is why you see no opposition to these mobs show up at city council meetings.

We elect our representatives to do the right thing; not just pander to those who show up and act stupid. City policy is too important to depend only upon in-your-face time.

Voters will eventually realize they need to select those who can face down noisy mobs ….. and do the right thing; and not let themselves be intimidated either.

But John Q Public should not have to subject themselves to these scary mobs, get shouted down and targeted publicly. However, John Q Public should not waste his secret ballot either, which is exactly why we have a secret ballot because public mobs indeed are very scary.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The gang injunction is not expensive, and it works.

Now it costs at least $500,000 per gang member --after the fact-- to run their crimes of violence through the court system and consign one more member of our public to the incarceration rat hole for $46,000 a year more.

A gang injunction is cheap, and the life you save is the gang member himself.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is excellent news, Priceless moved away from SB!!?

I'm also really glad so many people showed up to protect the gang injunction and march against police brutality. I really wish I could have been there to help support the cause, but it looks like there were more than enough without me.

But seriously Priceless, where did you move that is so much 'better' than SB?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goleta. Noleta. Carpinteria. Ask us a hard one next time, loonpt.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel and loon, the lovers of da thug life and all its participants. Police brutality? Really loon dude? You need to find a better hobby, all that internet education you're getting is starting to show the fact that yo're not living in the real world. But hey, if its on the internet that Al Gore invented, it must then be true right? Like those recent sayings from Abraham Lincoln.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"he ain't in my tea party!"
That's why I'm not in yours dude....

Great job Brandon....

I'll be sure to attend the next council to do a little reading of my own!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah and Foo- Where were you since you are both SO in support of the gang injunction during this meeting?

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These are not hearings; they are ventings. The pro-gang element gets to rant and rationalize while the anti-gang group realizes there's little point to subjecting themselves to the same performance yet again. The anti-injunction forces do themselves a great disservice by appearing to intimidate and justify criminal behavior. The injunction is not a complete solution by any means, but it does demonstrate that Santa Barbara has had it with the gangsters and will not surrender the streets to thugs. At this point, if the city backs down and gives the opposition a win by withdrawing the injunction, it will be free rein for sophisticated prison-based mobs like the Mexican Mafia to step up activities. No thank you.

anemonefish (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can't speak for foo, I live and work in Goleta and from the looks of it sometimes, we're going to need 1 of those injunctions here too. When they get the cojones to do it, I will then speak.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, the Blue line Schneider proposed and the gang zone lines proposed by the injunction are in NO WAY alike. The Blue line was for pseudo-environmentalist global warming appeaser purposes, in other words, an imaginary line.
The gang zone lines ARE REAL. How many times have the Blue line sections been flooded by global warming influenced tidal surges?
How many times have the gang scum used State Street as battleground to settle scores?
See, imaginary (global warming) versus real (gangs, gang violence, gang crimes). Still, some will NEVER get it.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have NO intention of stopping at Schneider's Blue Line. As the seas rise up, so shall we.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is the use of the word tsunami racist?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent comments, anemonefish. That speaks for me too. Thank you.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AZ2SB: no one in favor of a gang injunction spoke because the question, the issue was not on the agenda. If it ever gets on the agenda, if Murillo and Hart do call for it to be on the agenda, there may be a broader discussion.

at_large (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The issue is not a popularity contest. It is a deadly serious necessity; and it is the right thing to do. Period.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh the sky is falling, better get an injunction against it. Foo you big fraidy cat, probably scared of your own shadow. BOO!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RE" "We'ee not just Anycity, USA", has Mayor Schneider looked at State St. recently. It's Anycity USA dressed up in adobe and red tile; most of the stores and restaurants are available in shopping/strip malls in any city in the USA. How many local businesses were lost this year alone because of corporate gangs? How about an outside corporation injunction. But some people sem to think having an A&F is somehow Progressive and cool.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 9, 2014 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dale Francisco was campaigning for Congress by reading My Pet Goat during public comment. He is apparently the best the Republicans can do as a propped up sacrificial candidate.

Foofighter also could have spoken for 18 or more minutes too, but that would mean he would have to show himself in the light and get at least 10 friends to allocate their time to him for speaking. Both contingencies not possible.

Santa Barbara now includes gang-crime-is-decreasing Deniers to join their pals the climate-warming Deniers.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John_Adams: "Deniers"? Hmmm....

In 1972 after the publishing of "Silent Spring" the "radical" environmentalist said the world would be a barren wasteland by the year 1980. Didn't happen.

In 1980 when Ronald Reagan became president the "radical" democrats said WWIII would happen by 1984. Didn't happen.

In 1988 when George H. Bush became president the "radical" democrats said there would be a police state by 1990. It didn't happen.

In 1998 when the Kyoto Protocol was penned the "radical" environmentalists told then president William J. Clinton to sign it. He didn't do it.

In 2000 when George W Bush became president the "radical" democrats said the US would be under fascist rule by 2004. Didn't happen.

In 2004 former US vice president Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would disappear by 2014. Didn't happen.

In 2008 when Barack H. Obama became president "radical" republicans said the US would turn socialist by 2012. Didn't happen.

