Hurricanes and Street Gangs

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.

Now we just fill in the middle part.

Ackkkkk.......... not an easy task.

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.

Well, all I was really alluding to is that it is predominantly a class issue, though you're right about less rather than more kids join gangs, but also to the overwhelming complexity of the issue. there is no simple answer. And, I certainly would not want class to be the excuse for any criminal behavior. That's why I agree that much of it begins in the home. But then, we have the issue of bad homes. Then what's the answer? Very complex stuff. I'm not a sociologist, and I have no answers, but I cannot just dismiss it all unfixable. I'm too idealistic for that.

Having said that, I think it's imperative, partly because of bad homes, that social programs, ie midnight basketball, teen jobs and training, work programs, Head Start, whatever, be funded to the max to get to these kids early. Once they have become gang members, it's usually too late.

Dabe "Very complex stuff. I'm not a sociologist, and I have no answers,"

I do not have all the answers either, but between all the people who share the same starting and ending point it can be easier than you think to fill in the middle. It is usually when we think that where we are starting and where we want to end up are vastly different that we get stuck on the middle part.

I can go back to my own experiences and see what might have been a factor. I come from a period when hard consequences were still a real threat and fear for a youth contemplating an anti-social path. My mother was poor and she was uninvolved in my upbringing. My father was a Marine and left for better things early in my life. I had all the criteria to go down a very bleak path, and to some degree I started that way. But there were real consequences from society that matched my actions. In time I learned the simple concept that "If I do this, then this other thing will happen to me". and that gave the pause needed to learn (and be taught) how to walk the better path. The same for my parents. If I went down the wrong path, my parents would be held accountable in some way as well. The lack of involvement in parenting by my parents was the main contributing factor to my starting out the wrong path. My own kids do not have a mother, but they have a very involved and aware father. From the oldest to the youngest they make me very proud of their accomplishments, humanity and sense of right and wrong (although they often express frustration at how well I remember my own youthful experiences-they originally thought I was psychic). So my own experience says an involved parent will prevent a lot. A system of comsequences will prevent a lot. An uninvolved parent and a lack of consequences will not prevent much of anything.

We dispensed with that in the 60s (a questionable by-product of our social growth back then). As a result youth now believe they can do anything and there will none or little consequence. There is no more pause to allow the chance to be directed down a better path. Not to mention that those already well down the path of violence are allowed to stay among us victimizing innocent people over and over.

That is just the preventive side. We also have to deal with what already is and we have to deal with it decisively. There are 2 benefits to dealing with what already is. One it serves as a very strong message to those needing the pause to think and second, it serves to remove those already over that line. Perhaps we don't need to be as drastic as snipers, but I can say that responding to merciless violence from an uncaring enemy with a greater force and mercilessness has quite an impact. In the end the people hurting innocents are cowards and bullies who run the second they get a bloody nose.

Whip "Wow, just a couple of months ago?"

That was just a local example. It happens all the time, all across the country. And biker gangs have previously taken over and terrorized entire towns. The difference was they moved on after their fun, inner city gangs stick around, they don't have the same level of mobility. The inner city gangs are consigned to mostly reecruting new people to start new chapters in towns where they try to entrench. I will acknowledge the motorcycle variety haven't been that overt in quite a while, but that is only because they learned the art of low profile to keep the heat off. They will still gladly attack an innocent person for "disrespecting" a member of the gang just like inner city gangs do for turning down the wrong street. And the definition of "disrespect" could be as simple as looking at some one in what is perceived as the "wrong way". I personally have been present for the taking of many such assault reports. In the context of just the couple of months ago example, that is in the present enough for me to keep them in the same grouping with other violent gangs. It is the culture to be violent and since you were associated with them you know that to be true. Even the term 1%s is intended to denote being outside the confines of society. It is often used as a banner of being a martyr of some type to generate a sense of sympathy and comraderie, but then the international terrorists make claim to the same thing.

BTW - I have had to talk to many parents who have lost children to drugs, including meth, that originated with one or another local chapter. So don't even try to promote the idea that they only hurt each other and no one else and are somehow about noble activities to help their communities. I understand you have a different view due to personal involvement with someone, understand that I have a much different one becuase of my involvement with the victims of their activities. Believe me when I say that when you have to look at the face of a dead 14 year old as the result of too much crystal and the eyes of their grieving parent or the bloodied face of a young man as he stands over the bed of his repeatedly raped girlfriend saying he should be dead for not being able to protect her because they passed a bar just as a group of Pagans who had too much to drink were coming out, all willingness to symnpathize or allow to exist the kind of culture that produces that type of people evaporates instantly. And although I wasn't present for the first example I used, I can only imagine how painful it was for the investigating officer of the 2 dead little girls when the mother asked, "Why are people like this allowed to be in our community?" Probably identical to the faces and pain of the people in New Orleans right now.

