DadBart DadBart

Hurricanes and Street Gangs

▼

Hurricanes and Street Gangs

Are we missing a big point?

from JoeUser Forums

In the coming months and years there will be numerous investigations and "bipartisan" studies on who failed and who we can point a finger. A lot of that will be accurate, starting with Mayor Nagin, who was the first miserable failure in this.

However, I wonder how many of those investigations and studies will take a hard look at the primary blame behind the aftermath violence? I suspect we will see very little mention of street gangs. While much of the looting and some of the violence were just individual creeps, the majority of the violence was from street gangs. They saw the first opportunity to become master and took by any means.

Set aside the whole segments of cities that live under constant threat and intimidation of street gangs every single day for years. Just look at some of the recent events. Street gangs implicated in "negotiations" with Al Qaeda and other terrorists so they can get free weapons and act like the bigshots. One case involving a plot to get a "dirty bomb" in to the country.

While many will blame poverty and lack of jobs for the problem, I disgaree in part. 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. He had money and a job and that did not stop or prevent him from becoming one of the most violent muderous criminals in the world. He wanted it all, because of his ego-maniacal attitude and thirst for power over others.

New Orleans has been a large scale, graphic demonstration of what the gangs are really about, not the "poor downtrodden" image they have capitalized on. While the problem is by no means a simple one, nor are the causes, many solutions are.

Yes try to intervene in a youth's life before they can be twisted by the gangs. We also need a new justice system for juveniles involved in violent gang activites. We need a zero tolerance mentality and the youths thinking of involvement need to understand there really will be hard core consequences. 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.

Lazy, uninvolved parents who are largely to blame for youth gravitating to gangs also need serious consequences. Parents of violent juveniles also need to face jail time if they have been told previously they need to take action. No more Dr. Spock as an excuse to negate parental responsibility.

Judges who take a lenient approach outside of recommended sentencing guidelines to violent gang memebers need to go to jail if the gang member they relaesed commits another violent crime within 5 years. The charge would be conspiracy and support of a terrorist organization.

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.

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.

Please note I am specifically referring to those who have demonstrated "violent" gang activities for everything after the first suggestion.

They need to be taken out, everywhere, now. Before another disaster like New Orleans happens and we are again stymied trying to deal with the humanitarian crisis because of some worthless excuses for human beings. Yes I am hopping mad. After seeing things like what happened at the Convention Center and downtown, it is time to prevent these enemies to the human race from ever having an opportunity to do it again. We'll never know how many people died just from the lack of a rescue helicopter because some gang member thought it was funny and gave them power to shoot at one trying to save an 80 year old woman from a roof or how many infants will never have a fully stable mother simply because their mother was trying to find a quiet place for their baby to sleep and got brutally and repeatedly raped.

10,254 views 39 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Stop it. I never asked for a link proving that Skinheads OR Motorcycle gangs engaged in violence. Of course they do, I've already CONCEDED that point"

Ahh, I see. I got off the track then. I thought my argument with you was whether those 2 groups qualified as violent gangs that needed to be included in any anti-gang effort, whereas you were arguing with my stories. Just as a point of reference, it has been close to 15 years since my days of direct involvement, so I would be surprised if there are specific articles anyway. I'll give up my specific stories in favor of the point that they do those same things across the country and elsewhere as detailed in my responses with links and search criteria, so it does happen just as I stated. I feel I did provide the documented proof of the assertion that they are violent gangs, just like any other violent gang and that race is not the qualifier for that.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I really don't care to discuss it anymore, because I can't stand bullshit sensationalism and the perpetuation of stereotypical myths."

Since I provided links and search criteria that did return and document specific incidents all across the country, and in other countries, I am not sure how that qualifies as the perpetuation of sensationalistic and stereotypical myths. Are you trying to say that the absence of 3 specific stories on the web negates the multitude of other stories that detail the same thing?
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see some other threads revolving around the issue of racism, looters in N.O. being mainly black and whether it is racist to notice. I looked back on this article thread and see where some of my responses may not be entirely clear on that topic. Indeed, it appears from the media images that the majority of the looters, and likely violent gang members, were black in this case.

When I tried to refute race as a factor in reference to my original post, I was saying that in the big picture of dealing with gangs, nationally, we can not base it on race or economics or any other similar factors. It must be based on the violent gang culture. The reasoning being that if we only pay attention to certain races or classes when removing gangs from our neighborhoods, the next N.O. will have the same outcome, just diffferent faces on TV. The problem remains.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
The whole problem here is that in that the way the reporters are covering the stories out of New Orleans.
First of all, as I watched TV, I noticed that the words of the reporters did not match the images they were showing.

1) "Turmoil and breakdown at superdome...." All I saw were people who were asking for food or water along with a bunch elderly people,
women and children. The reporter was not attacked, no one tried to rush him and he did NOT feel threatened. So where is this TURMOIL?

2) "Situation out of control in New Orleans...." Once again, reporter is standing smack dab in the middle of the city, no gunshots going off, and not feeling threatened, surrounded by hundreds of people without food and water for days. So is the situation out of control becaused of the gangs, or is it just that THOSE who were SUPPOSED to be giving the people food and water and a way to evacuate DROPPED THE BALL. What better way to take focus off of the issue of government responsibility than to continually report any kind of story that makes the situation in the streets more violent than it actually is.

3) "Looters is rampant and out of control.... people taking TVs...." MOST of the images I saw of looting were the same ones from 4 days ago of people taking food, water, clothes and other things that were NEEDED. However, they OVERLY characterized this as somehow blacks were OUT OF CONTROL and NEED TO BE CRUSHED so that the RIGHTEOUS people of America can TAKE BACK THEIR CITY.

4) "12 year old girl raped in Superdome...." Who saw it? Where is the perpetrator? Where is the victim? What is her name? Where is the EVIDENCE so we can put the BASTARD IN JAIL. Reporters should not report everything that they "HEARD" without confirming it first, especially in a crisis situation. Otherwise, just like I pointed out in the last 3 bullets, the WORDS dont match the IMAGES. And in a crisis like this, we dont want to spread panic and the wrong impression of what is going on. Especially since so many who are going to help may be turned off and refuse to help those in need. If you didn't see it and it didnt happen directly in front of you, and all you have is a story told to you by someone who had it told to them, then it is a RUMOR and should NOT be reported as a FACT.

5) "Shooting at Helicopter stops all evacuations...." OK, maybe maybe not. But somehow I dont see how 1 incident stops the WHOLE show. If the people we have to rely on in a time of crisis are people that wear PINK PANTIES, then I don't need their help at all. Thats like saying "Abandon the women and children! There is DANGER we need to run for our lives and protect our lives... aaaaaahhhh!" In my opinion, this is the attitute of a COWARD who has no place amongst men (or women) in a time of crisis. If the only time you can rescue women and children is when the WHOLE U.S. Army is there, then God help us when the situation EVER GETS REALLY UGLY.
That is piss poor performance on the part of those who supposedly "protect and serve" and shows the utter, complete break down in their ability to help the people who needed help.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well then, why aren't you chasing all those who agreed with me and echoed my sentiments all over JU as well? You know, dharma, PB, Shovel, Island Dog, foreverserenity, Righwinger, etc, etc. Hey, I guess you prefer your "racism" sugar coated, I'll keep that in mind next time I have something to say about racial issues. (not.)If you have an issue with me personally, (which you obviously do) it would be nice if you didn't crap all over other people's threads in order to perpetuate it.


So I shouldn't bring stuff up in other people's threads huh? Sorry I misunderstood you, what with echo coming from the other side of your mouth.

If you have issues with what I said about you, come talk on my thread. Until then, you remain a coward and prove my words right with every passing day.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry I haven't commented on the issue lately, but you've made pretty much all points that I would have, Dan. You answered my questions and there's really nothing else I can say, other than reiterate the fact that I think if we take away one groups constitutional rights, all of our constitutional rights are threatened.

Also, on your points of classifying gangs, I think you run into trouble with 2 and 3. It's often hard to differentiate when someone has a tattoo or wears a color to show allegiance to a gang, and who just happens to have a tattoo or wear a color. This isn't as big a problem as number 3 though, cuz that could (and often does) define labor unions and influential political factions as well.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ahh, but the N.O. police today ran in to some of those imaginary smokescreens with guns. 1 dead, 3 injured, 1 critically, after being found roaming with guns and deciding to shoot it out with the police. Apparently there were people like that on the streets and one would assume if they would shoot it out with police, they certainly would have no hesitation in taking on defenseless people. Yesterday a man with a gun who challenged the police was shot dead at the Convention Center, where the rapes allegedly occurred. Apparently people like that were there too.

Why no prosecution or arrests? Wouldn't there have to have been an authority present to accomplish that? The police pulled out until they got help because the crowds were starting to turn on them. The police were part of the human misery as well. Being asked to go in and deal with the unbelievable level of suffering and the violence of those small groups, with no direction or support. Yesterday, 2 officers killed themselves. 3 days ago 40 officers resigned on the spot.

Actually, there is some truth to what you say, the media over dramatized how much the violent incidents were actually occurring. Numerous police officers repeatedly said it was not as wide spread as the media was making it sound. However, they also pointed out the types of incidents being described were indeed occurring and that in most cases it was violent gangs doing it.

Why would a media that jumps at every opportunity to trash the current administration take part in a conspiracy to cover up for them? Where did you first hear that federal response was too slow? From the media wasn't it?

In disaster trainings I have attended, there is always a specific pecking order of authority and who is to request resources. If it is a local disaster, local authorities retain control over the situation and when to request additional resources from state and federal syetems. If they deem necessary they request a higher authority to take control.

Here is my take on it. Mayor Nagin showed he is a complete incompetent as a leader. He did nothing before and after. He did not follow any of the pre-arranged steps or escalations. He gave no leadership to his first responders leaving them to languish without communication or direction. Chertoff is an intelligence officer. He is not competent to lead a disaster response of this type, therefore he did not recognize quickly enough that Mayor Nagin was not following disaster protocols and recommend the feds step in and take control of the situation. He stayed on the political safe ground. Bush recognized something was wrong and appointed a general who is well suited for this kind of thing, albeit well after it had grown out of control, and that general had it well on the way to being under control in the first 24 hours. Even the N.O.P.D. became more active and aggressive now that they had competent leadership. I left the LA governor out because she had half a state to deal with and needed to depend on people like Nagin to do their part. Not to mention Nagin arranging for well cared for and fed people in a safe place to be moved to the head of the line for evacuation (at the hotel where he set up temporary HQ).

In the end, whoever is to blame for response, the violent gang culture still showed who they are and what they are about and that needs to be addressed.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Also, on your points of classifying gangs, I think you run into trouble with 2 and 3."

I said in a later reply to someone else that if any group does not meet any one of the three, they should be excluded from the effort. The gangs should meet all 3 criters. Those 3 when taken as a whole make it pretty clear.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
" think if we take away one groups constitutional rights, all of our constitutional rights are threatened"

In my opinion, and I stress opinion, the violent gangs of all types surrender any constitutional protection the moment they become part of that culture. They are no longer American citizens, they are enemies of the state and decent people who follow the law and a sense of decency. Besides, I still challenge anyone to quote me the part of the Constituion that says someone who commits violence against innocent people is protected from action against them. I am advocating that people like that do not have the luxury of the ACLU getting them off, even when the proof in incontrovertible (sp), because someone opened a door without waiting 5 minutes first or some other silly excuse. The Constitution gaurantees protection for the innocent from unjust prosecution, not the guilty from a technicality.

If you meet all 3 criteria I spelled out, then in my mind you provided the proof and are not an innocent needing protection from unjust prosecution and you are no longer a citizen entitled to what protections do exist. The innocent need protection from you and the beginning of the Constitution spells out the right to life and liberty first and foremost.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
In my opinion, and I stress opinion, the violent gangs of all types surrender any constitutional protection the moment they become part of that culture. They are no longer American citizens, they are enemies of the state and decent people who follow the law and a sense of decency.


I think the gray area lies before you identify someone as a criminal. While I get your point about criminals being enemies of the state and not entitled to rights (although I'm not sure that I agree with it), I think the more dangerous consequence would be the violation of an individuals constitutional rights in order to prove that they are a criminal, or gang member.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

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!!!!!

Or whites, depending upon the area of the country.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

And so does the rich kids!  Which is what I said in my Isabel blog.  The ones that are most whinning and complaining and in the end violent are not the Middle class, but ones form both ends of the spectrum.

Ok, I took my son to see the land of the Dead.  That was a good movie to demonstrate this point.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think the gray area lies before you identify someone as a criminal. While I get your point about criminals being enemies of the state and not entitled to rights (although I'm not sure that I agree with it), I think the more dangerous consequence would be the violation of an individuals constitutional rights in order to prove that they are a criminal, or gang member.

YES!  To get from point A to Point B, denies the rights of the individual!.  It is a sad fact of our free society that we have to let some guilty go in order that most will have freedom.  We are trying to get it perfect, but never will.  We left eden with Adam.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Last couple of posts about rights are good food for thought. I also do not want to see the loss of individual rights, particularly for people already being victimized by the violent gangs. It is not an easy one. Perhaps we need to figure out how to properly oversee a military type response to gangs and then trust ourselves to do the right thing.

Yes, I am advocating a change in attitude. No small task, but we have to start somewhere. If we monitor ourselves closely enough and punish those few who abuse the focus on the violent gangs perhaps we can pull it off without sacrificing the point of our society. As it is now, we are stuck with the same problem with death attached to it. Innocent people being unjustly persecuted and killed by a few who have only their own interests at heart.

I have to admit I'd love to see us try it for 90 days and see how the death ratio of innocent to guilty compares to how it is now.