Judge hits Harbor Gateway area gangs with injunction

whatever it takes. give our cops all they need to keep these punks from associating and and get them off the streets for good. let lapd do their jobs with any legal tools they need... including injunctions. i support our cops. godspeed in their pursuit of these criminals.

gang members are urban terrorists. why do we tolerate them even existing? the solution is simple-incarcerate them, permanently, or kill them. they have killed enough innocent babies already. I have no tolerance, no sympathy and no regard for them. kill them, or send them to prison. forever. either way get them off our streets.

"Hey homie, what the **** ya think you're doing with that marker? You know we're not allowed to go tagging ****. We got a injunction put on us!"

I REALLY hope that this injunction is scarier than it sounds.

This would be a great idea except.... that I haven't seen a cop in my area in 6 years; unless you count 3 Brothers for lunch.

bruce wrote:

gang members are urban terrorists.

yep. i've been saying this for years, yet we spend billions and billions in the middle east because of a handful of terrorist attacks/attempts taht would/has cost a couple thousand lives. a couple thousand people die daily to these domestic terrorists. it's unfortunate that it is not politcally expedient to push for an emphasis on the local front. you'll be branded as someone who hates ameria and someone who wants the turrists to win.

as a side note, why is everyone cheering the fact that this injunciton is permanent? is it just me or should every gang be permanently barred from associating w/ each other etc etc without some long-winded judge's order? THAT is what i find to be extremely rediculous. this crap should be permanent to begin with, and shouldnt even need a judge to draft this crap.

"The injunction took months to complete and had to be approved by a judge and served on gang members"

im sure that's money well-spent.

Why is there no mention of Walter Moore and his Jamiel's law? He's the only one really ready to take this issue on. Rocky is a joke.

This is a start, Janice, keep that ball rolling. You've got an active gang blocks from your office. Get on that. Get an injunction on those too, or do we have to wait for someone to get shot because a stabbing in town isn't enough?

Let's get the Feds in here on this. They are anxious to crack down on medical marijuana, but they don't touch the gangs dealing meth and crack? What's the deal with that? We know who they are and whre they live. I guess it's easier to bust cancer patients.

really wrote:

This is a start, Janice, keep that ball rolling.

what is sad is that this thing even needed a "start." like i asked earlier, does anyone else find it funny that we need to go trhough a bunch of red tape just to get this out? or are we as a society too afraid to infringe on these gangbangers' "rights" to assembly etc etc?

What EXACTLY is an "injunction"? I must be pretty slow, but I just don't see how claiming that there's an "injunction" is going to slow or prevent gang activity. The people that write such rulings and laws are obviously far removed from the reality of the streets.
Real-life example: Car full of homies parked on a public street drinking and making noise. One gets out and scribbles his tag all over a Stop sign. I call the police and the first thing they ask me is: Are they ilegally parked?, then, Are they on a public street? OK, we'll send someone right out. Five minutes later, the homies dump their empty beer bottles out the window onto the nieghbor's lawn and the drive off. The police car calls my home over an hour later and ask me if the homies are still there. After a few of these, you just give up. The same goes with these Neighborhood Watch programs and all that idiot Hahn wants to do is pour more of my money into a losing, beuracratic cesspool!

Build new jails in the Arizona, and Nevada deserts with current incarcerated inmates. This would save this country and tax’s payers millions of dollars for better teachers, education, schools, and safer streets. Make it a chain-gang environment with very strict-strike laws, and sharp shooters everywhere. Start at 5:00 am every morning and end at 6:30 pm, with a rotation of different inmates’ everyday. Make it mandatory that each inmate participates, regardless, if it is digging ditches, or working with skilled workers as apprentices. This would be a good rehabilitation incentive.

For repeat offenders who think jail is a career, and enjoy the reunions with their homeboys. Deport them back to their countries jails, and if they return illegally to this country that is a probable cause to shoot them without medical treatment, and send U.S bangers to out of state prisons and let them cross train without their homeboys. For example, send Latinos to majority black prisons vise versa, and whites to either. We need to as citizens be more proactive with are local government, federal government, and congress about this gangbanging issue. This urban terrorism is not going to get better; these knuckleheads are teaching their kids to gangbang as young as six and seven. Which means their generations of kids, will be killing our innocent kids and us for generations to come. This is serious.

Roger wrote:

What EXACTLY is an "injunction"?

i think a simplified definition of an injuction would be an order to stop doing something. i think in this case it would apply more to "known" gangbangers from congregating with each other. ie if cops see lil dopey on the stoops with lil sleepy, they can now be arrested for violating a now-permanent injunction.

it's stupid how this is just now made permanent.

Gang injunctions do help, despite a few "experts" who claim otherwise and they are legal despite the best efforts of the ACLU and others to claim they violate constitutional rights (CA S. Ct. People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna ). I lived in Panorama City for a year in 92-93 and an injuction against the Blythe Street Gang worked great in cleaning up the streets. I grew up and lived most my life in Redondo where another injunction is in effect--it works pretty well.

A gang injunction is an anti-gang "suppression model" form of enforcement which considers the gang a "public nuisance" and is basically a restraining order. It prevents gang members from many activities and gives cops and prosecutors an additional weapon and more power to enact arrests, make them stick and provides for longer sentences.

The reason why an injunction takes so long to obtain is because the injunction must be prepared following specific guidelines to prevent ruling against it for violating constitutional rights(which protect the rest of us from the government and police from harrassing innocent citizens, for those who wonder why there is all the "red tape".) The injunction must include designated areas of application, individuals' names and prohibited activities including hand gestures, wearing of certain clothing, etc.) The injunction provides another "probable cause" for police to investigate and can add an extra charge (or charges) of violating a restraining order. Violating the order carries a 6 month jail term.

and less needles. HIV will do the rest.

Skeptic in SB wrote:

Gang injunctions do help, despite a few "experts" who claim otherwise and they are legal despite the best efforts of the ACLU and others to claim they violate constitutional rights (CA S. Ct. People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna ). I lived in Panorama City for a year in 92-93 and an injuction against the Blythe Street Gang worked great in cleaning up the streets. I grew up and lived most my life in Redondo where another injunction is in effect--it works pretty well.
A gang injunction is an anti-gang "suppression model" form of enforcement which considers the gang a "public nuisance" and is basically a restraining order. It prevents gang members from many activities and gives cops and prosecutors an additional weapon and more power to enact arrests, make them stick and provides for longer sentences.
The reason why an injunction takes so long to obtain is because the injunction must be prepared following specific guidelines to prevent ruling against it for violating constitutional rights(which protect the rest of us from the government and police from harrassing innocent citizens, for those who wonder why there is all the "red tape".) The injunction must include designated areas of application, individuals' names and prohibited activities including hand gestures, wearing of certain clothing, etc.) The injunction provides another "probable cause" for police to investigate and can add an extra charge (or charges) of violating a restraining order. Violating the order carries a 6 month jail term.

very informative. one question though. why is it now permanent? if a temporary one is issued, why is it ever lifted?

lod wrote:

<quoted text>
very informative. one question though. why is it now permanent? if a temporary one is issued, why is it ever lifted?

It isn't lifted, it just has a set time span that runs out.

lod wrote:

<quoted text>
very informative. one question though. why is it now permanent? if a temporary one is issued, why is it ever lifted?

A temporary order is issued for short term typically lasts while the court decides whether to issue a permanent order. A temporary restraining order can be granted "ex parte"--without having to inform the party to whom the temporary restraining order is directed in advance. Basically, there is less demand for "proof" of wrongdoing with a temporary order--the permanent injuction usually demands more evidence and a more restricted scope.

Shouldn't this type of injunction be something that is nationwide? And shouldn't this have been effect....let's say 20 - 30 years ago? Oh, and this injunction also prohibits gang members from having drugs, trespassing or having guns? Huh? I think I already have an injunction against me for doing illegal things. We should take the Chinese method of dealing with criminals.

Steve wrote:

Shouldn't this type of injunction be something that is nationwide? And shouldn't this have been effect....let's say 20 - 30 years ago? Oh, and this injunction also prohibits gang members from having drugs, trespassing or having guns? Huh? I think I already have an injunction against me for doing illegal things. We should take the Chinese method of dealing with criminals.

LA was the first to try a "gang injunction" against the Playboy Crips in 1987 (I think.) There are currently over 35 injunctions against gangs in LA alone and it appears to work fairly well (a recorded decline in gang membership of over 30% in the last 6-7 years.) There are injunctions all over the US but it is not possible to make a "nationwide" injunction due to constitutional issues (issues that protect the innocent public from the possibility of an out-of-control police enforcement)--see my earlier post for more.

As to prohibiting the use of drugs, guns, etc.--even though they are already illegal the injunction adds a "contempt of court" charge to each other charge and also provides for stiffer sentencing on the gun, drug, etc. charges.

As far as China goes--we aren't China, that is why we have such great freedom. If you want to trade that for a police state, well...

Gang activity needs to be defined as domestic terrorisim. That's what it is.