Should Police Chief Sanchez serve gang injunctions in the city?

It's about time-- can't afford not to. 76% 163 votes
Won't work and will lead to abuse. 12% 26 votes
Budget can't afford it 3% 7 votes
A cynical ploy to increase cop budget. 8% 18 votes
214 total votes


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Please people, if you want an example of the effect of reactionary policy check out Arizona right now. An injunction is not a solution it is a reaction.

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel that education and rehabilitation is the best solution.

We need to put the funding into researching ways that work instead of maintaining retributive conduct.

Besides, the constitutionality of the whole ordeal appears iffy...

dane (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2010 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bugger off and face facts: all this "tolerance" is getting people killed. Gang injunctions, more police presence, whatever it takes. CUT THE FAT CAT city desk workers' administrative salaries and get officers on the streets! I'm sick of having to "watch my back" when I walk in my fair city! I am not alone in that sentiment!

maximum (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2010 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a PLOY to drum-up police support. The Chief Supports the Gangs through in-action of following the Law.
He is using this only get more funds for himself (personally) and keep the officers he has now. As soon as things get better, he'll repeal all injuctions of his GANG brothers and sisters by tossing-out those injunctions pending or enforced through jail time as violation of constitutional rights. It's business as normal, that's all it is.


dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2010 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I feel that education and rehabilitation is the best solution."

If I hear this once more I am going to SCREAM!

We have consistently heard this from city leaders for over a decade and things have just got worse. How about parents taking more responsibility for a change?

That won't happen either........

samuel (anonymous profile)
April 25, 2010 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What were we doing differently as a society when this was not such a problem?

We have always had education--it's not as thought schooling wasn't available. Rehabilitation is an after-the-fact approach. Injunctions deal with the symptoms.

Again: why wasn't this such a problem a few decades ago and (rhetorical question) is it just Santa Barbara that has this problem?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2010 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"not as though"

billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 26, 2010 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@dou4now (Charles)

Accusing someone, let alone the chief of police, of misappropriating government funds is borderline libel unless you have some facts to back it up. Otherwise, the first amendment is not on your side on this one.

That being said, "rehabilitation and education" is such crap. It hasn't worked thus far and will continue to not work. It's the same answer/attitude Santa Barbara has had and always will have when it comes to the "big city" problems this "small town" continues to have: let's ignore them, pretend they don't exist, and hope they go away.

It's the same excuse residents have used for the last twenty years in regard to the 101. "If we get more people out of their cars and into buses (or commuter rail, like that's going to happen), the problem will go away." your measure D (measure A) tax dollars at work.

wake up and smell the reality, santa barbara. how safe do you feel at the beach now?

sbdude (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2010 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is a necessary step in dealing with the problem head on. I think he'll approach it delicately and thoughtfully...especially because he was so opposed to the idea prior to this year. What we're doing now is not working. We need a change.

SBRes99 (anonymous profile)
April 27, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We've come along way!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2015 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

High creep factor. While the gang injunction was working its way through the local courts, word on the street was for the gangs to cool their jets and they did. Which means gang-banging is a choice and nothing more, and an exceptionally bad one.

We don't need to spend any more money or waste any more time looking for the causes of stupid gang behavior. We only have to make sure stupid gang choices have swift and immediate consequences. File under "well, duh?"

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2015 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Duh? This is a five year old story you jackass.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2015 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)


touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2015 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right! That's why there was an explosion of gang activity when the injunction was struck down!
(If there's someone whose an expert in 'creep factor" it's...)

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2015 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: