Lemme see if I get this straight. Because of the Tribune, his young, impressionable relatives can't be on hand to lionize, worship and appreciate a gangster thug whose own idiocy got him killed? They won't get the idea that he's some sort of hero to be looked-up-to and followed? Really?

Whaaaa, freakin' whaaaaaa!

GREAT JOB GUYS!!!

When has a gang members family ever gone to the news and told them anything but what a great guy some gangster was after he's killed?

Being a gang member should be against the law and all gang members should be tossed in the joint where they can be kept away from civilized society.

In the coming year more innocent people will lose their lives and the liberal cowards who run this state will do nothing but posture and throw more money towards gang prevention programs that have been shown time and time again to not work.

The SGV and PSN support these programs and are as much to blame as anyone for their lack of a back bone.

Local Boy

Stop trying to pin it on the "liberals", who consistently put more funding toward police and law enforcement while the other side talks a big game, but doesn't do anything. Prevention is a part of the solution, not building more prisons. Too many people think that applying a hammer to a problem rather than their brain is the way to go because it requires less effort and thought.

Quit trying to politicize the issue. Gangs don't exist because of "liberals" or the media.

Show me a gang prevention program around here that works. Show me where liberal politicians and judges that have always been to soft on crime have acted consistently to safeguard society from the predators, not only gang members, among us.

Research decisions by the 9th Circuit in matters of this type, the most over turned circuit in the nation, and show the votes of the Democrats like Goldberg and Leno in our state government as to what's even allowed to be voted on to get more serious about gangs and violent crime. They appease the criminal population and always have.

Gang prevention programs have been showed time and again not to work and to throw more money into them is a waste. I can prove that point but there's no way you can prove yours. Early childhood education on this matter is a different issue, that can work.

Less effort and thought huh? Typical liberal hogwash when one can't articulate with facts. Put out yours on the subject and not liberal dogma and I'll post mine. We'll see who's right.

Local Boy

Wait...what you wrote was supposed to be construed as facts? I didn't find a single one in there. Typical conservative "As long as I say it and say it loud, it must be true" hogwash.

Also show me where a conservative plan for gang prevention has worked. And no, building more prisons doesn't qualify as gang prevention. If you think gang members care about going to prison, then your head is in the sand.

Of course they don't care, they have it too easy in prison it's just a way to see their pals and be taken care of where it doesn't cost them a dime. Prison should be HARD TIME and nothing else. It's like having a "time out", that's a real bright concept,

I said go ahead and post facts and I'd post mine, what part of that got by you? The information I have would take up a lot of space here but like a true liberal you just spin and refuse to answer.

Put up or shut up.

Local Boy

I'll throw one fact your way to start things off. For the last two years the Congress hasn't even let the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act be debated on the floor.

The act does things you like regarding prevention (wasted money to me in the manner prevention programs are run and WHO runs them) and dictates long terms in the joint for gang recruiting...long terms 10 years for recruiting an adult and 20 for recruiting a minor.

Which party runs Congress? Hell it was even Dems who introduced the bills and I give those individuals credit for trying but it isn't Republicans holding the bills back is it?

Gang crime is on the rise and where homicides were down in California last year, gang related deaths were up.

Local Boy

Wait, you're the one who says it doesn't work, but I'm the one who has to prove my point while you sit there and offer nothing? Typical conservative platform of complaining about an issue, but never offering a solution that actually requires a morsel of thought and reality. You've put up a lot of talk about facts, yet offered none of your own. Having trouble with facts is par for the course for conservatives.

Which party ran Congress for 12 years with a GOP president? What was done about the gang issue then? The current Congress has been in session for less than a year, yet you're going to try and pin the escalation of gang violence on them? Please.

I don't know if you're endorsing more prison (because you haven't really endorsed anything), but regardless of who made that proposal (Dem or Rep), it clearly isn't the answer.

This Congress doesn't have a veto proof majority that makes it difficult to get things done, so being the party that "runs Congress" is a cop-out. Don't worry...come 2008 that won't be an issue.

A morsel of thought? You're nothing but a big mouthed liberal with no answers to anything who thinks he's talking to some uneducated redneck. Guess again "no sense", I'm way beyond that and know this subject very well.