When the Santa Barbara Police Department 1st came up with the idea of the gang injunction the culture/ethnic apologists claimed it was racist. It isn't.

These are but a few of the "didn't happens" that I will use to say maybe the problem isn't the "deniers" like you claim.
The problem seems to be unrealistic "claimers" wanting to shape the world to THEIR reality, not that of the real reality.

Injunction NOW please!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By 2014, the US did become socialist. So what's a few years among friends?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cool JA, thank you for recognizing how much my voice matters on this issue. You can rest assured it will be and has been heard. Thank you for bestowing the compliment.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, the ONLY thing socialist about the good ol' US of A is Obummercare, something that's probably going the be repealed. Other than that, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, USA! USA! USA!.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tax the rich sells tax initiatives and unequal legislative impacts. Pay their fair share sells. Takers now outstrip makers in the US.

War on Poverty that demanded trillions of dollars of wealth redistribution for the past 50 years has created only a permanent social meltdown, rather than a boost into the mainstream.

Public employment remains resistant to any accountability for results, public need or material downsizing. But now constitutes an insurmountable wall of public debt dedicated mainly to unfunded public pension obligations.

This year that reaches well $345 billion in California today with easily over $200 billion of that going to life time health care benefits, and public pensions - $80 billion lion's share of that public debt accruing for teacher pensions alone.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. We are failing now too, even if we have been operating piecemeal as a socialist state only piecemeal for the last several decades, instead of by formal declaration. Incrementally, we are there.

Running up massive public debt - taxing the "rich" to pay for that public debt pretty darn close to socialism. Until the rich stop paying or you tap them dry. Then what do you call it? A failed nation state - just like every other socialist state has learned.

Point is we have to stop spending other people's money. We have to live within our means and not on a credit card.

We need to budget present money for present needs and services and no longer kick the can down the road and hope someone else finds a way to pay for promises easily made, but now intractably un-funded.

Step one: convert all public pensions where legally possible to defined-contribution plans. Calif public workers need to participate in Social Security and Medicare for their basic retirement needs. Anything else they want for their own retirement is self-funded, during their working years.

Step Two: we need to pay present public worker well, but with present dollars only: not with future promises or future payouts.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Go off topic muchFoo? Oh yeah you do. Forgot, rarely read you nowadays but doing so is kinda like watching an autowreck.
The gang injunction is just another step in the increased militarization of local police departments across the country. Is State St. next to be declared a "Green Zone"?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By 2014, the US did become socialist. So what's a few years among friends?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 1:44 p.m

Am I your friend Foofigher? Can I be UR frend? Do you love ME? Do you luff MMEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's especially hilarious is Francisco has such little self respect that his idea of protest is being a fanboy for DeMint. You'd think one would at least choose someone who actually wrote their own book instead of a ghost written piece of pulp fiction.
Perhaps he was only admiring the photographs.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is so much wrong with foo's long screed, I don't know where to begin. I think he must listen to Rush every day.

Btw, Obamacare is a mix of capitalism and socialism. I have not noticed any health insurance companies going away. It includes free market principles in the exchanges, where prices should be controlled by competition. The expansion of Medicaid is socialist. However, the governor of Kentucky had outside businesses look at Obamacare, and they told him that he would be stupid not to participate because there would be tremendous economic benefits.

Social Security is a social program, which makes the tea party signs "Keep government's hands off my Social Security and Medicare" about as intelligent as foo's comments.

As for socialist societies, most of the Nordic/Scandinavian countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism, that works very well. In fact the government of Norway has done extremely well in spending, investing and saving money. Such that every citizen is a millionaire on paper. Bill Gates is even urging them to use some of their wealth to help poorer countries in Africa.

"Norwegians become crown millionaires as sovereign wealth fund hits benchmark
Updated Fri 10 Jan 2014, 12:00am AEDT

Everyone in Norway became a theoretical millionaire on Wednesday, in a milestone for the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund.

Top ten socialist countries in the world today:
New Zealand

I think Norway has done better than the US, without hurting its citizens, like the US does.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps we can learn something.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LMAO!!! Any of you azzclowns who are against the gang injunction attend the meeting?? That's what I thought, you hit and hide behind a keyboard terrorists make me laugh.

Like I said in my earlier post, the same "minority" here on these blogs are the same "minority" who continually voice ignorant theories, propaganda, conspiracies, march with signs, scream obscenities, have no evidence to prove there point, grab any lawyer who wants his 15 minutes of shame, and when it's all over return to their rat holes until the next news at 6 issue comes up.

To the idiot who asked me where I live, here in SB county.

To loonpt, the next time you are the victim of a crime don't call law enforcement, don't complain when they arrive late, don't complain when they don't stop speeders on your street, don't complain when gangsters shoot up the neighborhood, don't complain when the young girl next door gets raped, don't complain when the homeless set up camp in your yard.

loonpt, your a pathetic waste of sperm who constantly complains about everything. You have zero answers on how to fix anything but have all the answers on how to fix nothing.

But keep it up, I enjoy the Sunday comics you display on a daily basis…….

