Newest comments on The Sacramento Press written by JohnT

JohnT on "Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU"

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

JohnT on "Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU"

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

JohnT on "Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU"

2009-08-13T23:08:38Z

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

JohnT on "Sacramento Democrats Oppose West Sacramento “Gang Injunctions” and Urged the Governor to Abide by the Contract He Negotiated with SEIU"

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