WEATHER »

ACLU Opposes Gang Injunction

Says It Would Restrict Constitutionally Protected Behavior


Thursday, January 30, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Weighing in against Santa Barbara’s proposed gang injunction, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has filed legal papers against City Hall’s efforts to get a preliminary action passed in the next two months. ACLU attorney Peter Bibring objected that the proposed injunction would restrict otherwise constitutionally protected behavior ​— ​“lawful loitering” among other things ​— ​of alleged gang members throughout 27 percent of the city. Bibring contended that no “clear and convincing evidence” has been presented to justify this restriction on civil liberties. Injunctions in other cities throughout California, he pointed out, were restricted to much smaller geographical areas. In one city, he said, it was four square blocks.

For those 30 individuals named in the proposed injunction, he stated, the “safety zones” articulated by City Hall include their homes, the homes of their friends and relatives, their schools, places of employment, restaurants they patronize, and “nearly every place they conduct their daily lives.” Many of the city parks declared off-limits to those named, Bibering asserted, have a limited to nonexistent record of gang-related crime and activity. In addition, he argued that the proposed injunction would allow city police to arrest any gang members with whom the named individuals associate. This, he argued, constituted a violation of due process because those prospective arrestees will not be given an opportunity to defend themselves prior to their arrest.

City Attorney Sarah Knecht did not respond to the specifics of the ACLU motion but said she was opposing its admittance on the grounds that it was premature. Typically, she said, such arguments are entertained only during the appeals process of a case. The gang injunction next goes before Judge Colleen Sterne on February 10, but it remains uncertain when the merits of the case will actually be argued. Attorneys for the prosecution say they’re ready, willing, and able to make their case at a hearing scheduled for March 14. But some attorneys for the defense contend they have yet to be given all the documentary evidence needed to evaluate the claims against their clients and are pushing to schedule the hearing at a later date. The gang injunction was first proposed more than three years ago.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Of course the ACLU would oppose it, it is what they do. But can they contest it? Nope, not really. I have to question the ACLU's intent on protecting thugs. Enough of rewarding bad behavior, punish these gang scum NOW!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, a truly groundbreaking news flash. The ACLU validating itself by protecting criminals with rap sheets the size of Cleveland. Once again brings us back to the thought: If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear?

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, the first two commenters obviously didn't even read the article. The article explains that the gang injuction prevents those given the label of gang members from engaging in lawful activity. It goes a lot further and prevents them from engaging in far more lawful activity than any other gang injunction in California to the point where it is completely unreasonable. Read what they aren't allowed to do, it has nothing to do with committing crimes at all.

Also, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument is a psychopathically driven authoritarian argument that is historically completely laughable.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/...

Some gang members engage solely in non-violent behavior like selling drugs and while this is illegal they should not be considered criminals for engaging in non-violent consensual activities. So you could be restricting the rights of innocent non-violent individuals. That is not currently illegal unfortunately, but it is immoral and some day those who support it could potentially be held accountable by the citizenry for engaging in restricting the rights of innocent non-violent individuals.

Bottom line is this city is going to get the crap sued out of it if they continue with this, and rightly so. I would not hesitate donating to the legal fund that sues them.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good points, loonpt.

The crimes of tyranny against yellow and brown people come home and ooze down from federal to local.

Have most people even noticed that the USA federal government does not even pretend to be acting legally anymore when it uses a flying killer robot to murder a brown person (and anyone else within 100 yards) on the other side of the planet?

Formerly it claimed it was killing a "militant"; now it typically claims a "suspected militant"; i.e. a male standing outside a mud hut 7000 miles away who happens to be carrying a rifle, as most males do in that part of the world.

This article is about the local version of such racism and breakdown of the rule of law.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a break down of the entire system - civil and legal, accelerated by BS like The "Patriot" Act. Can't blame Al Qaeda for our elected leaders using fear to govern.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ACLU does not run this town and the sooner we hire a new city attorney who gets this message across, the better.

Time to end the incestuous relationship with certain city council members, Democratic Central Committee and the ACLU because together they have destroyed any sense of municipal autonomy in this town.

