Tuesday's column
Once a month, the Hispanic Outreach Taskforce gets together with the police chief in Whittier to discuss topics of interest to the community at large.
The meeting is a brown bag deal. There are sandwiches, sodas and a lot of conversation.
Topic A last week was a gang injunction the police are beginning to enforce against Whittier Varrio Locos, near Uptown.
Police Chief David Singer said officers are still in the process of notifying 40 gang members that they can’t do certain things in their neighborhood anymore. Among those things: carrying weapons, loitering, throwing gang signs and tagging.
Montebello has a similar ordinance on the books and officials claim that since it was enacted in 2004, there has been a marked decrease in gang crime.
In the wake of recent violence in Monrovia and Duarte, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Capt. David Shaw of the sheriff’s Temple Station, which patrols unincorporated areas of the community, suggested a gang injunction was being explored as a possible way to get gang members off the streets. No action has yet been taken.
While the injunctions in Montebello and Whittier are relatively new, the tool has been in law enforcement’s toolbox since the mid-1990s.
For example, Norwalk used one with great success against a particularly violent Latino gang. Pasadena hoped to duplicate the effort and enjoined the Pasadena Denver Lanes Blood gang.
The move essentially flowed from a community reaction to the Halloween Homicides. On Oct. 31, 1993, Edgar “Eddie” Evans, Reginald Crawford and Stephen Coates were gunned down as they walked home from a friend’s Halloween party.
Herbert “Monster” McClain, Lorenzo Newborn and Karl Holmes, all members of the Denver Lanes gang, were convicted of murder and ultimately sentenced to death.
Enforcement of the order against PDL was fairly effective, and the neighborhood around Summit Avenue became safer for a while.
Nearly a year later, city officials and the District Attorney’s Office came close to taking similar action against the Villa Boys and Krazy Boys Latino gangs.
But when Bernard Melekian took over as chief in 1996, he derided the injunctions and chose to fight gangs with a mantra of “community policing” that was popular at the time. The injunctions faded away from lack of enforcement and Pasadena’s gangs went back to being Pasadena’s gangs.
A few years later, Melekian defended the decision to Daniel Sharfstein, a one-time reporter here, who was writing a piece for a publication called The American Prospect.
The chief, now interim city manager, called injunctions “an intellectual substitute for responsible public policy.”
My guess is that officials in Montebello, Whittier and Monrovia know best what they are up against. They also know what makes “responsible public policy” in their communities.
If a gang injunction works in Monrovia, my guess is there won’t be too many law-abiding taxpayers who will complain.
26 Comments
Leave a comment
FRANK GIRARDOT
|
| Crime Scene puts you behind the yellow tape with takes on true crime, cold cases and more. This is also your forum to discuss crime, its impact on your neighborhood and how we cover it. Have any questions or tips? You can leave a comment here or e-mail me. |
Frank,
Welcome back. Still no word on Editorial Policy regarding race of suspects? That's curious.
While reasonable people might differ in their view on gang injunction effectiveness, I think its unfair to suggest "there won't be too many law-abiding taxpayers who will complain." Especially considering the fact the constitutionality of such measures have reached as high as the US Supreme Court. That is to say, people have complained and those complaints have been taken seriously.
By the way, if fundamental civil rights are being obstructed (as was the case in Chicago V Morales) what does it matter how many people complain? What is this, justice by dial-in vote?
I would say your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins. I would support gang injunctions; they have been used against many gangs with success. I had many students in Los Angeles, telling me of being harassed by gang members to and from Belmont High School in L.A. After the city attorney issued a gang injunction, the police had the ability to arrest gang members, for just hanging out on the street and intimidating people. Nobody likes to have big brother watching and controlling them, but with gangs spreading all over California and showing their willingness to use extreme violence, I'm more concerned with the rights gang victims to live in peace, than a know group of gang criminals.
I see complaints about gang injunctions from the mothers of gangsters who don’t know their “little mijo” is a gang member. I still vividly remember the mother of one of the killers of Cheryl Green in Harbor Gateway; she was saying her son was a good kid. The “good kid” was arrested for killing Cheryl Green and also killing a fellow gang member. The fellow gang member was stabbed over 80 times and had his throat cut from ear to ear, because they thought he might “snitch” to police about the Cheryl Green murder.