Now I must go to work and be a productive citizen not worrying about being targeted by rogue cops for doing nothing.

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha, you need to get out more than just publish someone else's partisan party line arguments.

The "successful socialism" countries you cite are essentially non-diverse monocultures with historically strong work ethics. Those qualifies no longer apply to the US which is why socialism, or more accurately fabian socialism here in the US has failed.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@priceless- Yah, the police would never abuse their power after all, even with all the power we give them already, they would never abuse that power:
I have a better idea, since you and others here are in agreeance of giving the police unlimited, unchecked powers, why don't you move to a gated community protected by police (jail) and have fun in Utopia.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Getting back to the original topic, let it be said that proponents of the gang injunction are often too intimidated by the presence of gang members, their girlfriends, parents, boyfriends, and fans who benefit from Gangs, Inc., to attend public meetings, much less to speak up. They don't want to be targeted personally; they already feel threatened. Sometimes they're kin. And the danger is real. It takes a lot of courage - sometimes foolhardiness - to risk family and property, even life, by standing up openly against gangsters whose tactics of choice are payback, revenge, and retribution. The cops can offer them little protection, and the consequences the legal system provides are insignificant to the repeat bad guys, usually earning them status and peer respect rather than triggering guilt or reconsideration, much less empathy for victims. They're willing to do some jail time, wear a bracelet, play the probationer game, or wait out a protracted court process somebody else pays for anyway to avoid the shame of looking weak.

The injunction deprives named persons - named because of prior activities, not whimsy - from participating in further gang-oriented behavior. No shame in obeying it because it's enforced, not weakness. If they're out of the life and clean, then the restrictions with all the built-in exceptions give them a fresh chance to stay out. It's a means to break the cross-generational loop. Those who want to perpetuate the gang cycle will hate it, of course. But former gang members no longer involved should be glad to see their families safer, their kids facing less temptation, and their community not run by murderous cold-blooded mafiosi and malevolent thugs sending orders from behind porous state prison bars. Agreed that we're in a bad place even to need this, but the rights of criminals can't exceed those of victims, and citizens desiring to live peacefully within the law can't surrender to packs of animals who don't.

anemonefish (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gangs provide a perverted male rite of passage for small, confused and hormonally driven group of young men and their lady auxiliaries in our local society.

Yet the impact of their crime, violence and teen pregnancies which are signatures of this perverse rite of male passage negatively affects us all.

Zero tolerance for this perverse male rite of passage ritual, because that is all that it is and it teaches the worst possible values to young adults.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How much tolerance should we have for corruption and injustice in our "justice" system? Giving too much power to any group of individuals, including the police, also has its drawbacks, and while you might think that gang activity is bad, what do you think about the crime that is being committed by those that are supposed to keep the peace and make the rules in our society? I know what to expect from young street punks, but not from crooked police or politicians.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are you trying to intentionally muddy the issues, AZ2SB?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, you're the last person to be accusing people of posting "partisan line" arguments when yiou are in fact being paid to do so on this site yourself!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter - US workers are known as the hardest working in the world. And in the last 3 decades their productivity has increased, while their wages have stagnated. That is because the so-called capitalist trickle-down economics that was supposed to create jobs, did not. And emphatically not. Check out the graph here, which is repeated all over the web, so it is not hard to miss if you google US productivity.
So fail on work-ethic argument - number 1

Secondly, note this quote from Norway.
"Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere.
Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic.
It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work.
"One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working," Mr Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent."
So fail on work-ethic argument - number 2

Thirdly, note the social security net - people do not have to pay into it to get benefits.
"The social security net is central to the Nordic welfare model. It is rooted in the basic principle of universal rights, i.e. everybody has the individual right to assistance from the public sector if they are unable to look after themselves. As a point of departure, these rights are the same for all, regardless of factors such as income and assets. One crucial way in which the Nordic system differs from other welfare models is that rights are not acquired on the basis of previous payments (e.g. national insurance payments) or status (e.g. employment). Welfare is funded collectively via taxation, and the individuals’ rights are not linked to their tax history."

"Another central objective for the social security net is that public-sector support is designed to facilitate the maintenance of a reasonable and decent standard of living. As a result, the basic level of Nordic social benefits is high compared with other countries."
So fail on work-ethic argument - number 3

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong, that is the issue foo, that more powers are being given to a police department that has shown incompetence using existing laws, and has shown ignorance in preventing crimes. Why continue to fund programs that don't diffuse this gang trend, but encourage filling prisons.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Capitalism allows workers to go into business for themselves. Choosing to be only workers for someone else comes with its built in downsides and upsides.

Important thing about America - still The Land of Opportunity- is the worker has a choice to be his/her own boss or choose to be an employee on someone else's terms.

Ironically, those still teaching us this is the America Dream are illegal immigrants who have managed to be entrepreneurial and achieve success in one generation sending their kids to college, owning a home and running their own business.

They came to America, saw a need and responded with hard work and keen skills, often self-taught. Too many Americans already here wait for someone to "give" them a job; rather than create one for themselves because they can offer what other people value and are willing to pay for.

If all you settle for is being someone else's employee; please play by their rules. Or else leave and try not to think about burning his house down on your way out the door in petty resentment. Build your own instead.

No one owes you a living.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

noread, trollfoo.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the threat of prison does not discourage gang criminal activity, they deserve to be in prison.

There is no reason we have to pay anyone anything to "diffuse" gang membership. That is their choice to make if they want to stare prison in the face because of that choice.

Gang injunctions offer the best intermediate point between making the decision to join a gang and going to prison. Cheap and effective.

Gives the gang bangers two choices: (1) drop out of the gang or (2) end up in prison because a gang exists only to commit criminal acts.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing is cheap or effective about California Department of Corrections.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Average Calif prison cost per year is $46,000 for 365 days of 24 hour care.

Only $126 a day per prisoner for room, board, medical, legal, recreation and entertainment. Sounds cheap to me. They can steal far more than that from us a single day, if they were left on the outside.

Keep them locked up. It was their choice to be there. I have no further use for them.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 11, 2014 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV writes, "Foo, you're the last person to be accusing people of posting 'partisan line' arguments when you are in fact being paid to do so on this site yourself!" -- if true, foo's a TROLL. Let's try to get him kicked off these threads; he's boring, too, and so repetitive!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Getting my morning funnies out of the way. LMAO at the absolute idiots who post on things they have no idea about what they post.

To all who "Blame" law enforcement get off your high horses. IF we didn't have POLICE what would we have today?? The life of leisure?? Brutality this brutality that give me a break. There are thugs in EVERY job in the world. Bad apples will infect every profession. Thats life. But to you idiots who blame an entire profession because YOU believe in fairy tales that because people get employed in LE that they are somehow super human shows your ignorance.

When thugs (in any profession) are pointed out FIRE, ARREST, OR SUE THE HELL OUT OF THEM!!!

Most in law enforcement are professional decent people. Get off there backs. The only "TROLLS" are the cowards expressing hate and ignorance while hiding behind their keyboards typing away anonymously…..

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@foofighter: "Average Calif prison cost per year is $46,000 for 365 days of 24 hour care. Only $126 a day per prisoner for room, board, medical, legal, recreation and entertainment. Sounds cheap to me."

Please stay as far away from any budgetary decisions as you can, as you clearly have no concept as to the value of a dollar.

So let me see if I understand this... you hate that we pay public school teachers an average salary of $67k a year, but you have no problem throwing $46k out the window to keep people incarcerated. FYI - the average salary in CA is $52k with the 5th highest Cost of Living, so what you're essentially advocating for is a system in which there's a better standard of living for some people IN PRISON than there is outside of it. Jeez, and I wonder why we have a 'gang problem'? (We don't, but whatever...)

Incidentally, CA spends almost double on prisons ($9.6 billion) than it does on higher education ($5.7 billion). You think maybe part of the problem is that we put incarceration ahead of education? (That was rhetorical... I know you don't think at all...)

I now look forward to six or seven long-winded and rambling responses in a row from you (foofighter) in which you completely miss the point, ignoring all evidence that is disproves to your argument so you can make some nonsensical statements that are entirely irreverent to the topic at hand.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glad you are engaging in the public debate, ETR.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Locking them up and throwing the key away is just not working anymore, do you feel any safer with "Three strike laws" and Street Terrorism laws on the books? They have been used since the '90's and we still haven't seen a turn in the statistics. While I don't have a straight answer to this problem WE ARE ALL experiencing, I do know what doesn't work. Too many people are going to jail for less, and some people are profiting from continuing the mass incarceration of people who could have a valid function in our society.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry you never engage in "debate", foo, but simply splash the same inane, ignorant, redundant, repetitive blarney: who is paying you? fess up, now!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Such a surprisingly mercenary attitude coming from you, DD. People only do things because they are paid? That explains your approach to life; far more than mine.

And why you persist in the shakedown for more money for "education"; or else don't expect any reform or results. Makes sense if this is where you are coming from: people are nothing better than trained seals, who perform only for more kippers.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it's foo, actually composing! Public education here fights "one of the world's most rigidly stratified industrial democracies" (USA: read Robt. Frank's column in NYT today), and most education attainment hooks to affluence/where you live. If it's 93108 your kid will learn plenty and well; if it's 93101 at Harding or McKinley, achievement falls fantastidally. Public school funding is still below 2007-08 levels (pre Great Recession) for public education, fool! so there is NO FRIGGIN SHAKEDOWN FOR MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION, dolt! The effort is to at minimum restore public school funding to 2007-08 levels. YOU bring up the education deal, because those in the top 5% or so can afford great private schools like Marymount and Middle School, Laguna Blanca and Crane Schools... and you, foo, want to cut monies to the public schools. I attended public schools in Calif 5th - 12th, and for multiple college degrees, and what was once a great school system can come back. But guys you you, foo, have no heart for this and bring up your lies and canards.
Furthermore, I have expressed specific ideas for education reforms in various media, I am vs. Common Core BS, it's just that the schools do need a Prop 31.
So now who is the trained seal, dude, you who echo your wealthy masters' outlook for gutting public education, or me who, a practicing teacher who knows what works...? And money does NOT solve all, but it is sine qua non for better education in Calif., along with specific reforms like cutting class sizes, improving teacher pay, hacking the deadwood, finding great young talent for teaching, modest pension reform.
But hey, thanks for crawling out from under for once.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

