I've been watching "Gangland" on the History Channel and it got me thinking. Why does the government not treat these gang members as domestic terrorists? I would venture a guess that street gangs have probably claimed more innocent lives than Al Quaeda here in the US,yet our fight of terrorism focuses on enemies abroad. Wouldn't tougher penalties for affiliation or membership in a gang be more of a deterrent than locking them up AFTER a latino gang member kills a 10 year old black girl just because she is black?
good topic...let's keep an eye on it and see if politics board is a better fit as it gets rolling.
I'm of the opinion that the Dept. of Wildlife should issue hunting licences for them, same as deer you could get a buck or a doe tag, for a certain section. Set up a blind, call them in, get your shot, then strap 'em to the hood of the station wagon. It'd be an interesting head mount to have in your living room. [popcorn]
<bookmark>
Quote from: king67rsss on June 16, 2008, 10:49:20 AM
I've been watching "Gangland" on the History Channel and it got me thinking. Why does the government not treat these gang members as domestic terrorists? I would venture a guess that street gangs have probably claimed more innocent lives than Al Quaeda here in the US,yet our fight of terrorism focuses on enemies abroad. Wouldn't tougher penalties for affiliation or membership in a gang be more of a deterrent than locking them up AFTER a latino gang member kills a 10 year old black girl just because she is black?
186.22 of the California Penal Code serves as an enhancement for gang crimes....
Also check out the "STEP" Act.......
And yes its somewhat of a deterrent (steeper penalties) . But then again gangmembers are becoming more savy and not admitting membership, not getting tattoos and other usual gangsret crap in an effort to avoid detection by Law Enforcement. and posibly evade said steeper penalties
Wikipedia isn't good for much, but their entry on terrorism does help highlight why this discussion keeps happening - the word itself is very emotionally charged, leading people to cling tightly to their personal definitions. Wikipedia terrorism link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)
As I understand the origins of the American street gang, they were typically focused on protection of members in the face of aggressors. Simple strength in numbers grew into para-military organizational structures devoted to criminal enterprises, with modern gangs focused on using illegal means for private financial gain of the membership.
Terror in the terrorism sense has a political element - the motivation is a cause or social pursuit, not just the accumulation of wealth. That's the difference - ideology. Gangs lack the central "change the world / change the politics" ideological motivation that is definitive of terrorism.
Quote from: king67rsss on June 16, 2008, 10:49:20 AM
I've been watching "Gangland" on the History Channel and it got me thinking. Why does the government not treat these gang members as domestic terrorists? I would venture a guess that street gangs have probably claimed more innocent lives than Al Quaeda here in the US,yet our fight of terrorism focuses on enemies abroad. Wouldn't tougher penalties for affiliation or membership in a gang be more of a deterrent than locking them up AFTER a latino gang member kills a 10 year old black girl just because she is black?
Do gangs threaten our society because they don't like our beliefs or because our beliefs get in the way of their business. I wouldn't say they do things to create change or out of disdain for society's beliefs, so I wouldn't classify them as terrorists.
Doesn't mean I don't think gangs are a big threat.
Quote from: Pakhan on June 16, 2008, 11:49:00 AM
Do gangs threaten our society because they don't like our beliefs or because our beliefs get in the way of their business. I wouldn't say they do things to create change or out of disdain for society's beliefs, so I wouldn't classify them as terrorists.
Doesn't mean I don't think gangs are a big threat.
No perhaps that isn't their motivation. However I do think they use terror as a weapon and that qualifies them, no? Why is it that the average person say's "don't go into that neighboorhood after dark"? Because they are scared, and they are scared largely of gangs, criminal groups who run around breaking the law and intimidating people. I've lived in those neighborhoods, I know these thugs and their mentality. They forsook any meaningful form of humanity long ago, they are only interested in being the most feared thug on the block. That's what the term "street cred" is referrencing, the abilitly to get things done out of fear because others know you'll do harm if your desires aren't met. These idiots only recognize strength, do you have more or less? Are you Alpha to them, or they to you? You cannot reason with the unreasonable, I vote we set them to an island and let them have at each other away from the public.
In broad terms, street gangs and what we are commonly defining as terrorist could fall under the same definition of an organized group seeking to do harm against another group or government. There are some significant differences, though - the Axis of Evil terrorists are motivated by a blend of political and religious beliefs, but street gangs just seem to be sociopaths.
I could see waging a war on terrorists both domestic and foreign, but only if that was more effective than doing what we are doing now. I don't think that calling gang members terrorists would get them off the street faster - plus, there are already laws that deal with hate crime, and gang-related activities. To overlay "terrorist" over gang member helps to put things in some ideological perspective, but I am afraid that the more we use that word the less effective it is. I think we should reserve "terrorists" for groups enriching uranium and the like.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on June 16, 2008, 12:28:45 PM
they use terror as a weapon and that qualifies them, no?
Many use terror to some degree. Stealth bombers, beware of dog, owner has gun, etc. In the most basic of definitions of terrorism I suppose they could qualify.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on June 16, 2008, 12:28:45 PM
Why is it that the average person say's "don't go into that neighboorhood after dark"? Because they are scared, and they are scared largely of gangs, criminal groups who run around breaking the law and intimidating people.
Terrorism is suppose to make you fear living the way you do anywhere, not going to specific neighborhoods.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on June 16, 2008, 12:28:45 PM
"street cred" is referrencing, the abilitly to get things done out of fear because others know you'll do harm if your desires aren't met.
I thought it was what made it easier to get credit cards, home and personal loans in the ghetto :P
Quote from: Pakhan on June 16, 2008, 01:36:00 PM
Terrorism is suppose to make you fear living the way you do anywhere, not going to specific neighborhoods.
I see your point on making broad blanket classifications as "terrorists".But when you have normal everyday folks assaulted because of some gangs stupid initiation rituals I think more needs to be done. Apparently most of what happens out here with the latino gangs is directed by the mexican mafia. How a predominantly prison gang can be allowed to "shot call", collect taxes and generally flourish is beyond me.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on June 16, 2008, 12:28:45 PM
You cannot reason with the unreasonable, I vote we set them to an island and let them have at each other away from the public.
And don't forget to nuke said island once they're all in place.
I've been watching the 'Gangland' series also, and have felt that the gangs are largely terroristic (as of today, not so much when most were formed since they were more interested in keeping their neighborhoods safe) but in a slightly different sense.
This series is excellent. I watched the one on the Mongols (motorcycle gang), and was fascinated.
Interesting story: after watching that episode on the Mongols, I showed up for a jury duty summons. They had over 80 potential jurors, for one criminal trial. We spent the day sitting in the courtroom as the prosecution and defense grilled all of the potential jurors about their opinions with respect to motorcycles, tattoos, and motorcycle "clubs" (defense wording) or "gangs" (prosecution wording), and whether they or any of their friends or family owned motorcycles, or had heard of the Mongols.
The defendant was the president of Oregon's Mongols, accused of kidnapping, assault, and conspiracy charges. I can only assume that the charges stemmed from this event:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1209093921218080.xml&coll=7 (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1209093921218080.xml&coll=7)
At any rate, they never got to me in the selection process (I was number 65 or so, of 80). But it would have been a really interesting trial.
Quote from: trenner on June 16, 2008, 03:12:47 PM
This series is excellent.
it's very good, but they're a little off on some of their explanations for terms. also, some of the episodes suffer from "lack of content" and feel like they're stretching to fill an hour of tv.
Quote from: derby on June 16, 2008, 03:20:06 PM
they're a little off on some of their explanations for terms
Haven't run into that yet. But then, I've only watched a couple episodes, from which to make my...uh...sweeping generalization. Heh.
Quote from: trenner on June 16, 2008, 03:38:37 PM
Haven't run into that yet. But then, I've only watched a couple episodes, from which to make my...uh...sweeping generalization. Heh.
watched an episode last night about female gang members and she was talking about "rocking up crack" and they explained that meant smoking it.... no it doesn't, it actually means
making crack cocaine.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on June 16, 2008, 11:30:49 AM
I'm of the opinion that the Dept. of Wildlife should issue hunting licences for them, same as deer you could get a buck or a doe tag, for a certain section. Set up a blind, call them in, get your shot, then strap 'em to the hood of the station wagon. It'd be an interesting head mount to have in your living room. [popcorn]
+1 [thumbsup]
I sugested that years ago in high school political science and everyone thought that was horrible. Well where is your freaking "loving and understanding thugs" got us?
Quote from: derby on June 16, 2008, 04:11:40 PM
watched an episode last night about female gang members and she was talking about "rocking up crack" and they explained that meant smoking it.... no it doesn't, it actually means making crack cocaine.
Where'd ya learn that, Cheech?
DRUUG SCHOOOL?!
;D
Derby-pedia strikes again...
An excellent, if somewhat sympahetic and biased, discussion of the origins of LA street gangs can be seen in
Bastards of the Party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastards_of_the_Party)
The narrator / producer is a former Blood. You'll recognize him if you've seen "Training Day."
////////
I haven't seen the "Gangland" series that you're speaking of, but it wouldn't suprise me if the gangs are being portrayed in a light that makes them seem closer to terrorists. Given the overuse and abuse of the concept of terror in national politics and the media these days, everyone is attaching the "terror" label to everything in hopes of increasing interest. By way of example, a couple months back a veteran of the current Iraq conflict was stabbed in his yard by two Hispanic males. Without knowing the motivation or provocation for the attack, the local newspaper labeled the attack "an act of domestic terrorism."
This is pretty much crying "wolf." You get extra attention for your local crime beat, but what happens when it's time to deal with some actual terrorists? Are we numb to it because of overuse? Do we care, or are we so used to the color-coded threat level randomly changing that we don't even log out of the DMF?
In my eyes, a terrorist is an NGO using fear of violence for political means.
Criminal street gangs aren't really political. I guess you could sort of classify AB as having political leanings but not legitimate ones. [roll]
Speaking as someone who lives smack dab in the middle of the area controlled by LAs (and possibly the nation's) strongest (and most-feared) gang, I can tell you that things are much different than it seems to be being portrayed.
Things have changed greatly since the days of the bloods and the crips, today's gangs are about moving drugs, laundering money and the like. The last thing they want to do is to bring unwanted attention to themselves by shooting some innocent bystander. Yes, innocent people do die in the face of gang violence and that is awful, but the numbers aren't that high (at least not anymore - and I can only speak for LA, where I actually track such numbers).
i like the show :)
+1 on CA (at least) having stiffer penalties.
Also, street gangs are increasingly being charged under RICO and Racketeering statues, the same ones that pretty much eradicated the Mob.