Take any more ACLU incursions into our city government to the mat, and don't negotiate our future away like you have done in the past on the vagrant issues.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions have been validated by the Calif Supreme Court. Color within the lines and everything will be fine. The sooner it is in place, the better.

Yes, there are consequences to gang members and those who continue to associate with them. That is the whole point. Repudiate the gang and everyone can get on with their lives - small price to pay. The life you save with a gang injunction, will be a gang member himself.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, the comment by the loony one smacks of the typical "I'm better than you because I have an internet link that tells me so" crapola that it usually reeks of.
ACLU opposes the gang injunction because it supposedly "restricts Constitutionally protected behavior"? Wow, if that don't say it all. Don't need an internet link to tell me that's bullenshysa.
So what about the Constitutionally protected behavior of the people these vermin terrorize every day? Oh, sorry, I forgot. They're the reason gangs exist, therefore gangs are the true victims here. Just gets deeper don't it?!
Patriot Act? Racism? Give us a break you silly apologists! This is about CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BY A FEW INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF RACE!
Of course, you sillies will keep playing that race card as long as you can because it is ALL you have and even that is nowhere near valid.
Time to start punishing bad behavior and it starts with the gang injunction being put in place. Apologists, spare us your whining.

By the way:
Loony: "Some gang members engage solely in non-violent behavior like selling drugs and while this is illegal they should not be considered criminals for engaging in non-violent consensual activities. "

Well, coming from same the guy who said the reason Mr. Morua left the scene of the hit and run where he murdered Mallory Dies was because "he saw that she was being attended to by other pedestrians" what else can you expect? Excuses, excuses, more excuses. Oh, and lies too.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, how do you justify the restrictions on clothing included in the injunction? I can name a few injunction supporters who are definitely guilty of "fashion crimes".

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, my poor, naive, idealistic, bleeding heart Ken. Wow, you're going to harp about fashion restrictions on gang scum, yet those you defend here commit crimes against people because they don't wear the same color as them?
Sorry kiddo, the fashionista approach won't work either. Gang injunction now, punish bad, scum-like behavior, Live it, learn it, love it.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for defending the Constitution, that means let the gang members assemble, wear their Raiders Nnation attire, or whatever. If they terrorize people, then those they terrorize have the right to exercise *their* constitutional rights (in this case, the 2nd Amendment) and draw their weapons, (and remember, there are many more non-gang members than gang members) and watch the would-be terrorizers say "oops, my bad, sorry, no hard feelings". I wonder however, if the A.C.L.U. interprets the Bill Of Rights literally, or consideres it a "living, breathing document"?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blahblahmoreblah wrote:
"…So what about the Constitutionally protected behavior of the people these vermin terrorize every day?…"

This statement displays a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what constitutions are and do.

Constitutions do *not* address criminal activities by non-government entities; rather, constitutions (1) define government structures and powers, and (2) list inalienable rights that *governments* cannot infringe upon (such as, for instance, via the proposed local injunction, among other draconian measures: exiling a brown person from his or her home, perhaps forever — for committing the same crime — or perhaps just sorta kinda looking like or acting like he or she might in the future commit it — that a white person can commit without being driven from his or her home forever).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)


It's a break down of the entire system - civil and legal, accelerated by BS like The "Patriot" Act. Can't blame Al Qaeda for our elected leaders using fear to govern.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 2:22 p.m

Al Queda ("and his orchestra"--as my dad used to say) is the best thing that ever happened to the anti-Constitution politicians of this country because they have used terrorism to justify their attacks on our freedoms.

I figure that anyone's odds of being killed by a terrorist in the U.S. is about 100,000-to-one. (3000 dead in the WTC attacks and a few others out of 300,000,000 isn't bad) Besides, we all know that the reason WTC happened is because mentally-challenged people ran the airports and let these guys on the planes.

Back to my original point about guns...
"An armed society is a polite society" as the saying goes. Switzerland is very polite, they stay out of wars, (especially the Middle East) and don't have a gang problem.

If the gang bangers knew that their intended victims had the means to fight back, they'd back down wihout a shot being fired. Of course that's a "Cowboy mentality" in the eyes of the utopianist leaders of our fair community, but I think it's better than chopping the Constitution to pieces.

We can't have it both ways.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gangs are a breakdown of the entire system. They are a treacherous epidemic afflicting our entire community which requires full quarantine, including anyone even remotely infected by them. There is no place in a healthy community for any vestige of a gang. Period.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo, it's not a "gangrene injunction", it's a "gang injunction".

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You talk about how gang members go around and "terrorize" our neighborhoods, but the fact is most gang members never terrorize anybody and the majority of gang members who terrorize anybody end up terrorizing other gang members. It's almost, but not quite, a consensual activity among gang members. I really don't see how it concerns any of you that much at all. I just see a bunch of whining by a bunch of people over a nearly non-existent issue in our community.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter wrote:
"Gangs are a breakdown of the entire system. They are a treacherous epidemic afflicting our entire community which requires full quarantine, including anyone even remotely infected by them... "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Particularly considering that the article to which this discussion is attached is about official acts, including pre-crime measures, that the City of Santa Barbara will likely be required to defend in numerous civil suits, the results of which hopefully won't bankrupt the city, this is the most nonsensical and hyperbolic comment I've ever read on this subject.

Most fundamentally, even assuming a legally-useful and constitutionally defendable definition (i.e. not just brown people) of "criminal gang" (I assume that's what foofighter actually means by "gangs," rather than an association of white people who playfully refer to themselves as a gang), a "gang injunction" targets individual persons, not a noun ("gang") that describes an association of people.

Therefore, considering that, would one to substitute "Brown people alleged to be members of criminal gangs" for "they," foofighter's second sentence becomes...

"Brown people alleged to be members of criminal gangs are a treacherous epidemic afflicting our entire community which requires full quarantine, including anyone even remotely infected by them."

...perhaps foofighter might enlighten us by elaborating on just two of his terms:

"full quarantine" (quarantine definition: "separate and restrict the movement of")

"anyone even remotely infected"

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neighbors in gang-infested areas are terrorized to go out. Just ask them if they can feel safe even responding. Read the very thoughtful articles by Sharon Bryne in the Sentinnel on this very issue - what it feels like to live in parts of our city where gangs control life on the streets.

They see their property degraded by gang graffiti and increasing crimes of property and person committed by those seeking gang membership.

Parents are terrorized their children will come under gang influence or gang compulsion. Teen pregnancy rates and solo parenthood for gang member "ladies" guarantees more lives trapped in permanent poverty. Society pays for that too.

The criminal justice system drains out millions of dollars every year for every gang-banger they have to haul before the courts for this ":consensual" crime" Each crimes sets up another wave of retributive violence, that never ends.

Gang warfare getting carried on State Street scares away retail shoppers which are the lifeblood of city tax revenues. Gang member ethics undermine achievement in our public schools, condemning far too many students to under-achievement and years of later remedial work when they finally outgrow the anti-intellectualism and anit-academic accomplishment values of gang culture.

Police personnel demands to provide public safety in our parks and on our streets had become an expensive burden that disproportionally robs the rest of city residents.

Gangs bleed the life out of our city in ways well beyond the blood they shed on our streets inflicting violence amongst themselves.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with every one of foofighter's statements and sentiments in the comment directly above, and I assume that comment is not intended as a response to mine immediately preceding it, as foofighter's comment above does nothing to address his or her earlier comment (within brackets [ ] is mine) :

"Gangs [i.e. "Brown people alleged to be members of criminal gangs"] are a breakdown of the entire system. They are a treacherous epidemic afflicting our entire community which requires full quarantine, including anyone even remotely infected by them... "

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2014 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ACLU has sentimental roots in Soviet Union. Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB, ACLU! Really, though, they bear watching. Rather selective are they in protecting freedoms. Judge injunction on own merits, but watch ACLU!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey loonpt, what gang was George Ied in?

lawdy (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 6:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John Tieber: "This statement displays a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what constitutions are and do.