who is paying, you, foo, you avoided the answer! oh, and "rhetorical" can be a word device or exaggeration, as in the play between "education/-/incarceration" which ETR cleverly coined...oh, you wouldn't understand, too busy capturing and pasting.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I learned more my own year of public HS than I did my three years at a private Catholic HS. Interstingly, my history teacher for 3 years at the Catholic school is the brother to a local high profile TV journalist and he was dumber than a chicken. I could've taught the class.
Pretty sad when a 13yo has to explain who Marie Antoinette was to their HS history teacher.
RE: Foo. My guess would be donors to the GOP party are the paymasters, albeit unwittingly.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*one year... !

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gee, priceless, YOU'RE typing away anonymously, but sure, it's you so that must be OK, OK?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Setting the high water mark for Prop 98 education funding based upon the the pre-2008 real estate bubble, only proves someone needs to go back to school for Basic Budgeting and Fiscal Common Sense: Theory and Practice 101.

Education funding was not cut: it was given a reality check.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Attention taxpayers: schools will soon be flush with funds. Don't believe anyone who tells you they were "cut":

However, do the math to see how much money can go to schools presently when $4 billion a year extra is still needed to fund pensions for the teachers who no longer working.

All part of Prudent Budgeting 101: Theory and Practice

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gee, priceless, YOU'RE typing away anonymously, but sure, it's you so that must be OK, OK?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you DrDan, I HATE IT when people post under anonymous screen names.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DD sez he is a teacher, and he is for:

(1) specific reforms like cutting class sizes,

(2) improving teacher pay,

(3) hacking the deadwood,

(4) finding great young talent for teaching,

(5)modest pension reform.

And he is against Common Core.

Okay, you have my attention. Flesh out your wishes, what is stopping them and what are the specifics, instead of the generalities. Any data or studies to back up changes requested. Thnx.

Here is my take:

1. We tried class size cutting- this was a major program initiated by Supt of Ed Jack O"Connell. What happened?

2. Teachers are well-paid already for their 9 month year with benefits; but please name your price so you can finally stop talking about this issue.

3. What have Assemblyman Das Williams and the CTA done to "hack the deadwood" from the teaching profession?. How has Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson helped? This would take amending the Ed Code, which is their job.

4. If you don't hack the tenured deadwood and create openings, there is little place for "great young talent" to be brought into the system. I agree with you here.

5. BTW, If you don't improve CSU teacher training there will not be any new "great young talent" to draw from, unless we can snatch them from the Univ of Redlands.

6. Conversion from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution pensions is fundamental and necessary teacher pension reform. Agreement here too.

7. We are in agreement about Commie Core.

Isn't it nice we had this little talk?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Kung Fu Fighter".

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 2:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Monday morning funnies again!!

Alright, I'll say this one more time for the ignorant amongst us…

Those of you posting away on this thread have attacked and attacked and attacked Law Enforcement due to a very small percentage of idiots who have disgraced the rest of the men and women in LE. IT IS YOU THAT HAS DISGRACED, MALIGNED, INSULTED, ACCUSED, CONVICTED an entire profession because of a few bad apples.


You see, as I see it, YOU are no better than those bad apples. A few idiots spouting off on topics YOU yourself have no clue in makes you an idiot. Your spouting "opinions" not facts. And yes PLEASE stop posting articles unless you can show that the writer themselves don't have "AGENDA'S"…..

To those who accuse me of being "anonymous" and bashing others, that's hilarious. Have you looked at your OWN screen name?? I'm bashing single posters that have no clue. NOT entire groups or professions. There is a HUGE difference……

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ooops, I F'ed up,

One last thought, Nobody, I mean nobody on this entire thread has stated what a "Gang injunction" actually is or means.

A "Gang injunction" targets "KNOWN GANG MEMBERS" not regular law abiding citizens. I'm pretty sure LE has strict guidelines from the courts on how one is placed on a known "Gang" list. IF law abiding citizens happen to be with "KNOWN" gang members then yes they MAY be questioned. And PLEASE don't tell me that these "Law abiding" citizens do not known who they are talking too.

Profiling actually works quite well. I would be willing to bet that each poster on this thread could spot a "Gangbanger" from across the street without ever talking to that individual. Just an educated guess……...

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Priceless- Have you read what the Gang Injunction is going to do? It doesn't seem like it if you think there are strict guidelines which govern the police on who gets into the list. Contrary to what you think, any police officer will be able to add any person to the gang injunction with nothing more than saying that a person is a gang member. No proof, no need for further consultation, and the person has no recourse to get off the list. If law enforcement is going to spend that much time to put someone on a list that could only get them a misdemeanor conviction, then what is the point? I doubt anyone here is worried about misdemeanors as much as the serious felonies being committed, which this GI will not prevent.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From Priceless:

"To loonpt, the next time you are the victim of a crime don't call law enforcement"

That is excellent advice!!

