Christine Thomas comment-13607 2009-09-11T07:01:27Z 2009-09-11T07:01:27Z You have a very valid point, Midtown/Downtown Sacramento is certainly shouldering an unfair share of the burden of area homelessness .. .. It would be strategic to success if surrounding communities and counties would become part of the solution. Christine Thomas 2009-09-11T07:01:27Z Christine Thomas comment-13600 2009-09-11T05:43:59Z 2009-09-11T05:43:59Z Trapper, at the rally today, the cost of Safeground was discussed. The current Safeground was run, trash collected, toilets furnished, etc. without one dime of tax payer funding. The one the city is proposing is already at $400K estimate and rising . . . Where will they get those funds with our current budget crisis? The county is already not paying UC Davis for emergency beds its mental health crisis victims fill each night. Currently we have a system which institutionalizes disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities, and then criminalizes them. It should not be a crime to need a place to sleep .. . . all this theory is great, Trapper and Tom, but where do they go until you've made theory a reality? Christine Thomas 2009-09-11T05:43:59Z Christine Thomas comment-13539 2009-09-10T20:17:41Z 2009-09-10T20:17:41Z Attending a rally this morning at Sacramento City Hall to hear the brave homeless who were arrested for "sleeping" stand up and speak, it was a proud moment to hear the resolution passed by the local Democratic Party of Sacramento on behalf of the homeless in Sacramento. Thank you to the fearless leaders willing to stand up for human rights for all, and thank you to the Democratic Party of Sacramento for being one of those leaders. Christine Thomas 2009-09-10T20:17:41Z Christine Thomas comment-12259 2009-08-18T16:20:31Z 2009-08-18T16:20:31Z Kudos to Noon Hour Witness and to the ACLU for taking the lead on abolition of the death penalty in California! Christine Thomas 2009-08-18T16:20:31Z Christine Thomas comment-12096 2009-08-13T23:56:19Z 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] Christine Thomas 2009-08-13T23:56:19Z Christine Thomas comment-12085 2009-08-13T23:13:12Z 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? Christine Thomas 2009-08-13T23:13:12Z Christine Thomas comment-12052 2009-08-13T20:34:29Z 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? Christine Thomas 2009-08-13T20:34:29Z Christine Thomas comment-12051 2009-08-13T20:31:38Z 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? Christine Thomas 2009-08-13T20:31:38Z