Constitutions do *not* address criminal activities by non-government entities; rather, constitutions (1) define government structures and powers, and (2) list inalienable rights that *governments* cannot infringe upon (such as, for instance, via the proposed local injunction, among other draconian measures: exiling a brown person from his or her home, perhaps forever — for committing the same crime — or perhaps just sorta kinda looking like or acting like he or she might in the future commit it — that a white person can commit without being driven from his or her home forever)."

John, I always respect your points, but I am going to have to disagree on some points here. The call for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is first and foremost, a Constitutional guarantee for all Americans living under said Constitution that assures among 1 of the things, public safety. Gangs pose a threat to that simple premise.
As for government agents, be they police/sheriffs, G-men, T-men, NSA, CIA, whatever, we HOLD them to those Constitutional standards that prevent them from doing as you mention.
With that said, gangs are a terrorist type organization, they terrorize those living under said Constitution and therefore violate their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
But I see where your intention lies, its the race thing and again, I will stress: IT IS NOT ABOUT RACE, IT IS ABOUT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
This doesn't mean selling pot, we're talking assault, extortion, intimidation, rape, burglary, etc. Whites, just as Blacks, just as Asians are capable of being in gangs (which some choose to belong to) Hispanics/Latinos are capable of the same. What do they all have in common? CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
Did you know that there's a few "White" candidates that are slated to be put on the injunction when it proceeds? I know this for a fact, can't state my official ssources, but believe it or not, a couple off honkies are going to get hotlisted.
Remember when Serena & Venus Williams' cousin was gunned down in her car by the crips in L.A.? The triggerman was a WHITE member of the crips gang.
Still, I respect your points, you get down to the matter and while an opposing opinion, at least it is YOUR opinion shaped by your beliefs and I can sense a reality to it. No skewed/biased wikipedia or youtube links or opinion articles, straight from the hip and heart. I respect that.
I will stick to my view, these douchebags stifle innocent people's freedoms and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony: "You talk about how gang members go around and "terrorize" our neighborhoods, but the fact is most gang members never terrorize anybody and the majority of gang members who terrorize anybody end up terrorizing other gang members."

Lawdy: "Hey loonpt, what gang was George Ied in?"

HAHAHAHA! The loonding seems to forget his recent history, pot has a way of doing that. Not that there's anything wrong with it!

Lawdy, I'm going to see your question and raise you a query:

Hey loonpt, what set was that 50 year old woman that was sexually assaulted by the 2 gang scum on Milpas claiming?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The worst thing about the ACLU-PODER crowd playing the race card over the SB gang injunction, is turning this race-neutral, criminal activity issue into a racially-charged "brown" litmus test that demands everyone must fall in line against the gang injunction, or be declared racists themselves.

Call off the racist attack dogs, PODER and ACLU. Deal with the gang injunction for what it is on its face: a constitutionally sanctioned and successful law enforcement tool used to limit criminal activity in this town.

We can all stand behind that.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey loonpt, the guy at hendrys who was killed after a throat slash by a gangbanger.........what colors did he wear.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey lawdy, we're 3 for 3! I see you saw my see and met my raise, now I'm going call another see and make a raise: Remember that guy that got his face bashed in with a brick by the gang members while leaving a party? I wonder what gang he was rollin' with?
Yeah, those innocent victims were victims of the "war on drugs" which you just KNOW loony's going to go on about next.
Sorry loonyboy, it was a war on civilians by a terrorist mentality, also known as the thug life.

Foofighter: "The worst thing about the ACLU-PODER crowd playing the race card over the SB gang injunction, is turning this race-neutral, criminal activity issue into a racially-charged "brown" litmus test that demands everyone must fall in line against the gang injunction, or be declared racists themselves."

BAM! And there you have it. The cultural/ethnic apologists/excuse makers hard at work to make an issue where the issue doesn't apply! Heck man, if foo can see it...

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2014 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blahblahmoreblah, at January 31, 2014 at 10:05 a.m., wrote:

"The call for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is first and foremost, a Constitutional guarantee for all Americans living under said Constitution that assures among 1 of the things, public safety. Gangs pose a threat to that simple premise."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with your first sentence above, but maintain that your second is absolutely INCORRECT. Therefore my point remains:

"Constitutions do *not* address criminal activities by non-government entities; rather, constitutions...list inalienable rights that *governments* cannot infringe upon."

I.e. the claim that criminal gangs inhibit the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is NOT CORRECT — ONLY GOVERNMENTS can infringe on law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights.

This concept regarding gangs infringing on the constitution makes no more sense than claiming that a burglar stealing a firearm from a law-abiding citizen is infringing on that citizen's Second Amendment rights.

It's also somewhat similar to incorrect claims of illegal censorship directed at non-government entities; only governments can censor (in the legal sense).

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2014 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John, if you limit, inhibit or curtail an individual's "freedoms" regardless of being a civilian entity or government official, it IS a Constitutional violation.
If what you're saying is right, then I can start a business, say a restaurant, that will only serve, say, Whites only and tell other people to go somewhere else.
The reason I use that example is because in the south, during the Civil Rights movement, PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES (no, not government run) were threatened with federally backed legal action if they pursued their path at the time (segregation).
Segregation was viewed on a whole as a violation of guaranteed Constitutional freedoms and rights.
So with that said, your point is an opinion of how YOU see what the Constitution does and doesn't provide.
Now on to another view of my point, which I know IS correct, gangs are an entity similar to those segregationist entities of past.
Their attacks on innocent civilians is usually based on racial hatred of other ethnic groups. Attacking an individual based on race IS a racist act and racially based attacks ARE seen as a violation of a person's rights.
You're mixing the issues up to say that only government officials are the only ones that need to be adherent to the basis of the Constitution and are therefore ignorant of the civil implications of said Constitution.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"hey loonpt, the guy at hendrys who was killed after a throat slash by a gangbanger.........what colors did he wear."

Not only is that a single incident and not indicative of any larger problems, but it also had nothing to do with gangs or gang activity. It was 2 guys and 2 girls hanging out at the beach. They got in an argument or something, and I believe he used racial epithets against them but I don't want to put the blame on anybody since I wasn't there and don't know exactly why it transpired.

But if that's what you're worried about, it sounds like the gang injunction is going to force gang members to hang out at the beach and other nice places where they may hurt even more rich white people like yourself. Maybe you guys should re-think this whole thing. Maybe instead of forcing them to stay outside these zones, maybe you should force them to stay inside. Maybe you should setup a perimeter fence with armed tactical guards checking everybody's ID as they go in and out of the cordoned off zones to make sure the gang members stay in their place? You wouldn't want your tyranny to backfire or anything.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt, we want gangs to be eliminated at best, and membership discouraged at worst. That is what is at stake. There is no place for gangs in Santa Barbara. Every tool possible will to be thrown at this deadly criminal enterprise. The life you save will be a former gang member himself. Gangs are dead ends. Period.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

blahblah, you have a serious reading comprehension problem or trouble understanding logic. Let me show you:

"Loony: "You talk about how gang members go around and "terrorize" our neighborhoods, but the fact is most gang members never terrorize anybody and the majority of gang members who terrorize anybody end up terrorizing other gang members."

Lawdy: "Hey loonpt, what gang was George Ied in?"

HAHAHAHA! The loonding seems to forget his recent history, pot has a way of doing that. "

Read MY statement carefully. It says "MOST" gang members never terrorize anybody and "THE MAJORITY" of gang members who terrorize anybody end up terrorizing other gang members.

That leaves plenty of room for the minority of gang members who terrorize people to terrorize, say, a person or few who is not a gang member. In fact, I constructed that paragraph with the very particular incident that was brought up in the forefront of my mind. So stop making statements about how pot affects my memory when you are the one here who is intellectually deficient.

The point of my statement was that since the vast majority of gang members never commit violent crimes, the few that do mostly end up committing crimes against other gang members then gang activity is not something that affects very many people who are not in gangs themselves. In other words, you getting upset when you read the newspaper and a gang member stabbed another gang member is not a reason to put a gang injunction in place since you are not a gang member.

And if you are that concerned about getting rid of the gangs, then you can take away their funding by ending the war on drugs.They will practically disappear over night. Will all thugs disappear? No, but they won't have reason to organize together and go around selling illicit substances which brings in the majority of their funding and is the sole reason for their existence.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Then there's also no room in Santa Barbara for child molesters... Unless of course you make great movies that we can get gussied up and gush about!
Then there's also no room in Santa Barbara for drunk driving... Unless of course your on a city council, or your some big shot in the media business or you have a family member sitting on the bench.
And There's also no room in Santa Barbara for tax evasion, ponzi schemes and embezzlement. Unless of course...

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good points, TUF. We pick 'em off one by one.

Start with the gangs because they come in groups with more identifiable memberships, than your excellent list of other aberrant individuals committing criminal acts.

Gangs thrive on togetherness in support of the violent ethics of the group as a whole.

Easier and cheaper to start with gangs first with more guarantee of success. Once we get rid of gangs, we open up more far resources to take on the rest of society's detritus.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With the entry of the ACLU to the injunction debate means that the City will be spending even more money to defend this worthless bandaid, feel good injunction. I bet the current legal fees are around a million and growing. Face the facts, the proposed injunction will do very little to solve the problem at a very high cost.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

With a new city attorney who will stand up to ACLU instead of bend over, ACLU will no longer run this town ….. into the ground.

Too bad however there is such a strong Democratic Central Committee connection between the city council majority and ACLU. Mixed bag which way this will go right now.

But a few more progressive missteps like turning down the gang injunction, and there will be not only a new city council majority, but an even newer people's legal advocate sitting in the soon to be vacated City Attorney seat.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So the City Attorney should not " bend over" for the ACLU? The city as tries to fight their lawsuits every time they have come up and the City has lost. Sure get tough spend millions to defend a useless gang injunction.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The City has a bad track record of settling with ACLU; not losing. And heavens no, not even trying to win.

After all ACLU and past Democratic/progressive city councils have all been in the same political bed together for too long. ACLU and Democratic party politics all sup from the same cup.

Time to stare down ACLU all the way to the CA Supreme Court, so Santa Barbara and the rest of the state has to suffer the same consequences.

You can't have vagrant free Solvang and signs banning RVs in Ventura, while SB has bent over backwards on both issues when ACLU told Santa Barbara to jump, but ACLU chose to ignore those other jurisdictions. Screw over this town if you want, but I will fight to save it every way I can.

You can't have a successful gang injunction in Ventura and run like lemmings away from a gang injunction because ACLU says Boo in Santa Barbara. Take it to the mat.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha, California Supreme Court. Sounds expensive. The gang injunction is a multi million dollar solution on search of a problem that is being effectively addressed by current police tactics. Stop the gang injunction madness.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ha, California Supreme Court. Sounds expensive. The gang injunction is a multi million dollar solution in search of a problem, that is being effectively addressed by current police tactics. Stop the gang injunction madness.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 3, 2014 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not one comment by Draxor?
Draxor!...levititate thyself of thine kiester and treat us to a feast of your acerbic wit lest I cast a pox not just upon you, but your whole ancestor.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2014 at 4:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony, you have a serious reality comprehension problem or trouble understanding logic. Let me show you:

EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID THUS FAR! As unrealistic as can be.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2014 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great argument^

loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2014 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Running gang-bangers through the court system after the fact, is the most expensive solution of them all. Don't waste another dollar on after-the-fact criminal justice.

Get them early and get them out of gangs. Any way you can. The money we save is ours, and the lives we save will be theirs.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2014 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Never under-estimate those opposing the gang injunction may well be those who most benefit from the criminal justice status quo: court-appointed attorneys, translators, court personnel, sheriff dept personnel.

Gang Inc also has a huge secure employee job protection agenda. Status quo works fine for them. And they may well be posting here to protect these very self-serving positions.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2014 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loony: "Great argument^"

LOL! Like your's are any better or more validated. Now run along little doper, don't you have more victims to paint as villains? Or any criminals to portray as victims (and I'm NOT talking pot dealers)?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
February 5, 2014 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dirty Knobs

The Dirty Knobs and The Coffis Brothers & The Mountain ... Read More