I've lived in SB County for almost 14 years and have yet to have any crime committed against me. I'm really not that worried about it. I'm more worried about being the victim of an officer kidnapping and detainment for a non-crime like possessing cannabis or using a camp stove in the woods in a non-designated area without a permit.

"Don't complain when they arrive late"

...and shoot my dogs?

"Don't complain when they don't stop speeders on your street"

I don't really care about speeders on my street (and there are plenty)

"Don't complain when gangsters shoot up the neighborhood"

Really? When was the last time gansters "shot up" any neighborhood in SB??

"Don't complain when the young girl next door gets raped"

How does a police officer eating donuts in their patrol car stop a young woman from getting raped in her house?

What about the handcuffed woman who fell out of a moving police car while being sexually assaulted by an officer?

"Don't complain when the homeless set up camp in your yard."

Honestly if they were cool I'd probably loan them my bongo drum, if not I think they would be chased off by the dogs.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow two SB Questionnaires in one day! Bonanza!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another gem for all the cop lovers out there because I know you like these stories so much.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)


blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Father Says Son’s 180 Day Suspension Went Too Far

(Collierville, TN) A Houston High father is furious his son was suspended from the Shelby County School.

According to the paperwork, it’s because he was in a gang.

The father told us his tenth grader and some friends had a clique and called themselves “NMG,” which stands for “New Money Group.”

The father, who we’re not identifying to protect the children involved, said it’s just a few kids and all they did was hang out and go to the movies.

But they named the group and tried to get another to join.

The school gave his son a “long-term suspension” of 180 days."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

for a second there, i wasted time looking for relevance loon.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Relevance: The article was an example of the state being given the power and authority to restrict personal associations (which the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees the freedom of) and *gasp* they take it too far. Kids who aren't criminals are treated like criminals because they hang out in a group and name their group. No proof of criminal activity. THEIR STATUTES ALSO REQUIRED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AS DOES OURS. Yet here there was no criminal activity, and their freedoms were still violated.

Being under 30 and walking down the street with more than one person will garner more attention than it once did especially if you have brown skin, but it is not a requirement. It is an unnecessary restriction on our freedom to associate with other individuals. It is an excuse for police to ask for "Papers, please" if you are walking around in a group. It is an infringement on ALL of our personal freedoms, period. If you like the gang injunction so much maybe you should invent a time machine and move to Germany in the early 1940s, you would get along very well there.

First they came for the Juggalos...and I did not speak out- because I was not a Juggalo

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You want another nightmare Orwellian scenario?

Most of the people who support the the gang injunction do not agree with the conclusions of Al Gore on climate change. I don't support the gang injunction, but I can agree with you on climate change.

Let's pretend we all form a group in Santa Barbara and we get together and share information on climate change news and data. Let's say that we convince even more people to join and begin to become a political force for change.

One day two new people join our group, Bob and Tony. Say Hi! to Bob and Tony everyone!

What you don't know is that Bob and Tony are FBI agents being funded by one of Al Gore's foundations. Bob and Tony find someone in the group who has a screw loose, her name is Louise. Bob and Tony convince Louise to help them commit a crime in the name of Climate Change truth. They give her all the weapons and materials she needs and they set her up to commit a crime she never would have been able to even imagine doing on her own. Fortunately Bob and Tony bring in the SWAT team at the last minute, the bomb they used had fake explosive powder and Louise is arrested.

Now Climate Change Truth is not just listed as a gang, but a terrorist organization. Anybody who associates with the group is now a criminal. Even TALKING about Climate Change truth gets whispers and stares from the general public and maybe even a phone call to the authorities.

All this because "we've got to do something about those damn gang members, there ought to be a law against them!"

This entire notion that "there ought to be a law!" for every little pet peeve of yours rather than simply outlawing criminal activity is the whole entire problem with society today. It was your damn PARENTS who didn't like 'drug users' and thought, 'gee, there ought to be a law!' that caused the drug war to begin with. In fact, gangs operate solely as drug dealers, so these gangs wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the war on drugs. Thanks a lot!

The unintended consequences of your authoritarian encroachment on every little thing is what the people in power use to exercise their petty power over other human beings, which often excites them sexually.


loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt, you have my word if our SB gang injunction ever lapses into your example from this alleged Tennessee injunction, I will be at the head of the protest lines down at SB police headquarters.

However, the SB gang ordinance has no relationship whatsoever to what you just claimed. Cancel your race-baiting lynching mob, loonpt.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey loony, the basis of my screen name has EVERYTHING to do with your posts: BLAH BLAH, MORE BLAH!
There's a lonely conspiracy expert at the McDonalds on Fairview in Goleta waiting for the messiah.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foo no doubt many of you folks have incredible fantasies about how your tyrannical little laws will improve the quality of life in SB.