Fx,
Fair enough, you think gang injunctions cause more good than harm. Others disagree (http://www.streetgangs.com/injunctions/topics/052897aclublyth.html).
I raised concern over Frank's remarks that 'few law abiding citizens will complain.' Law abiding citizens have complained in the past and further, law abiding members of the US Supreme Court have noted problems with similar measures.
Usagain,
I live in the Monrovia area, and I can tell that the topic of discussion in the area is the gang shootings the extra police patrols. So far the extra police have been welcome by the great majority of residents. I see many people giving the patrols a "thumbs up" as they drive by. I hear NO complaints about the extra police. Even some drunks I know don't complain, the drunks now take a taxi instead of drinking and driving. So I would agree with Frank’s statement, opinions may change in the future, but most residents at the moment, want to return to the quiet and boring Monrovia of before.
FX,
Increased police presence is on issue, gang injunctions another.
Again, a persons civil rights are not secured by the sentiment of the people but by rule of law. That one, or a hundred or a hundred thousand people are unconcerned about a violations of a person's civil rights doesnt mean no one should care.
Or maybe I read Frank's comments wrongly. Maybe he was implying something more provocative: since the Police are focused on Brown and Black youth [read: non-tax paying, potentially criminal], white adults [read: law abiding tax payers] wont complain.
FX,
You can't argue with a racist so why try. That's all usagain can do is point to race as a catalyst for these types of solutions to criminal activity by groups of thugs (gang injunctions). It's not about what these thugs do that warrants coming up with new solutions to make the streets safe. it's all about race.
It's all about the poor mistreated of people of color, which where recognized at some times in some places, doesn't apply here. The poster is educated but common sense is something you're born with...he got skipped.
The thing I see is law enforcement, citizens and city officials coming together to attempt to put a stop, as best they can, to gang activity. they will use what tools are made available to them as they should.
Usagain does not care who gets hurt, black, brown, white he simply doesn't care. He's a simple minded racist that tells only half the story.
You're hitting your head on a wall.
Local Boy
Local Boy,
Usagain probably does not live and know the area of Duarte and Monrovia. But I have seen a big welcome to the extra police and stops by police by white, brown and black people alike. I have seen a coming together of all races against gang violence in this area. Even the parents of the victims browm and black have been been seen together, and been a voice against gang violence. So far the gang violence has not poloraized this community, maybe because many people went to the same high-school, hang out at the same places and know each other at least in passing. This area is not South Central L.A as usagin wants to imagine, we also don't have the extreme poverty and housing projects of L.A.
I have seen older brown and blacks talk about the gang problems in our area, and they see it as a young thug/knuckle-head issue not strictly a brown vs. black issue.
Lboy,
To be clear, do you think it permissable to achieve 'calm' at the expense of a persons civil rights? If you answer yes, we disagree. Answer 'no', and we agree.
The next question, of course, is whether this is happening in Duarte/Monrovia or not. I'm not sure, but Frank's comments suggested law-abiding tax payers dont care. I simply suggested history and judicial record prove him wrong. Some of us do care. And besides that, if not ONE person cared that doesnt make it permissable.
Lboy, you cant call me racist, project racist beliefs on me and then think you've somehow proven a point. Engage the argument.
FX,
I know Monrovia and Duarte are not like South Central. Even more, I'm encouraged by the faith community's response to the problem. I have a question: how do you account for the lack of civic response in other SGV communities with higher murder rates?
If race and culture don't help explain the difference, what does?
Perceived civil liberties and actual civil liberties are two entirely different things. I think FX said it well when he said this.."I would say your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins."
There is no right to take part in crime. There is no right to associate with gang members when your parole or probation conditions, that you've agreed to, dictate otherwise.
There is no right to harass, intimidate, threaten or impede anyones free movement at any time. Gangsters use these tactics every day, but you don't care do you?
