Tag Cloud
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU
by Devin Lavelle, published on August 12, 2009 at 6:03PM
Storyline: Democratic Party of Sacramento County
No high resolution image exists...
The Democratic Party of Sacramento County (DPSC) voted to endorse a resolution opposing West Sacramento’s “Gang Injunction” because it permits law enforcement authorities to act without evidence of wrongdoing. The “Gang Injunction” allows West Sacramento police to arrest individuals for associating with gang members – even their family members. It also allows West Sacramento police to abuse Sacramento’s sovereignty and arrest people in Sacramento who have violated no Sacramento law.
DPSC member and California Democratic Party Executive Board member, Christine Thomas said, “Wrongful prosecution, accusations, and tracking individuals in databases for the rest of their lives without providing the protections of due process is something we must all guard against. In recent years, we seem to have forgotten the importance of our civil rights and liberties and they have too often been ignored and disregarded.”
In addition, the DPSC unanimously voted to urge that the state of California abide by state law in their negotiations with the SEIU and honor the contract that Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated with SEIU earlier in the year.
The DPSC is proud to support the Stonewall Democrats efforts to assemble a team and raise money to support the Central Valley AIDS walk.
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Relevant?
In all seriousness, why the negativity? I certainly hope whatever is causing your evident bitterness goes away soon
Christine you are wrong... the Injunction only effects known & documented gang members not the general public. Also, the police cannot make an arrest unless there has been a violation of the law, if they violate the terms of the injunction, they have violated a state law, California Penal Code Section 166, not "Sacramento law" as you stated, and they can be lawfully arrested.
Wow. Violation of the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully. Probably several other guarantees both within and without the Bill of Rights and the California Constitution being trampled on if that statement bears out.
"It also allows West Sacramento police to abuse Sacramento’s sovereignty and arrest people in Sacramento who have violated no Sacramento law."
This is something that definitely pertains to maintaining clear boundaries as to how law and order are to be administered here within Sacramento. It is NOT ok for one city to ignore another city's boundaries and charters in order to enforce their laws outside of their jurisdiction. Anybody who understands how important jurisdictional precedence is can clearly see how attempts at enforcing the West Sac Gang Injunction can end badly.
It is unconstitutional (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) to have any civil or criminal sanctions for hanging out with whomever you want. However, once you have been convicted, are on parole, probation, are a ward of the court, (meaning: a juvenile and the state is acting In Loco Parentis) or are a party to an injunction by a Court of Law, you may LOSE many constitutionally protected rights.
This "gang association" clause has been used effectively for decades in every county in the US and a separate court injunction is NOT NEEDED for the court to order you to stay away from certain criminal elements if you are a probationer, a parolee or ward of the court.
Furthermore, Christine Thomas proves her ignorance of the law when she said “Wrongful prosecution, accusations, and tracking individuals in databases for the rest of their lives without providing the protections of due process..." Every single person under a "non-association" clause, or a named party to an injunction has had their Due Process and has had their day in court...otherwise it WOULD be unconstitutional....and they are NOT "tracked in a database" for the rest of their lives...they are only tracked or supervised for as long as they are under a probation, on parole, or under an injunction ordered by the court.
It is SCARY to think that someone as IGNORANT of the law as Christine Thomas is, is an Executive Board member of the Democratic Party.
The Gang Injunction ONLY affects known and documented Norteno gang members NOT the general public, and only after a court has reviewed the evidence submitted.
Anyone who is against this injunction supports gang violence and criminal activity.
Wow, really?
Jim Knapp:
<blockquote>"um...for those of you who are ignorant on this issue, the police already have the right to make arrests of those on probation or parole who have a "gang association" prohibition order.
It is unconstitutional (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) to have any civil or criminal sanctions for hanging out with whomever you want. However, once you have been convicted, are on parole or probation, or are a ward of the court, (meaning: a juvenile and the state is acting In Loco Parentis) you LOSE many rights in America.
This "gang association" clause has been used effectively for decades in every county in the US and a separate court injunction is NOT NEEDED for the court to order you to stay away from certain criminal elements if you are a probationer, a parolee or ward of the court.
Furthermore, Christine Thomas proves her ignorance of the law when she said “Wrongful prosecution, accusations, and tracking individuals in databases for the rest of their lives without providing the protections of due process..." Every single person under a "non-association" clause, has had their Due Process and has had their day in court...otherwise it WOULD be unconstitutional....and they are NOT "tracked in a database" for the rest of their lives...they are only supervised for as long as they are under a probation or parole order granted by the court."</blockquote>
Here's where you're losing and confusing me by conflating two different issues
1) You're talking (and IANAL) about seemingly normal probation and parole prohibitions restricting those with whom you associate
With the fact that
2) The article doesn't say that these individuals has been convicted of gang activity or even convicted of anything. Perhaps I'm missing something - where does it say this?
Wouldn't "gang association" prohibitions pertain to one gang member associating with another gang member?
How about a thought experiment? Suppose a former gang member 'gets religion' after being convicted of a crime and is released on parole or is on probation. Say this person, let's call him 'Jim' wants to join a church group - are those who also attend this church group now seen as gang associates, simply for associating with 'Jim'?
Suppose 'Jim' gets a job - are his co-workers now seen as potential targets of this prohibition?
Again ... where ... does it explicitly say that every person under this injunction are "gang members?"
Or even under probation or parole?
Please provide a link or references to substantiate your comments. Your help will be most appreciated
"It is unconstitutional (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION) to have any civil or criminal sanctions for hanging out with whomever you want."