People had the same thoughts when the war on drugs was being ramped up in previous decades. They were willing to forgo the basic civil rights of drug users and dealers in order to rid society of this 'horrible scourge'. Yet today we have more drug use than ever, there are gangs everywhere and we have 50,000 SWAT police raids EVERY YEAR in this country!! 50,000!! Screw drug warriors, they have no credibility left and everybody knows it.

Many of these raids are mistakes or get botched and either end or ruin innocent people's lives not to mention ending the lives of countless family pets.

Tyranny is never the answer. Bring back freedom. The drug laws are the reason the gangs exist, we don't need more tyranny.

You can apply the same principles to economics. The government has such a huge economic stranglehold over so many things including health care, why do we want government to provide the solutions to our problems when THEY ARE THE PROBLEM?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey loonpt,

How about that "known" gang member who was out on bail from the night before then set his vehicle on fire and wanted to die by suicide by cop in SB today??

Oh yes looney, you are the go to person with all the answers to our problems. No thanks, I'll keep my AR-15's and protect myself from idiots like you who live in dreamland. When the sh!itz hit the fans don't come a knock'in…..

Priceless (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would you need to protect yourself from me? I am more pro-gun rights than you are and I respect private property rights.

Here, check this out, this one is really cute..

Retired police captain shoots a father texting his 3 year old daughter in a movie theater:

Look, gang members exist because of the war on drugs. The war on drugs is propagated by the enforcement class (officers, state attorneys, prisons). The non-violent law abiding citizens, and especially the peaceful non-violent illicit drug users have a lot more to fear from the enforcement class because either directly or because they are responsible for gang activity by continuing to enforce the war on drugs. Either way, the problem stems from the enforcement class and until you recognize that you are never going to solve the problem of gang violence. Ever. You are the one living in fantasyland.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The cops who killed Kelly Thomas walked today. Beat him to death in Fullerton and got acquited: Increadible.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, but what about alcohol.

Pot smokers smoke to intentionally get high. Drinkers drink to have a beverage, and not necessarily to get wasted like pot smokers get with one toke.

Smoking one pot cigarette is equal to one person drinking and entire bottle of wine. So yeah, what about alcohol.

So we now have another reason punks join gangs:

1. Poverty
2. Inadequate role models
3. Racist society
4. Bordem
5. Drug trade
6. Peer pressure
7. Male rite of passage
8. Absentee fathers


9. Personal choice
10. No counter-message declaring gangs are not allowed here

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, some people take a hit off a joint and no more, but either way, whether you drink or smoke pot, you're self-medicating, and I've had four family members hit by drunk drivers, and none by people under the influnce of pot, although I wouldn't recommend driving while under the influence of pot.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bill you have no idea I have just been itching to bring up the police beating of Kelly Thomas as you can imagine..thanks for getting the ball rolling.

Did you know that the jury foreman in the case was a former employee at the DA's office??

Talk about the Just-Us system.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There's a drug dealer sitting on the City Council, since we all agree alcohol is a drug.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't know that Loonpt. I'm just astounded at how those cops got off the hook. I did hear Thomas's dad (himself a former cop) say that they will pursue civil rights charges--a la what brought down O.J. Simpson but I sure hope the Kelly Thomas case gets international attention.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Police brutality!!! seriously? come on so these guys are not afraid to get jumped, stabbed or even killed by other gangmembers, but when they get a little slapped by a cop they start crying about brutality, you are lucky you didnt grew up in a 3rd world country where you want to be a thug, gangmember or what ever you call it, you really get beating by the cops when they get you and if you complain you get it even worse, i grew up in a place like that in mexico, if these guys cry about a little beating or slap then they aint no gangmembers they just want attention (cry babies). there arent no gangmembers in santa barbara or the surrounding areas, at least that i seen, just boys and grown men wanting attention. my spelling aint perfect but i think you all got my point.

THECISCOKID (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 2:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm depressed. For months I've been posting bizarre posts in an attempt to make people laugh, but clearly I am no match for Foofighter. I think I may retire this account, and become an accountant, since accountants (apparently like myself) have NO sense of humor.

You win Foo, I can't hold a candle to you, but in this last-ditch effort, I leave with my tribute to THE CISCO KID.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What kind of City Councilman would openly READ A BOOK for long periods when Santa Barbara citizens speak about a topic like Dale Francisco did during this session?! He should be recalled for lack of respect for his constituents.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony: "Look, gang members exist because of the war on drugs."

Dude, get off it, that tirade is as old as flatulence dust! Want to know a little known secret that really isn't a secret? GANG SCUM DIDN'T JOIN GANGS BECAUSE OF DRUGS!
To gang scum drugs are a party favor, something to do between assaults, thievery, murder, you know, wholesome gang activities that the whole family can participate in.
Your "war on drugs" excuse is as lame as the "reality" you live in. Gangs were around LONG before the war on drugs. Even going back to Wyatt Earp & the shootout at the OK Corral, that was a gang of assaulting, thieving, murdering cowboys and guess what? IT WASN'T FOR DRUGS!
These vermin join gangs for a rush, a thrill, they're malcreants who want their way and that's all there is to it.
Sure, they sling dope, but that's just a hobby, maybe a part time job for a little pocket cash. Their main activities are assault, thievery, murder, terrorizing neighborhoods, you know, criminal activity.
Loony, get real, the world EVERYBODY lives in doesn't revolve on drug based conspiracies, that's an extracurricular activity. Really, you're wasting oxygen, get a clue.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks blahblah, you are actually bringing up some good thoughtful talking points for me to prove you wrong with.