You of course never speak on these truths because they simply do not matter to you which is why you retreat to the racial politics you use time and again in your posts.
Since you want to talk gang injunctions, in 1997 the California Supreme Court upheld the use of public nuisance laws to obtain injunctions prohibiting known gang members (already carded as per 186.22pc)from nuisance and criminal behavior in narrowly defined areas.
The court upheld the legality of the orders, noting that unlawful and violent behavior does not come under the protection of the constitution.
If it does please show me where that protection exists in the language.
Here are common restrictions placed on gang members when served with an injunction.
They can not...
1)Associate with other street gang members in public.
2)Intimidate any person in any way for any reason.
3)Trespass on private property.
4)Engage in graffiti activity or possess graffiti tools.
5)Possess any drugs or drug paraphernalia.
6)Possess any alcoholic beverage in public.
7)Carry any weapons or objects commonly used as weapons.
8)Solicit or recruit anyone under the age of 18 to join or participate in any street gang activities.
I think there should be more restrictions but based on just those above and understanding injunctions have been found to be a legal measure in which to combat gang crime....which of them do you have a problem with?
The reason that law enforcement had to go to the ridiculous extremes of getting gang injunctions was due to people like you. I hope you're proud of that.
Even with just about all of the major bad guys being on parole or probation, further steps had to be taken because light weight racist (at times) civil libertarians were more in line with the rights of those acting in a criminal manner at the behest of those already under some type of supervision, than those of the decent people living in gang infested areas.
I'm sure every decent person who reads this and has been or is presently being affected by gang activity, wants to thank you and your pals with the misguided mindset that you display and for having your priorities so thoughtfully in line with the public welfare.
One last thing, when you asked FX this..
I know Monrovia and Duarte are not like South Central. Even more, I'm encouraged by the faith community's response to the problem. I have a question: how do you account for the lack of civic response in other SGV communities with higher murder rates?
If race and culture don't help explain the difference, what does?
I have your answer. Cities respond no matter the race and culture of the populace, unfortunately, only when the problem can no longer be ignored. Citizens will respond when they feel safe enough to say something. Sometimes those reasons are fear of retaliation by gang members, sometimes because of the fear of authority for a number of reasons, by no means completely legit.
People like you, who defend the rights of gangsters and blame the authorities who in your view only trample the rights of others, can take some credit for that fear. You've tried to plant that thought on this board but I don't think it's worked.
Right now, at this time, whose race and culture is at the heart of the problem? Let's not retreat to the past as is your style usagain, let's talk about today and be honest. You can't blame whitey for this one though I'm sure you'll give it a try. This goes beyond poverty or class designations, which I know exists. Those factors are not at the root of this problem and you know it.
To me it all starts and ends with parental responsibility and the failure of so many to raise kids in a sound, moral, structured and loving home while setting the proper example when doing so. If people did that you could eliminate so much of this problem.
I myself won't blame any one race or culture because I know too many good people of all different colors.
I'll blame bad guys and bad parents ( or lax parents) right along with the people like you who defend the criminal element based on "culture and race".
I answer you well enough?
You have a lot to be proud of don't you?
Local Boy
This is a great discussion on the use of gang injunctions and ramifications thereof. Yes, they erode personal liberties, but gang members are, in some way, like terrorists; they are at war. We are caught in the middle. Rather, our children are caught in the middle. So, what now? Would our community and society at large benefit from labeling gang activity like terrorism?
I think our community's response to the gang activity has been one of great concern and 'how can we help?'...in other words,our community is responding to this horror as if we've learned a family member has a terminal disease. Gang life IS a terminal disease; they are going to die from it. And everyone, from unincorporated Monrovia to our religious community to our school community has responded with 'how can we help?'...'what can we do?'
The generosity of the Salas family towards the Lee family was so selfless and extraordinary. Anyway, I was watching the kids walking home from school and I just can't fathom two men walking up to two girls and shooting multiple, multiple times. There's something majorly twisted about shooting defenseless girls, it's unspeakable the horror and where did that come from?
ok, i've covered about three or four topics here, just my thoughts.
This discussion on injunctions should continue; I am against it on principle but maybe Monrovia PD needs 'another tool in their toolbox'...like the daytime curfew, etc.
Lboy,
The more you write, the more you reveal your law enforcement tendency to rush to judgment. I’ll grant you that in the field, Officers seldom have time for careful deliberation. They need to act and act quickly, for their own safety and the safety of others. But this isn’t the streets Lboy—reasoned deliberation is valued in conversation, not hot-headed vitriol.
You seem to take pleasure in profiling others. In your world, the more descriptive labels you can attach to somebody the better. This explains why you were so desperate to know my race, age, education level, work experience, where I live, how tall I am, how I vote, etc. In your mind, knowing these things is tantamount to knowing the person.
Labels are shortcuts and your mind thrives on taking the short cut.
So when you call me a 60’s liberal burn out and proceeded to attack what you supposed a 60’s liberal burnout would believe, I find it laughable. You’re reaching for steady supply of aspersions to be cast on ‘left wing progressives’ or ‘race baiters’ or whatever it is you hope to label me as. For the record, I’m just more than half your age. But I better stop there, it seems you’ve already have enough information to open a file on me.
So, you spend most of your post attacking what you presume to be my position and never answered the direct question I asked you. I’ve already granted that reasonable people might disagree about the effectiveness of gang injunctions. I provided a link to a study that suggested as much. My question was one of principle, is it ever alright to violate a person’s civil rights in order to bring about a ‘greater good’? After paragraph and paragraph of your fuming, I still don’t know your answer.
It might be “no,” in which case we agree. You might go further to argue that what is happening in Monrovia does not violate civil rights..and you might be right. I never suggested otherwise. I simply challenged Frank’s assertion that few law abiding citizens would take notice of potential civil rights violations, as law abiding citizens have challenged similar measures. Is all this too much for you LBoy? I know you like to come to your conclusions in under 5 seconds, so most of this post might be moot anyhow.
I wonder when usagain will show some concern for the victims of gang violence?
I guess I have to remind usagin that minorities are usually the victims of gang violence. I have spent years educating ignorant young wanna-be gang members of what gangs members really do to their own gang members.
I can give many examples of cases where gangs have killed their own to protect their ass from doing jail time. They show no hesitation in killing anyone, including young girls, when they think somebody might be a snitch. I can site many cases in where young girls have been murdered by their gang members. I suggest usagain search 'Martha Puebla and Vineland Boys', a case I sat in court and watched the proceedings as the parents sat scared of the other gang members in court. When is usagain going to show some concern for the minority victims of gang violence? Usagin should search the Calif. court of appeals Court records and read about some of the victims, instaed of using his broad brush to paint his own racist portraits. He accuses others of being biased, talk about the 'kettle calling the pot black'.
http://www.insidesocal.com/east/2007/08/two_vineland_boys_plead_out_of.html
FX,
Murder is evil. I support the death penalty (in principle). I think the Devil is bad and God is good. Oh yeah, bad guys wear black and good guys, white.
There, have I earned enough confidence that you can start addressing my points rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks?
I think its more than a little ironic, though, that two senior white guys are calling me racist while I've yet to return the favor. Gotta love the internets, no?
BTW, FX, care to answer the question I posed to you? How do you explain the difference in civic response to gang killings?
Rush to judgment while typing on a message board? OK Johnnie Cochran, I laid out the purpose of gang injunctions and what they entail. Please explain to the court how that's a rush to judgment. You didn't argue what I posted either, just tried your usual misdirection, what a shocker.
Don't ever try to pull weak student/teacher type of rhetoric when it can so easily be shredded. This isn't a class and there is certainly nothing you can teach me. I simply know this issue and posted on it and you pull out the arrogance card because we disagree...again. Why am I not surprised?
Why do you feel you have to lie? Why not just argue with this amazing education you have? Your hyperbolic nonsense in the second paragraph is the typical way that people respond to attempt to change the course of a debate when stuck for an answer. You know Johnny "smoke and mirrors"?