Understand that I am a big proponent of facts and would love to name specific towns, but I will not disclose things that define my locale. I think you can understand that given my background that is the prudent line to draw. I will be glad to drop all my examples based on personal experiences if naming a town is required to back it up. In lieu of that I would refer anyone to the Uniform Crime Statistics and research under violent crimes sections. You will find numerous examples from across the country of violent crimes committed by inner city gangs, motorcycle gangs, supremacy gangs and ethnic based gangs.

My local area has a large Mall that for almost 2 years was completely taken over by skinheads. They tagged every back hall and front facade and hung out in large groups in the lobbies, intimidating and threatening any number of people on a daily basis. They committed robberies and assaults and got drunk to the point of zero inhibition (except of course for the SHARPs who also added drugs to the mix). They regularly fought with wach other making small children who wanted to see the big toy store cry as they brawled openly. They made group assaults on women and they beat to death others. I was asked to come look in to and help develop a strategy to remove the same thing in several east coast mid-size cities and suburban areas. They are not as visible now because so much attention was given them last decade. As I pointed out before, skinheads were focused on in those communities where they flourished and other gangs were ignored allowing them to grow in strength and numbers. If we now focus on only those other groups, the remnants of the groups we focused on before will have the chance to re-group and re-emerge. Their intent has not changed just because their visibility or numbers have dwindled. Given the chance they will do exactly the same as the violent gangs in New Orleans. This is about a culture of violence and preying upon the defenseless to get more for yourself, not about where you come from or what race you are.

We must go after all of them if we are going to truly get this under control and not see something like New Orleans happen again. If one group has smaller numnbers than another, fine they will be easier to deal with, but they must still be dealt with. And they must be dealth with on the basis of their culture of violence not their ethnic or racial background.

BTW little_whip. I appreciate the respect of your tone and willingness to discuss on such a sensitive topic, especially since you have personal parts of your life that influence you in this area. The private email is something I do not do just as a personal line. It has nothing to do with any particular person or their views, it is something I do not do universally. I really appreciate that you offered though as I view that as someone energeized by the issue and wanting to dig deeper in to it. We may disagree in some principles, but we are clearly reaching for the same end. Good honest people trying to find a way to make things better.

Please do not take any passion of my own views as any kind of personal affront, it is just the passion of the topic speaking, not a judgment on any person. I know you have been bashed by others for some of your views and so have some on the other side of the fence, but I try very hard to avoid that way of thinking and prefer to stay on the issue as the point of contention not the individual. I say that as much for others who tend to feel agitated at my words as for you. Having said that I do on occassion express an honest impression of how someone is looking to me based on their words. Generally not meant as an insult, but as a method to get someone to think about it and their choice of words.

Featured? Does that mean a spot on Fox news? Can I be a highly paid "retired" expert on something? I thought not, oh well Powerball and highly paid expert, pipe dreams I guess.

Just as an aside to this topic and more food for thought, I used to travel around as a guest speaker to galvanize neighborhoods to fight back against the crime with their local police. I often had to reverse the tendancy to finger point and play the race card first before progress could be made on the real problems and bring all the people affected together to fight back.

One of my favorite examples was to caution against letting history repeat itself. I used the example of turn of the century (19th to 20th) Pennsylvania. At that time german was the preominate culture and language. I found a newspaper article that talked about complaints about how the new immigrants were filthy, lazy and causing crime. They were accused of refusing to learn the language of their new home (German) and of trashing whole neighborhhods with their disgusting ways and criminal gangs. This went on for years. I could have sworn I was reading an article right of the present about blacks or hispanics. Turns out it was German/Dutch people talking about Italians and Irish. They stayed so focused on the topic of what culture they were that no one ever truly addressed the actual gangs. We all know now what those Italian and Irish based gangs did later. We also know what the good honest people from those groups did for communities. People stayed so polarized along cultural and language lines they never got together to address that small group who represented the violent gang culture that was the real threat.

So what do we do, repeat the mistakes of the past or move beyond that and focus on the real problem?

In none of the speaking engagements did we discuss where I was from or my locale. We spoke of the neighborhoods I was addressing other than general items like the PA example. Uniform Crime Statistics is the best source to back up the crimes I refer to. Many incidents involving many types gangs were not reported as gang related in newspapers. In some cases this was by design as the thinking at one time was to not give them any press and at other times because communities were trying to smokescreen what was going on.

'll back off the "towns" part with bikers as I can't recall the specific incidents (in fact I did not even remember the CA incident until you mentioned it-I just remember seeing incidents listed while training back in the late 80s), and I ackowledge it has been quite a while since incidents like that and am not sure where I would research it. Can't back that one up with cold hard links, so I will concede. The violence and drug related deaths are documented everywhere there are crime statistics being kept. Sorry, I don't buy in to the "the drug supplier is innocent because the user chose to use". If they are the benefactors to the community you are trying to portray, they would not be doing something they know will result in the deaths of young people who are no where near mature enough to make choices like that. They peddle death and protect it with extreme violence.

I did not say skinheads beat women to death, I said they beat others to death and committed group assaults on women, as a group. Hence the enactment of hate laws to add to the prosecution. Children cried because opposing factions were openly fighting in their presence, scaring them. You have never seen a public brawl where children were present and reacted this way? There are numerous statistics available through most states court records that involve groups like those you defend involved in crimes of violence as a group. I do not feel the need to link to every state's online court systems to prove that it happened. Anyone can do that on their own. Just go to state web sites and see if they have court and crime statistics available online. Some do not, some do. Do not try to do a google for news stories on the outside chance that a local paper's articles actually get picked up by Google or that they chose to specifically identify the term gang, skinhead, etc. in their articles. Go to sources that are based on actual court records and police reporting of statistics.

I won't bite on the "it never happened if there is not a news story on it" side of the argument. Just because some commercial interest wanted to keep it quiet or prevent any mention of "gang" does not mean it did not happen. You are welcome to believe what you want, but I stand by my assessment of who needs to be included in the push against the culture of gang violence and the reasons why. If groups like the skinheads never did anything why did we enact hate crime and ethnic intimidation laws all across the country? Just part of some anti-white conspiracy I suppose? I am white and welcomed those laws, I saw the need and supported putting a stop to it. We should have addressed all the groups though, not just the media spotlighted ones. LA tried to do that, but a lot of it got overturned. That is why I said the ACLU should not be allowed to file any briefs related to gang suppresion afforts. They have perverted the interpretation of the Constitution's provisions to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution to protecting the guilty from the innocent. If bikers do not meet any one of the three criteria I initially set out, then I would favor removing them from the effort.

On the issue of how I protect my privacy, that is my choice to make and there is no shame in it. In fact, I give talks now on Internet Security (my new life is in computers) to teachers and always tell them to keep kids from disclosing things that give away who and where they are. People can have opinions and still maintain a degree of personal anonymity and I appreciate people who respect my personal space on that. It does not detract from the thoughts nor the legitimacy of things that are fact. I have referred everyone to the normal reporting sources for statements regarding types of crimes and who they are committed by, that is good enough. They are there and they bare it out. I fail to see where disclosing personal information somehow makes those sources any better.

I can see you feel very strong about your defense of 2 of those groups. I don't think there is anything I can say that you will not feel isn't good enough. I am sure there are many others who will not agree with various parts of my statements for a host of reasons. ACLU, Social Crusaders, Jesse Jackson, Supremacists, and the gangs themselves would disagree with me I am sure. That was the point, to provoke thought and discussion. That is fine, the whole world does not have to see it my way. In the end though, we still need to address this issue and many will agree. Many will also agree as to who it should not exclude. Many will also agree that race is an unreliable and incomplete method to base a solution on.

I think you and I are just re-hashing the same things over and over and not really moving either one of us. That is fine too, now others need to look at that, find their own facts as they see them and make their own decisions. You have given a lot of the other side of some thse points for people to chew on and I encourage everyone to do exactly that. I would not anyone to blow aside a single thing you or I said. We have to look at the whole picture and then decide where to go from there.

There, I did exactly as you suggested (because I agreed with you) and kept it focused to the issues and away from turning in to a personal confrontation. You can return the respect by allowing me to set my own personal limits while discussing these things.

Correction on a previous post. Philomedy asked where I defined qualifying as a violent gang and I replied that it was in my original post, It was actually in my second post.

I did a Google on "Skinhead violence" and came with pages and pages of links detailing specific incidents from numerous sources. Some of them would be brushed aside as biased and some of them are just non-aligned reporting sources.

Here is a link from National Gang Investigators site on motorcycle gangs. They seem to repeat the exact same things I said (excepting the "towns" remark which I conceded). Apparently I am not the only one out there with unprovable facts at my disposal. www.nagia.org/Motorcycle_Gangs.htm

I also did a search on "skinhead violence in malls" and came up with pages and pages of links detailing incidents. In fact, many of them identify Malls as a specific target zone for getting together and recruiting. In fact I even saw some links to skinhead aligned sites that tutor on how to use and view violence as a skinhead.

I think that is enough for links to back up many of my statements. While there might not be links to my specific stories from a newspaper, there are plenty that detail exactly the same things in numerous places throughout the country. Apparently these things are happening somewhere.

Everyone will just have to make up their minds as to what they want to believe or not.