First of all, let us examine the mythical "wild, wild west" brought to us by Hollywood.

From page 10 of "Not So Wild, Wild West", we read:

"The West during this time often is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved. These agencies did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order". They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."

As far as your argument that gangs don't exist because of the war on drugs, that argument just doesn't have any legs to stand on at all. The #1 purpose of the gang is to control territory to distribute drugs. Drugs are highly profitable and really the sole source of income for gangs. Gangs would not have any profitable incentive to exist if they merely stole property from people as the costs are just too high. Nobody wants property stolen from them and they can legally defend their property with violence. People don't invite property thieves into their home. A lot of people want drugs and they invite drug dealers into their home and therefor there is very little chance of them being caught. No, drug dealing is much more profitable and much less dangerous than property theft. Property theft is a side dish for bored gang members.

If other gangs deal drugs in their territory, violence ensues. That is the whole purpose of gangs and territory. The crimes that gangs commit are almost always drug related. To argue against the fact that the main purpose of gangs is to distribute drugs is not just misinformed it is borderline insane, to be honest.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So you're going to use a 3rd rate biased "historian'" take on what happened? You're going to deny that the cowboys were NOT a gang? Sorry loon boy, my knowledge on the Earp/Holliday history is just as extensive as this clown's and no, it was acquired without the use of Hollywood because after all, Hollywood specializes in what you do: FANTASY.

But back to reality (once again). No, the #1 purpose for a gang is the feel self-important, be bad, terrorize people and profit through ill-gotten gains from stealing, assaulting and harrassing innocent people. The drug dealing is a hobby that produces some spending cash.
Talk about misinformed! Dude, you've been living a conspiracy laden life that has kept you sequestered from reality. Sorry Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling. But problems do exist and your approach is absolutely useless.
If you actually accepted reality (that gang members are just douches looking for trouble) then you might catch up to the modern times.
Bottom line w/ you loony is all these supposed smarts you possess, but you're relegated to posting what amounts to a copy and paste existence and a reliance on other conspiracy laden loonies who have influenced your existence on a post site.
Live the real world, you'll see why you're the sole obstructive voice and no, it isn't because you're "smart" in any way.
Bottom line: Gangs are right there at the bottom of the slime bucket. their only use in REAL society is to show people what NOT to be like and NO, the drugs aren't the reason scumbuckets become gang members, it is self-importance, attitude and entitlement, all amounting to POWER.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll second that, blahblah:

"….. the #1 purpose for a gang is the feel self-important, be bad, terrorize people and profit through ill-gotten gains from stealing, assaulting and harrassing innocent people."…….

Any other secondary purposes claimed for gangs has long been well-met by multiple activities, role models and institutions that already exist in this town.

This old saying is the perfect rejoinder to anyone claiming there is nothing to do in this town:

…….. If you are bored, then you are boring………..

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

4th rate historian, Terry Anderson, from 1977, Montana State U. by way of the Hoover can do a little better than this, loon, c'mon. Try Kevin Starr, Calif. and the American Dream...try to get out of the 1950s, eh?

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok you two keep living in your fantasy land.
Drugs and Gangs
Fast Facts

Street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs), and prison gangs are the primary distributors of illegal drugs on the streets of the United States. Gangs also smuggle drugs into the United States and produce and transport drugs within the country.

Street gang members convert powdered cocaine into crack cocaine and produce most of the PCP available in the United States. Gangs, primarily OMGs, also produce marijuana and methamphetamine. In addition, gangs increasingly are involved in smuggling large quantities of cocaine and marijuana and lesser quantities of heroin, methamphetamine, and MDMA (also known as ecstasy) into the United States from foreign sources of supply. Gangs primarily transport and distribute powdered cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, MDMA, and PCP in the United States.

Located throughout the country, street gangs vary in size, composition, and structure. Large, nationally affiliated street gangs pose the greatest threat because they smuggle, produce, transport, and distribute large quantities of illicit drugs throughout the country and are extremely violent. Local street gangs in rural, suburban, and urban areas pose a low but growing threat. Local street gangs transport and distribute drugs within very specific areas. These gangs often imitate the larger, more powerful national gangs in order to gain respect from rivals.

Some gangs collect millions of dollars per month selling illegal drugs, trafficking weapons, operating prostitution rings, and selling stolen property. Gangs launder proceeds by investing in real estate, recording studios, motorcycle shops, and construction companies. They also operate various cash-based businesses, such as barbershops, music stores, restaurants, catering services, tattoo parlors, and strip clubs, in order to commingle drug proceeds with funds generated through legitimate commerce.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2014 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony: "Ok you two keep living in your fantasy land."

Alright, as long as you stay in your's! Worry on Chicken Little, they're out to get you!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 15, 2014 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: