Conversation on The Sacramento Press about: Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-14T22:53:35Z

JohnT... try answering my question first, then I will respond..and try something less than an "ad hominem" response. 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?

By: thsas

2009-08-14T21:21:35Z

Wow, support of victim rights described as blather. Ouch. So you do offer this level of emotion and support of vicitims, just in a negative manner.

By: JohnT

2009-08-14T19:51:37Z

Awesome 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

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-14T16:34:16Z

They only give them lip service... "I feel your pain" Apparently they think criminals should have more rights to commit crime than you do to live in a safe and peaceful community.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-14T16:30:04Z

Agreed with 100%, but our forefathers never contemplated gangs or the terror they bring to communities. That's exactly why we have the courts determine what the constitution means and how to apply it to modern day social and criminal problems.

By: thsas

2009-08-14T15:51:04Z

I wonder if the bleeding hearts offer this level of emotion and support for the victims of these punk thugs.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-14T04:36:54Z

JohnT, why do you support the right of gang members to terrorize communities?

By: JohnT

2009-08-14T01:54:33Z

Jim you still haven't answered me 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

By: Christine Thomas

2009-08-13T23:56:19Z

"The gang injunction does not allow the police to arrest individuals -- it allows them to place individuals on the gang injunction list -- despite having committed no crimes. Once on the gang injunction list, individuals are prohibited from and subject to arrest for "standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing, anywhere in public view or any place accessible to the public" with another individual on the list. This includes the workplace, a movie theater, even family gatherings. Listed individuals are also subject to a strict, lifetime curfew within most of the City of West Sacramento." [From Devin's correction]

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T23:49:01Z

When people join violent street gangs, they risk giving up certain civil 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.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T23:42:40Z

oh and I HOPE the gang list from West Sacramento is given to Homeland Security....Norteno's and other Mexican gangs are a true national security problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJHuIQ11j4s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEBDQaQDBRg

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T23:37:20Z

Bill, being in a gang is now an issue of socail justice? Being in a gang is a core value of the Democratic Party? 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.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T23:15:53Z

Are we talking about this from 2007? 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

By: Christine Thomas

2009-08-13T23:13:12Z

I believe my question was, do we value the civil rights of those living in poverty or who are deemed minorities less? Is this why it is easier to issue an injunction that would limit their rights? Do law enforcement or prosecutors assume no one will care? No one supports criminal behavior here. I do personally support a strong defense of civil liberties and rights for all people. 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?

By: JohnT

2009-08-13T23:08:38Z

Steve, In all seriousness, why the negativity? I certainly hope whatever is causing your evident bitterness goes away soon

By: JohnT

2009-08-13T22:53:30Z

Awesome comment, Jim. But, you seem to be making unsubstantiated assertions, and you're conflating a few different issues. Let me quote you Jim Knapp:

"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."

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

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T22:47:12Z

Devin, as you state it....It sounds unconstitutional... I don't believe you are reading it correctly...do you have a link to the actual language? 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.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T22:41:04Z

Your last statement is correct...Our society values gang members civil rights less than we do law abiding 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.

By: memary10

2009-08-13T22:35:09Z

Giving law enforcement blanket powers is never good or advisable. Our hallowed forefathers who we read about in high school history class were very clear on this issue. Because they had tasted the tyranny of the absolute power of the British Crown, they gave us safeguards in our Constitution and spoke out loudly about the dangers of allowing our institutions too much power and too little accountability. Those who do not heed (and read) the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

By: tdramer

2009-08-13T21:36:14Z

This is an issue that shouldn't be partisan. Just because it mentions that the Democratic Party of Sacramento County voted to oppose the gang injunction, doesn't make it a Democratic only issue. This is an infringement- on people's civil rights. As stated above, there is already a law that convicted criminals on probation and parole can be told who they can and cannot associate with. But this law makes people without any criminal history at all- who are added to a list by association ONLY, subject to a curfew, search, arrest, etc. without having committed ANY CRIME. This is as much the Freeman's, and the true government-out-of-our-lives Republican's issue as it is the Democratic Party's. They just haven't published their stand on it here in this forum. So please, don't be so emotionally immature. Try keeping your petulant visceral reactions to all things "Democratic" to yourself when there is a topic worthy of discussion by all sides.

By: billl4

2009-08-13T21:31:19Z

Maviglio's ignorance once again shows his irrelevance. Civil rights and social justice issues are core Democratic values and not limited to geographical boundaries. As they say, "An injury to one is an injury to all!"

By: Devin Lavelle

2009-08-13T21:24:24Z

Correction: The gang injunction does not allow the police to arrest individuals -- it allows them to place individuals on the gang injunction list -- despite having committed no crimes. Once on the gang injunction list, individuals are prohibited from and subject to arrest for "standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing, anywhere in public view or any place accessible to the public" with another individual on the list. This includes the workplace, a movie theater, even family gatherings. Listed individuals are also subject to a strict, lifetime curfew within most of the City of West Sacramento. 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.

By: Christine Thomas

2009-08-13T20:34:29Z

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. Relevant?

By: Christine Thomas

2009-08-13T20:31:38Z

It is never helpful to constructive and meaningful dialog to name call or make demeaning comments. But putting that aside, you, Mr. Knapp have actually stated our case just as we see it: "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?

By: Devin Lavelle

2009-08-13T19:03:17Z

That is a very mature and thoughtful comment.

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T18:48:35Z

Yes really

By: Devin Lavelle

2009-08-13T17:58:41Z

"Anyone who is against this injunction supports gang violence and criminal activity." Wow, really?

By: Jim Knapp

2009-08-13T16:35:42Z

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. I suspect that the majority of those affected by this injunction are on probation or parole...that's a stat I would like to see. 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.

By: Bill Albertson

2009-08-13T09:13:54Z

"The “Gang Injunction” allows West Sacramento police to arrest individuals for associating with gang members – even their family members." 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.

By: Steven Maviglio

2009-08-13T06:54:28Z

Good to know the "Sacramento Democrats" are focused on an issue that's not even in their city nor their county. Way to be relevant!