You're a typical liberal light weight who does nothing but ask questions with no facts or answers to back you up. I said post your facts and you've done what? Just spout off, answer nothing and ask more questions like the universal liberal guide book tells you to do when over your head on a subject.

First of all I'm not talking about the gang issue then we're debating it now. Like a true liberal weakling you can't answer so you have to retreat to the past. There's plenty of blame to be thrown around at politicians of all parties but don't seriously try to pretend Democrats are stronger on this issue than Republicans, you're simply living in a fairy tale land and you know it.

Your lack of any "common sense" is shown with this line..."I don't know if you're endorsing more prison (because you haven't really endorsed anything), but regardless of who made that proposal (Dem or Rep), it clearly isn't the answer."

It clearly isn't the answer based on what? Did you read the act? You know you didn't or you would have debated the provisions. Go ahead now and try to actually debate it. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Of course I'm endorsing more prison time. If you can't understand what I post than bypass it or have someone conservative explain it to you. What did you think my "long terms" for gang recruiting comment meant?

If I were in charge there would be no such thing as parole, probation only for misdemeanor crimes and only once can you be on probation, 100 % time served of a sentence and no racial or gang segregation in prison. Go to the US Embassy website for Japan and you'll find a detailed accounting of how Japanese prisons are run. The U.S. would be wise to follow that model.

If you and the weaklings who think like you were in complete charge we'd be much worse off than we are now. I've laid out how I feel now show us what works for you with felons and other miscreants besides more reachy/touchy time outs and everyone joining hands and singing kum-by-yah.

Local Boy

So you concede that gang members don't care about being in prison, then turn around and advocate longer prison sentences? Really?

This shows you're in no way interested in what causes gangs and want to take the simple route: Round 'em up, throw them in jail and think that's going to solve the problem. That was done for years and it didn't work. Sending gang members to jail is like sending them to criminal college…they just become better at it and then they get out.

Nowhere do you address the fundamental answer to the real question: Why do gangs exist? Family factors (single parent homes), school factors (low achievement, lack of school safety), community factors (poverty, drug usage) and early delinquent behavior (drug use, alcohol) are all the precursors to joining a gang. Does every single child who grows up facing these factors join a gang?

So instead of trying to jam a square peg in a round hole with throwing them all in jail (which solves nothing but create the appearance of solving the problem),the issues that force kids into gangs need to be dealt with in a matter other than in "one size fits all" manner:

-Improving education in a meaningful way (instead of creating standardized tests where kids have nothing at stake) by re-investing in career education and taking politicians out of the educational process. This doesn’t mean throwing more money at the issue, but it also doesn’t mean throwing no money at it.

-Investing more in law enforcement instead of looking for every reason to cut their salaries (ask Arcadia PD about this). There are people who want to serve, but can’t afford it personally.

-Expand programs that give kids options other than joining gangs (community programs, sports). Of course, this sounds like part of an intervention program, so I’m sure it’ll be dismissed as kumbaya. And I’m sure these programs have never prevented one kid from joining a gang.

-Actually do something about poverty and create policies that are more interested in lifting up the poor than uplifting the upper class. Yes, that includes universal healthcare. The evil “socialized medicine” is better than no medical insurance at all. Ask anyone living in poverty stricken areas. Of course, I’m sure the American dream is that health care is only a privilege that should be reserved for those who can afford it.

-Real sex education. Instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending that preaching abstinence works across the board and believing that teenagers aren’t having sex, recognize that teenagers are sexually active. Cutting off teenage pregnancy reduces the number of single parents and in turn, reduces the chances of creating future gangbangers.

These are just a few of the issues and solutions, as I'm not naive enough to think that there is just one thing causing this problem or one thing that can solve this issue.

In an ideal world, I’d round up every gang member and dump them in the desert far away from innocent people, with all their weapons and let them fight it out and kill each other off. Since we live in the real world, though, there needs to be real solutions and jamming them all in prison doesn’t solve anything. It just gives the appearance that it does.

Rip this apart and have the last word. I’m done rolling out yarn to you.

I'll take your response apart paragraph by paragraph.

1)So it's supposed to matter that gangsters don't mind being in prison and we should take that into consideration when determining what we should do to them to keep us save? You can't correct all, if any, criminal behavior so you need to control the criminal by whatever means needed. You're too weak to do that.

2)I said in post #4 above...Early childhood education on this matter is a different issue, that can work.
Later intervention is pretty much a waste when you talk about the percentage of people who it works on compared to dollars spent on the problem but liberals like you love throwing money at social ills that in some situations can't be fixed.

3)Gangs have existed and will continue to exist for more reasons than what you noted. The problem is such that no amount of midnight basketball leagues, d.a.r.e. classes, police, parental or church intervention will matter. The head needs to be cut off to kill this beast and there is no other answer. You fools that yap about root causes are so wasteful and so cowardly in your approach it's amazing. Your post shows you don't have what it takes to go after the true evil gangs represents. MAKE GANG MEMBERSHIP A CRIME AND PUT THEM ALL AWAY!! Not hard to do and will save money and lives in the long run.

Screw going paragraph it's all the same bs with people like you as shown by your unibersal health care ramble as if that would truly be part of a solution to this problem. That made me realize how left you really are. I can't argue with people like you, you're hopeless.

You wouldn't vote to round them up, put them in the desert and let them shoot it out, your entire posts wants just the opposite done. Who are you trying to kid?

Yeah in our real world your way is doing a great job at keeping the populace safe. In the mean time I notice you didn't post as to why you didn't like the act I spoke of which of course you didn't read. Too nasty for you all that prison time and all. You're all about giving up and in not about fighting.

Just another lackey of liberal causes looking out the window from your nice home and so glad you didn't have to deal with the real assholes in society.

Good going, you're a poster boy for the status quo. I'll keep working at seeing they go away for as long as possible.

Adios Mr. ACLU

Local Boy

Should the hospital's name have been included in the article? I think you should be asking the hospital staff and/or police that question. Would the informational value of the story been lessened if the writer had used "local hospital" instead of the actual name? I can't provide the definitive answer to these questions, but the criticism may not be without some merit.

I want to know why certain blogs have been removed? And only blogs supporting your article has been posted. That seems kind of funny!

I'm not at all surprised by the simplistic moralizing and laxed reasoning of those (e.g., common sense, monrovia man, et al) wishing to demonize gang members. It seems to me people want easy answer so badly they are willing to rush to simplistic conclusions that dont take into account the complexities of REAL LIFE.

Most real people are neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Now, your cartoonish notions of right and wrong are best suited for fairy tales and movies where good characters only do good and bad guys only do bad. That's simply naive and foolish.

Comments here also demonsrate a painful ignorance of gang sociology and practice. Gang initiates are not adopted into a dark side of unredeemable evil and committed to actions of murder and rape as if some perverse video game. To think every gang member is wholly devoted to evil is naive. They go to work, feed their kids, pay their taxes and sometimes commit crime.

When you look at this case in particular, this person was killed as he walked home and simply bc he dressed in a particular way and identified himself with a partiular group, some idiots here think his human rights are forfeited. The real evil is in those comments.

After reading the article in todays paper regarding this incident and the spin the author of this blog put on it, I'm solidly on the side of Flores's family on how poorly the paper handled this. The paper was wrong printing it as much as Flores was wrong in being a gangster.

Just because LASD stupidly gave certain information to the reporter doesn't mean that information has to be part of the article. If the info can cause danger to relatives and hospital staff than putting it out in print is dangerous and in my opinion it's unethical to do it.

Gangsters have attacked rivals before in hospitals and will do so in the future. You have to err on the side of caution and the paper did not.

Of course these papers are not always ethical or think these things through, Larry Wilson is a perfect example of that. I just didn't expect it from Frank and instead of covering the papers ass in this incident he needs to rethink his position.

Someone at the paper should have figured this info didn't need to be in the article. What purpose did it serve in printing it anyway? It added nothing to the circumstances of what took place.

The article I read by Frank this morning disturbed me because it gave the appearance of arrogance on the part of the newspaper, something he's kind of accused local law enforcement of recently at least twice.

I spoke to a high ranking official at Monrovia PD after Frank griped about the slow release of the murder/suicide information that took place there and was given a different story. I'm not sure who was right on that but there are two sides to that story.

It seems the reporters at the PSN and SGVT are smarting a little because they feel they should get more info than they do in a more timely manner from some agencies and are now chipping away at them over the Pasadena attack (that sounds like an isolated incident with some nut who's in custody) and want more info sooner.

Arrest logs, by law, are public info and all the reporters have to do is walk into any station, ask for it and do follow-up on anything that interests them. Maybe it's time for a little more work on the papers part and less mud slinging.

Local Boy

Usagain-

I don't know that Flores forfeited all his human rights, but when he decided to act and look like a gangster he pretty much gave up his right to personal safety didn't he? I'm sure he knew and understood that didn't he?

I would agree that not every single gangster is evil to the core, but their acts either as one or a group produce evil and heartache to those friends and family members who do care for them and many people just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why don't they concern you?

They also put loved ones in harms way, cause the death of countless innocents and those sworn to protect society from people like them and cost taxpayers countless dollars in so many areas. Much more than what "taxes" they pay.

At a certain school in Los Angeles last year, the school authorities countered before school harassment of many students by gang members by moving a bus stop. Who won that battle and what message was sent to the gangsters?

It's a crying shame that kids can't enjoy, in many areas, the simple joy of running and playing outside while growing up because of gang violence.

This line you wrote means what?

"They go to work, feed their kids, pay their taxes and sometimes commit crime."

Because a few work, feed their kids and pay their taxes it's OK to sometimes commit crime?

That's pretty simplistic and to gloss over those crimes, like this murder, is shallow.

Local Boy

Local,

My central point is the SGV Tribune is ideologically and practically committed to the dehumanized coverage of "gang-members." The paper is ideologically committed insofar as they report on crime from the perspective of law enforcement. They are committed, in practice, to dehumanized coverage because the economy of the newspaper business (e.g., cost of paper, ink, reporters, gas, etc.) prevent the Tribune from exploring the complexities of DEATH and MURDER on our streets.

Which complexities? I think the Whittier case raises some of these issues. First, its important to note that many Latino gang members join the neighborhood gang during young adolescence (13-15 y.o). So that, by age 22, much of their criminal activity (most mainly non-violent)is behind them. So that, by age 25, while he might be counted by the Sherriff Dept as a gang member, the fact of the matter is this person might not have done anything criminal in several years. Even more, this same person might be the victim of a violent crime and because of his history will be met with the same dehumanized coverage as we've seen before--we'll simply read, another gang member murdered.

Remember, these terms (e.g., gang member, liberal, conservative) function as short cuts in our language--we use them as a matter of economy, but they fail to address the real complexities behind the term. Again, while this might be a necessary consequence of our economy, it is by no means pleasant.

And please, I never suggested that paying taxes permitted a person to commit crimes. Only, that when you measure a persons contribution to society you must look beyond what you fear.

I've seen the local papers go out of their way in the near and distant past to "humanize" gang members who have been slain. I can't agree with your take on that at all. I've seen stories where they have written about them like you post here. I've seen that more than once.

If a gangster was active as a juvenile and has many years of clean behavior he can petition to have his juvenile record expunged. Gangsters know this as do others so if they don't take advantage of it than it's on them.

I know gangsters active into their 50's. Their role in the gang might change but aiding or mentoring younger members in criminal activity is a pathetic choice to make.

Law enforcement has plenty of good reasons to dehumanize gangsters. I've never met or seen any officer go out of his way to screw with some gangsters without cause...never. They should be stopped constantly and be aware they are targets to the cops same as they target others.

If it talks, walks, acts and looks like a duck it's a duck. You can look to blame others and use your root causes excuses all you want but individuals are responsible for their own actions. That's the bottom line.

Any positive contribution that a person makes to society is negated when they engage in the activities gang members engage in every single day.

Let me make something else clear. You seem to think everyone here who posts negative comments about gangster is doing so out of fear. That's not my feelings and I doubt many other people feel that way.

It's about being sick and tired of this group of thugs that causes death, destruction, broken homes and a massive financial cost to society at large.

I know a couple of gangsters, hard core ones, that turned things around. If they can than, and these were very bad people, than anyone can.

The time for making excuses is way gone.

Local Boy
Local Boy