I do not mind linking, if I post a public opinion it is public property.

I disagree with your assessment. I'll make a distinction. In the 80s and 90s I worked in law enforcement. In the late 80s and early 90s I was specifically focused on gangs emerging in mid sized cities and suburban communities. While it is true that specific geopgraphic locations may be made up primarily of one race or cultural group and the gangs that emerge there will be made up of the majority group, that is just as true in primarily white neighborhhods as well. Skinheads are also a gang and, with the exception of SHARPs, are exclusively white. Irish and Itlalian based gangs are also primarily white. Many of the "minority" based gangs will also often have white members. All of them often use race as a smokescreen to mask their true intent, which is to take from others and have control over others to their own benefit. The Latin Kings, Crips, Bloods, etc, all have white members as well. Motorcycle gangs such as the Hell's Angels, Pagans, etc. are mostly white and do all the same things as inner city gangs, in fact they control the vast majority of methamphetimine traffic across the country and do it with all the same violence and disdain for innocents as any other gang.

One of the negative images social crusaders have inadvertently caused is to draw so much attention to specific groups and places that they created the false impression that those are the only groups and places.

The defining criteria must be 1-Do they participate in group based activities involving violence and crime? 2- Do they use gang signals, colors, clothing and tattoos to show their allegience to a gang? and 3 - Do they mark territories as under their control and use violence and intimidation to subjugate and exclude?

Look to the history and emergence of street gangs in the U.S. They started in earnest in the 40s and 50s. They were almost exclusively white, West European based gangs. The other incoming groups learned from them and expanded upon it.

Make no mistake, gangs are not a race or economic issue, they are an issue of attitude, a lost sense of consequence for young people and criminality and they prey upon good, honest people of all races.

We need to view taking out the gangs as a military action with the appropriate resources and actions for that perspective. Even to the point of placing military snipers on rooftops to take out armed gang members the moment they become visible on the street, before they can kill or injure yet another innocent person.


I actually agree with that one. I may be more relaxed on it, but once a gang becomes a major menace and the police or the town call for help (or the nieghborhood community does it) and or the crime rate goes beyond a specific point, this should be done.


Too many people thinks it is so cool to be associated with a gang (just like in Muslim countires too many people think its cool to be a terrorist) so make it uncool.

War On Crime Part 2: Sniper Alley

"And how many of them do you see stalking city streets?"

I think that is the point. You don't see them at all.
Until you do something to them or bother their actions... and their actions is to take what is yours.

The characteristic is still the same. The Mob is a great thing for your community, untl they feel your not needed anymore.

When it comes to gangs, the dea rise again.

Thats not to say this excuses their criminal element, but again, outside of that particular element they're often seen as a benevolent presence in the area.

So outside of their criminal element they're often seen as a benevolent presence, huh? So basically what you're saying is that they're good except when they're committing crimes. Damn, they should get medals.

So, while I do agree that gangs consisting of mostly whites exist, I don't agree that their menace is anywhere NEAR that of the neighborhood minority gangs, who recruit neglected children, arm them, and set them to violence.

Again I speak from first hand knowledge.

So, from your firsthand knowledge, white gangs are not that menacing to white people. Revelation of the century there.

Since most of these violent street gangs are comprised of blacks (or hispanics, depending on what part of the country you're in) any attempt to dismantle them will be met with cries of RACISM!!!!!

Just cuz you're a racist who gets accused of racism doesn't mean that people can't say things about race. Look at Dr. Guy. Look at Gideon. They've both written articles about race relations without getting any sort of backlash from anyone. You got called out for actually being a racist, not for pointing out matter of race.

Giving a job to a hard core gangster will not stop their activity. These are self-gratifying, "I want it all for nothing" monsters. They are cut from the same mold as Bin Laden.

I think this varies from place to place. The Conservative Vice Lords spent a lot of time trying to beautify the neighborhoods they were pushed into in Chicago before they city government decided it didn't like its policies criticized and started arbitrarily arresting people.

Membership in a gang needs to be a severe crime with a matching punishment, even before committing a violent act with the gang.The ACLU needs to not be allowed to file any legal briefs in support of gangs. The gangs need all constituional gaurantees stripped away as they are not Americans, they are an enemy bent on taking over.

Do criminals still have constitutional rights? Former gang members who've been released from prison? Former gang members who cooperate with police? How do you define a gang?

Violent members of street gangs are not poor, underpriviledged children anymore, they are selfish, spoiled brats that will do anything, including kill and rape, to get what they want for nothing.

I'm sure there's some spoiled and and some underprivileged, and I'd venture to say that the underprivileged vastly outnumber the spoiled. I doubt new gang recruits, which tend to be in their teens, are selfish and spoiled.

"And how many of them do you see stalking city streets?"

Depends on what streets. In some communities they are more visible and prevalent than inner city street gangs in the inner city neighborhoods. Big cities are not the only streets in our country, they're just the ones that get most attention and media images.

"but they rarely victimize anyone other than fellow criminals, ie: those that are also involved in drug manufacturing/trafficking." Thats is just patently false, They have done a lot to try and reduce attention on them by being low key and "respectable", but they are no less dangerous or any less willing to grab what they can whenever they feel like it, whoever it hurts. I would suggest checking the Uniform Crime Statistics from the FBI which is a compilation of crimes as reported by local communities. Just a couple of months ago a police officer in a nice suburban community was killed for stopping a car with an expired registration. Shot point blank in the face. My a motorcycle gang member who thought he was being for an outstanding warrant. The same person, with co-members with him, later ran over 2 little girls trying outrun the police as they closed in.

"when's the last time you heard of a local Crips or Bloods gang organizing a toy drive or a poker run to benefit charity"

Actually quite a few, especially the Crips and Latin Kings. However, it is a move by some of the leaders to appear respectable and polished, just like the motorcycle gangs. If you were associated with a motorcycle gang, then you know this is the intent and that is specifically designed to promote a positive image just to keep the heat off. When the cameras go off, they are still the same violent, criminal group of people who would not hesitate for a moment to take over an antire community to satisfy their own lust for power. The gangsters of the 20s carried on like many of the street gangs of today, later they figured out that pretending to be respectful and pretending to be benefactors kept the heat off and garnered some limited community support. There is a most widely used terrorist manual that says to do the same things before you blow up men, women and children.

"who recruit neglected children, arm them, and set them to violence." Either you don't know much about skinheads or are intentionally omitting the truth. What group of white kids do you think are targeted for recruitment by white supremacists? Disaffected, neglected, socially mal-adjusted and poor white kids. While not all of the kids turn out to be poor, the threat of becoming poor, not getting your fair share and "we will love you and be your family" is the common theme among them all. Not all street gang members in inner city neighborhoods come from totally poor families either, but they use the same vulnerabilities to recruit. In the 70s and 80s a lot attention was paid to the white supremacy based groups and that allowed the inner city groups to grow and become stronger. Do it the other way around and the same thing will happen.

Again, I caution against approaching this with the mask of race or culture. Miss any one of the violent gangs to focus on just specific races and you allow the others to become stronger and move in to the vacuum. The intent is the same for all of them. To take what they want by any means and to have absolute power and control over those around them, at any cost. We either deal with them all or it will fail and images like New Orleans will just have different faces on them.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion, and I would never advocate that being taken away from anyone. In an attempt that we, as a people, do not miss an opportunity I would point out that if you allow yourself to approach this with the blinders of prejudice, sterotypes or media images you can not fix this particular problem. We can not go after only brown skinned, middle age, arab men and expect to win the fight against terrorism. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were responsible for 160 innocent men, women and children losing their lives. Eric Rudolph, and those who protected and enabled him, killed and injured how many people in the name of saving the sanctity of life? When 331 men, women and children lost their lives in Beslan, Russia last year, were all the terrorists middle aged arab men?

The same is true of any violent gang driven by greed, lust and a desire to have power over others to make themselves feel stronger. It is the alignment with a violent gang that should be the determining factor, nothing else should be a consideration.

Again, I caution against approaching this with the mask of race or culture. Miss any one of the violent gangs to focus on just specific races and you allow the others to become stronger and move in to the vacuum. The intent is the same for all of them. To take what they want by any means and to have absolute power and control over those around them, at any cost. We either deal with them all or it will fail and images like New Orleans will just have different faces on them. You are definitely entitled to your opinion, and I would never advocate that being taken away from anyone. In an attempt that we, as a people, do not miss an opportunity I would point out that if you allow yourself to approach this with the blinders of prejudice, sterotypes or media images you can not fix this particular problem. We can not go after only brown skinned, middle age, arab men and expect to win the fight against terrorism. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were responsible for 160 innocent men, women and children losing their lives. Eric Rudolph, and those who protected and enabled him, killed and injured how many people in the name of saving the sanctity of life? When 331 men, women and children lost their lives in Beslan, Russia last year, were all the terrorists middle aged arab men? The same is true of any violent gang driven by greed, lust and a desire to have power over others to make themselves feel stronger. It is the alignment with a violent gang that should be the determining factor, nothing else should be a consideration.

Well said.

"Do criminals still have constitutional rights? Former gang members who've been released from prison? Former gang members who cooperate with police? How do you define a gang?"

I gave three primary points for defining a gang member. I also differentiated between those who are active violent members and those who are pre-violent members. A gang member who has committed a violent crime should not be coming out of prison, so I don't consider an answer to that part of the question. I also advocated the controversial suggestion for the removal of constitutional gaurantees for anyone found to be an active member of a violent gang. Call them enemy combatants if you will. I've been in those neighborhoods and communities under the thumb of violent gangs. There is no difference from a war zone. They are waging war on our people, our way of life and our freedoms, just like any of the international terrorists. The gangs are almost worse because they are already right under our feet and already launching their daily attacks. I understand it is a radical attitude in a land like ours, but people who belong to groups that advocate and participate in the kind of things that happened down south in the face of such a humanatarian crisis are my enemy who would take the life of my children, the same as a terrorist who smuggles a bomb in to their school (in fact the gangs already kill children in their schools). I do not see anything in the Constitution that says anyone has any rights when they are trying to kill me or my children. If someone is wearing the colors (of any violent gang-not just inner city) and walking down the street with an AK, they are the enemy and instantly abrogate any claim to rights in my mind. They make their intent clear by their actions and affiliation.

We have to make people more afraid to be associated with a gang as opposed to how it is now where people are afraid of the gangs.

I gave three primary points for defining a gang member.

Where?

And do criminals still have constitutional rights? Non-violent gang members released from prison or who desert the gang? Are misguided youth who've been in the gang for 2 days and done nothing treated the same as 5 or 10 year veterans who actively recruit and perpetuate violence?

I'm not trying to be hostile here, but there is a bad history of inaccurately defining gangs, and if one sector's constitutional rights are threatened, all sector's potentially are. Just to cite an example, the CPD's definition of a gang for a very long time was "3 or more urban youths gathered together."

"I doubt new gang recruits, which tend to be in their teens, are selfish and spoiled."

Depends on the gang. Being spoiled and selfish is not an economic condition. It is an attitude. A kid who comes from a poor economic class but belives they can do whatever they want and take anything they want without consequence is spoiled and selfish. A lot of that starts at home when parents do not want to go to the trouble of following through with consequences based on actions. In many cases it is parents who are also spoiled and selfish and view having to deal with their children as an imposition. That is why I advocated consequences for them as well when they have been put on notice there is a problem they must deal with and then don't.

Philomedy "Where?"

In my original post. Marked 1,2 and 3.

Philomedy "Are misguided youth who've been in the gang for 2 days and done nothing treated the same as 5 or 10 year veterans who actively recruit and perpetuate violence?"

An earlier post from me "I also differentiated between those who are active violent members and those who are pre-violent members". That was referring to my original post.

So, from your firsthand knowledge, white gangs are not that menacing to white people. Revelation of the century there.

Nail on the head, here.

When I was growing up in a small town in Connecticut, during the 60's, the town made it illegal for kids to hang out in the parking lot outside of the Friendly's. They never set number or time limit. It was a law that could be arbitrarily implemented if anyone was perceived as "loitering", demonstrating, or being in a gang. No definition of gang was necessary. It was this knee jerk reaction to anti-war demonstrations, mostly.

My point is, any group of people can qualify as a gang if they are perceived by some others, usually in positions of authority, as up to no good. Without the ACLU fighting for civil rights for everyone, no one has any civil rights. "I may not like what you say, but I respect your right to say it." Actual criminal activity, on the other hand, should be dealt with, including initiating law enforcement, but also dealing with the social aspects of what causes a person to commit a crime or join a criminal gang. That social understanding is where we, as a society, fall short.

Dan, this is a good article. I just wish that the issue of race wouldn't always become the topic, but rather the issue of class and money and access. For lots of kids, it seems that their only access to anything is with criminal gangs. Because of class, in which the predominant poor are people of color, it gets simplified immediately by simpletons as race issues.

On the issue of responses to my posts being hostile or contradictory to my expressed opinions. I invite impassioned debate on the issue, I'm a big boy I can take it. That is why I chose that prticular topic and worded it the way I did. It is one we need to look at and through energetic and impassioned debate we may arrive at a solution. Do I believe my original thoughts are the final word on the matter? Absolutely not, that is the point of a debate on a sensitive issue. As I said in another thread, there are always to sides to a story and the story you started with may not be the one you end up with. That is the point of bringing these things to the forefront and inviting a variety of views and that is what being solution oriented is about. We start with a common ground and build from there. That is what resolving conflct is all about. The common ground is that the violent gang problem is a serious one that needs to be addressed before too many more lives are lost. We all have the same starting point and the same end desired. Now we just fill in the middle part.

Dabe - "Dan, this is a good article. I just wish that the issue of race wouldn't always become the topic, but rather the issue of class and money and access. For lots of kids, it seems that their only access to anything is with criminal gangs. Because of class, in which the predominant poor are people of color, it gets simplified immediately by simpletons as race issues."

I appreciate the positive approach to my words. Bear in mind that there are many more youth from poor families that never get involved in violent gangs than those who do. Apparently it is not as simple as class and economics, nor can it be any more pigeon holed based on economic grouping than on racial grouping. Giving people hope does go a long way to leaving them less susceptible to negative influences. But I still believe the majority of it starts at home. And once someone has turned the corner to becoming a violent, "me first" member of a gang, they are past the point of me being willing to address social issues on their behalf. They made their choice and have to understand there will be consequences. They are now a threat and must be treated accordingly.

Just for the record I do not favor local communities being allowed to define what constitutes a gang. This is where the most abuses occur. It is a national problem and should be handled as a nation.