Than in the third paragraph you pull out the age and political beliefs card. Mind you now you don't say I'm wrong, you simply play the card without getting to the heart of the issue. This isn't a one-way street, quit pretending it is. Your "open a file on me" remark is brainless. Guess I'm not the only smart ass on the board. Let's see what the fourth paragraph brings.
At least you finally got to some type of point, minor and ridiculous as it is because you probably know my answer. Why would I answer such an open ended question posted simply to bait me? Just the same, I actually answered you... twice.
Here's the first answer..."Perceived civil liberties and actual civil liberties are two entirely different things". Did you miss that because it was my first sentence? I meant it as, we probably don't agree on what a civil liberty entitles a person to do in the first place "at all times", but I guess I should have been more clear.
To back that up I posted about the 1997 decision because I'm pretty sure that addressed the "perceived" civil liberties you're speaking of which the court addressed as being non-existent in the case of injunctions of this type. So I felt I answered the question. You of course answer nothing because your stances are easily deflated. It's the old building a house on shifting sand deal.
Than you wrap things up like the smart ass gnat that you come off as on this board. Let me be clear.
Half my age means half my life experience and nothing else.
Having probably at a minimum twice your experience and being confident in my beliefs from that means it doesn't take a long time for me to come up with how a feel on just about any subject. Is that a problem for you?
Like I said, I'm also educated and where you think all cops are simply reactionary, as they have to be, a lot of guys I know and have worked with are also very smart. That in fact bugs you to no end. It's like all your "perceived" notions about these "apes in blue" took a hit.
Too bad.
If I'm not sure about something I do research. I'm in a law library about four times a week, I know the subjects I post on or I won't post on them.
Of course you have "suggested" that what's happening in Monrovia could very well be a violation of the civil rights of some, especially young men of color. WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID? It's in the way you post and you know it so at least be a man and admit it.
You run to link to a study to show that basically says minority communities don't trust the police as much as anglo communities and you act like you just gave us all some bit of information none of us were aware of. You come off like you're the educated adult here and nobody else has an opinion that's based on facts. We are all just uneducated kids looking to you for guidance. Do you stand around looking in the mirror all day because your ego is enormous?
Give it up, your liberal dogma and racist diatribes will never sway me one bit. If it does others fine, I don't care. Your "law abiding citizens have challenged similar measures" doesn't mean anything either, not anything.
The ACLU and all other people and groups like them who work to fight measures that protect society are contemptible and lacking the sense of most third graders on so many issues. They should be held accountable much more than they are. I could argue their stances on issues all day and night. They are one of my hobbies.
What strikes me most though is that in this response of yours you never debated anything I actually posted on gang injunctions, you're just all wrapped up in your... "is it ever alright to violate a person’s civil rights in order to bring about a ‘greater good’" question. The point is that it's already allowed and in extreme times extreme measures have to be taken, so what's the point of the question? The authority to violate civil rights is not to be ever taken lightly but at some point might be needed and it would depend on what was taking place as to how I would feel about it. The question is useless presented in the manner it was.
Everything else was all just hot air so you could vent. Get over yourself us, you're not better than the rest of us.
Local Boy
In the last ten years law enforcement may now be more committed to combating crime in Pico Rivera. Injunctions should be used as a tool to help with their efforts.
You have been given no reason to call me a racist. You have given plenty based on your own words. It's on you.
Local Boy
Usagain, why are you so sure I am white? Are you sure I was even born in this country, are you sure I did not live in real poverty not know to the "poor" kids in this country, who have video games, many pair of shoes, and more than one change of clothes?
I have yet to hear any suggestions for what we should do to combat gang crime? What experience do you have on the subject? How many kids have you mentored, how many families have you sat with in court with, as the family sees their kid’s killer smile in court? You are right that I am "old", which means I have first hand experience in witnessing the effects of violence on families over many years. Why don't you offer solutions instead of just guessing who we are, or what we believe?
Wow...is all I can say and I do so with appreciation for each one of your posts/blogs. The dialog is intense, the passion is evident & my simple mind is spinning and digesting it all.....
LBoy,
C-.
FX,
I apologize for rushing to judgment. Maybe you aren't white. But let's remember, you called me a racist without justification. And you still havent answered the pointed question I posed to you.
BTW, I thought you were white because of how quickly you labeled me racist.
As an aside, what is "white'? Where is Whitelandia? Whiteness, as it turns out, is an ideology more than it is a skin color. And for that reason, FX, it might still turn out that you are White. In which case, crack a Miluakees Best with LBOY at the Family Reunion!
I say NO to an injunction in Monrovia! Im a resident of 20+ yrs!
So that's what white guys drink in Whitelandia? I'm way off I guess, prefer something with a little more bite.
You're not only a racist, you're a big time racist. You bitch like a little girl about people calling you a racist and then post this latest crap. What did you expect professor?
Your lame ass posts get thrown back in your face and do you argue or present facts to prove any point? Nope, you pull out the race card like the whipped dog you are. What a phony.
Local Boy
Lboy,
Uptight, radical, reactionary, authoritarian and no-sense of humor...wow, what a delight.
That you haven't learned to mix a sense of humor with your sense of indignation means you should keep those blood pressure pills close by.
One of your lines did make me laugh, though, "...you bitch like a little girl..." I just imagined you sipping cold cofee from a World's Best Grandpa Mug when you wrote that.
Yeah I'm sure you're a world beater, you really sound like it. I don't drink cold coffee,
your drink of choice I guess.
Of course if I started making jokes about Hispanics I doubt you'd fine the humor. You see racism where it doesn't exist so if I used a few ethnic truths on you I'd bet you call La Raza on me.
Not my style poser.
Local Boy
So, I think that maybe I can come into a community with hope and direction and expect that with these efforts change may come. As I listen to some of the stories of daily life amongst those that reside within these gang infested streets I’m struck smack in the face with the reality that I get to go home, maybe not the greatest of areas but yet home where thus far bullets have not found their mistaken way to my door step. What I’m hearing sounds like scripts taken straight out of a movie but the difference here is that there are no ‘props’ to take down at the end of the day. I thought I understood but now I question myself. Not that I question my efforts to support change but the changes that these folks go through each and every day while I get to walk away is heart wrenching. I’m reminded of an old saying “… you don’t know until you walk in my shoes….” How true……
So, Monrovia is pretty quiet? No more shootings or killings? Amazing (?)
Local Boy and usagain you need to stop arguing. You're never going to come to an agreement. I do agree that usagain goes back to the same old line over and over though and that's why you appear to be racist.
The whole civil liberties issue is a mute point if people aren't in the wrong place, looking the wrong way and doing the wrong things. And, no, looking the wrong way doesn't mean being black or brown. It means dressing like a fool and acting disrepectfully. Trust me back in "Whitelandia" where I grew up, the thugs were white, but they still got picked up by the cops every time they hung in the wrong place, looking like and doing the wrong things.
Personally, if my child did want to wear the kind of attire that would make someone mistake him for a gang member, I wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't purchase that kind of clothing and wouldn't allow him on the streets with it. Why? Because I'd rather him be unpopular than dead!
I spoke to a very morally upstanding African American man this evening. He is a former coach and athlete. He is a man of God and is a well respected mentor in our community. This man is angry that so many of his race allow their children to get into the gang attire and mentality because they don't keep the reins on their children. Even after warnings, nothing changes, he said. Pretty soon someone ends up getting shot, and sometimes it's the innocent kid standing with the not so innocent kid.
These are not my words. They come straight from him. He believes we must continue to set an example for children in the community by monitoring our children's choices of activities and styles. What is so wrong with expecting them to present themselves as respectable to the public? Isn't that what we want for them after all, to be respected?
Stop preaching civil liberties and trying to figure out people's agenda's and get real usagain. How do we make these children's lives better? That's what you should be focused on. And you can give them all the civil liberties you want, it's not going to stop a bullet.
Thursday afternoon while picking up my children from Monrovia High there were several Highway Patrol cars with lights blazin flying down Colorado towards Monroe Elementry. Also on Monterey/Parker (I think) at the same time a unit and undercover had something going on. Does anyone know?????