Being added to a gang association list, which currently ends up on lists provided to and then through Homeland Security, for socializing, working, attending church, or shopping with someone who has been identifed as a gang member is against the Constitution of the United States, and one might hope, evolving standards of decency, and exactly what West Sacramento continues to practice. You too, Mr. Knapp, should be alarmed. I would like to think you have heard of the numerous cases of people ending up on government watch lists because of similar or the same names, or names that were incorrectly added to a database, and are not able to board a plane at an airport. This is a prime example of how something that may seem as harmless as adding your name to a W. Sacramento gang association list can be dispersed and then follow you for the rest of your life, without any type of judicial due process. This is a violation of our civil rights and we as citizens need to speak out against this behavior on the part of law enforcement. No one supports crime or criminal behavior. Hopefully we all support public safety. But, it does seem to be common practice that gang injunctions are issued in poverty and minority neighborhoods. One might want to ask if there is a connection - do we value those citizens' civil rights less than other citizens?
So are you saying that people convicted of crimes, or are members of a know violent street gang should not lose any rights Ms. Thomas?
Apparently you did not read my post, courts all across the United States, issue Do Not Associate orders as a condition of probation or parole. This order is temporary and is only in effect for the duration of parole or probation.
Some Cities, including West Sacramento, have also instituted civil suits against gangs and gang members for terrorizing their communities...and there have been injunctions against gang members or being associated with a gang. This is ONLY after full due process and the court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to warrant such an injunction.
Do you have any children Ms. Thomas? Do you allow your children to associate with gang members? Feel free to do so, that's your choice, I for one am thankful that our courts have decided that there are times when we must order people to stay away from gangs.
Ever been a victim of gang violence? I have... You should try it sometime... It will change your liberal perspective...
And lastly...West Sacramento has done an AMAZING job in cleaning up their town in the last ten years...with the exception of a few isolated neighborhoods controlled by gangs...It is MUCH safer than the City of Sacramento.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHuIQ11j4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEBDQaQDBRg
No crime need be committed for an individual to be placed on the list. Once on the list, individuals are subject to arrest for merely associating with others on the list, who are merely suspected of being gang members and may never have committed any crime. Basically, I skipped a step.
I apologize for the error -- it was my personal misunderstanding, the resolution itself was correct.
I do not believe that the police can put them on the list, from what i have read, the court must approve of them being placed on the list, or it is unconstitutional.
Having more than once been a victim of criminal behavior, Mr. Knapp, you have my empathy. It is a horrible feeling, and emotions ranging from revenge to fear are normal human behavior. But, they do not make good public policy.
I would hope the discussion could evolve to how does West Sacramento and other communities dealing with the issue of violence and crime best provide public safety without becoming more like what we condemn. Isn't that exactly what crime is; a violation of another's human rights, civil rights and liberties?
This is not an issue of race or socioeconomics; gang members come in all races and poverty is no excuse for criminal activity or violence.
Having been a victim of gang violence does not put me in fear nor do I want revenge, in fact it prompted me to work with gang members and at-risk youth for a living. I believe our community has an obligation to provide them with opportunities and teach them the tools to succeed, but at the same time we must hold them accountable for their behavior.
http://www.yoloda.org/PressReleases/West_Sacramento_Gang_Injunction_%20Reinstated.pdf
Hmm... Apparently Gang injunctions work well: They drop crime up to 85%
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/763025.html?storylink=lingospot
"...Since 1999, to prevent rulings against injunctions in the name of constitutionality, city attorneys have carefully worded their filings so that they individually name every gang member, establish a designated area where the injunction applies, and enumerate the exact activities that gang members are prohibited from doing. These generally include association with one another, wearing certain clothes, making certain hand gestures, acting as lookouts, fighting, drinking, and using drugs. Some prohibited activities are already illegal, but the injunction means that violators can be held in contempt of court, which would demand additional sanctions. Violators who conduct activities that are normally legal are charged with violating a court order, which can carry a six-month jail sentence in California..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_injunction
IIRC, this specific injunction was originally filed against a few named individuals and 400+ unnamed individuals and served on only one, which was thrown out by the California Court of Appeal (the judges of which, as you know, are placed by gubernatorial appointment; most of which have been Republicans), amended and refiled (from your link), and is currently on appeal
You give a link to an article from the Modesto Bee I have some questions which relate to this article which quotes the Yolo County DA among others claiming injunctions to be very effective.
Do you think the Yolo County DA may be just the slightest bit biased?
This article mentions several cities. Have any of these cities named 400+ unnamed individuals?
How similar, are the injunctions filed in these cities to that filed in Yolo?
What do the neighborhood communities in these cities say relating to the injunctions? If they're positive regarding these injunctions, what is it that Yolo can learn from their experience?
What does the community in the Broderick area feel about the injunctions?
You imply the article claims that crime has dropped 85%. And I'm not discounting this, but, what criteria was used for this claim? Were all explanations taken into account? Over what period of time? How large was the sample size? Was it the entire city? Neighborhood? County? Do they include traffic infractions? DUI's? Were there any other possible factors? Were there any possible obviating socio-economic factors?
Thanks, I'm hoping your vast knowledge can enlighten me
I was hoping the level of debate would rise above the typical talk radio blather; instead there are two ad hominem responses since my last post which don't address any specific issues
Sadly, I was mistaken.
And btw, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions, Jim
So you do offer this level of emotion and support of vicitims, just in a negative manner.
Why do you think gang members should have more of a right to terrorize communities, than law abiding citizens have to live in a safe and peaceful community?