The Woodland Daily Democrat reported Friday on an angry exchange at the West Sacramento City Council Meeting, where frustrated opponents of the gang injunction confronted the Mayor who is running for the State Assembly.
“Meanwhile, the opponents of the injunction pleaded their case to the West Sacramento City Council Wednesday night, taking particular aim at the city’s mayor, Christopher Cabaldon, who conspicuously missed Monday’s town hall meeting organized by the city’s residents regarding the injunction.
“There was an open letter to you, Mr. Cabaldon,” said Rebecca Sandoval of the local council of the League of United Latin American Citizens at the meeting. “I can’t believe you didn’t show up.”
Sandoval noted that the Monday town hall meeting was attended by representatives from state Sen. Mike Machado and Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, and personally attended by Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, who is challenging Cabaldon for a state Assembly seat.
“Your opponent showed up, but where were you?” Sandoval asked.”
Furthermore:
“Cabaldon tried to assure the angry residents that the injunction was necessary to curb what he called a very dangerous and menacing street gang.
“The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories,” Cabaldon said. “The injunction has been effective in reducing crime and violent crime particular in Broderick and Bryte, (and) to an extent greater than rest of the city.”
Cabaldon pointed the finger back at opponents, stating that their denial of the existence of the Broderick Boys gang has hampered the dialogue between them and the city.
“Part of the challenge to the conversation had been the fundamental contention that there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys,” Cabaldon said. “It does exist and it is a problem and neighborhoods have been under siege as a result of those criminal activities for far too long and we are taking action to ensure they don’t occur.”
Opponents left the meeting angered by the mayor’s pronouncement.
“The mayor is a liar and a fool,” said Ashiya Odeye, director of the Justice Reform Coalition, a Sacramento-based civil rights advocacy group, at the City Council meeting. “And he’s part of the problem.”
“All of that stuff he is talking about is a lie. I know he has further political aspirations, but I think his aspirations in politics are over because the community is tired. They have never proven there is a Broderick Boys gang period.”
However, there still appear to be problems with the current law. While last time, then Deputy District Attorney (now the newly elected DA) Jeff Reisig, noticed a single accused gang member, who no longer even resided in West Sacramento, this one had a much more broadly noticed target. However, because the injunction is a “civil injunction,” defendants are still not entitled to a court-appointed attorney–and therefore in practice, there may not be much difference in terms of those individuals, who are targeted for the injunction, ability to defend themselves against such charges by the District Attorney.
Now you have case where individuals will go to jail if they violate the law but are not being allowed representation because they cannot afford to pay a private attorney. A lot of these people are indigent and cannot afford counsel, so how are they going to be able to have their rights protected in this case?
So now there is an argument before Judge Fall as to whether they are entitled to court appointed counsel. Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden is arguing no and several attorney’s who wish to be appointed by the court as arguing that they are.
“They asked to be appointed as if this was a criminal case,” Linden said. “The fact that we are enjoining criminals does not mean they have the right to get their attorneys any differently.”
How difficult would it actually be to allow people to get proper representation here? What is the District Attorney’s office afraid of? If you believe that you have good solid reason to name these individuals, allow them to have counsel, it only seems right.
Since I have been following this story, people have argued that this is necessary to prevent horrific crime in West Sacramento. If that’s true, then what harm would it do to allow people to follow the due process of the law? I still believe that people ought to be punished for what they do criminally, not what they potentially might do criminally. And an injunction is a punishment, it denies people the right to do things that ordinary people have the right to do. If that’s the case, then people should have the right to an attorney, the right to due process of the law, but from the very start, this process has been bent on denying people those very basic of all rights, and it comes to the point where I have to ask, why?
This is primarily directed toward the inevitable ten people who will come on here and tell me how terrible the gang is and how horrible the people involved. My response to you is that by denying people their right to fight these accusations, you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. The only way you can regain your moral high ground is by granting them their rights to at least face their accuser and challenge the punishment. If they are guilty as you say they are, then what are you afraid?
The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that it is because they cannot prove anything, that they are imposing blanket punishments in a sense of panic, and when you do that you end up harming innocent people. The US Constitution does not provide exceptions to the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to street gangs. The US Constitution does not allow due process of the law for law abiding citizens, but deny it to people who are in gangs or more to the point suspected of being in a gang. You want to enjoin gang members, fine, prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is in fact a gang member and provide him counsel to defend himself. Then this all goes away. Until then, I see this as a ploy to deny people their right to due process because essentially there are a lot of really bad people out there, who do a lot of bad things to other people, and we’re scared. And if that is the standard, then we will eventually be able to reason away all of our rights and then where will be be?
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Is a Guantanamo-West Sacramento annex in our future?
Is a Guantanamo-West Sacramento annex in our future?
Is a Guantanamo-West Sacramento annex in our future?
Is a Guantanamo-West Sacramento annex in our future?
Cabaldon is revealing himself to be a smooth-talking,well-financed politician whose campaign strategy is to avoid any leadership role here while “milking it” for all its worth in our current War-on-Terror political climate. I don’t think that we will ever know who we would really be getting with a Cabaldon vote for Assembly.
Cabaldon is revealing himself to be a smooth-talking,well-financed politician whose campaign strategy is to avoid any leadership role here while “milking it” for all its worth in our current War-on-Terror political climate. I don’t think that we will ever know who we would really be getting with a Cabaldon vote for Assembly.
Cabaldon is revealing himself to be a smooth-talking,well-financed politician whose campaign strategy is to avoid any leadership role here while “milking it” for all its worth in our current War-on-Terror political climate. I don’t think that we will ever know who we would really be getting with a Cabaldon vote for Assembly.
Cabaldon is revealing himself to be a smooth-talking,well-financed politician whose campaign strategy is to avoid any leadership role here while “milking it” for all its worth in our current War-on-Terror political climate. I don’t think that we will ever know who we would really be getting with a Cabaldon vote for Assembly.
Is the next step a “yellow passport” like Jean Valjean was forced to carry in “Les Miserables” ?
Is the next step a “yellow passport” like Jean Valjean was forced to carry in “Les Miserables” ?
Is the next step a “yellow passport” like Jean Valjean was forced to carry in “Les Miserables” ?
Is the next step a “yellow passport” like Jean Valjean was forced to carry in “Les Miserables” ?
DPD said:
“you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. “
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record, then the DA isn’t just “considering” them criminals, the legal system has already FOUND them to be criminals. Big difference.
In fact, the bulk of the legitimate ACLU-type arguments against the injunction go floating away when the net is cast so narrowly that it only impacts convicted criminals that, by another part of the injunction, exibit FOUR of the known markers for gang activity.
This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror. It is only a way to stop convicted criminals who are proven to be associating with gangs.
Also very telling that the person in the article who calls Cabaldon a liar and a fool is actually saying that the Broderick Boys don’t exist!! That is laughable!! (What’s the first rule of Fight Club?)
DPD said:
“you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. “
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record, then the DA isn’t just “considering” them criminals, the legal system has already FOUND them to be criminals. Big difference.
In fact, the bulk of the legitimate ACLU-type arguments against the injunction go floating away when the net is cast so narrowly that it only impacts convicted criminals that, by another part of the injunction, exibit FOUR of the known markers for gang activity.
This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror. It is only a way to stop convicted criminals who are proven to be associating with gangs.
Also very telling that the person in the article who calls Cabaldon a liar and a fool is actually saying that the Broderick Boys don’t exist!! That is laughable!! (What’s the first rule of Fight Club?)
DPD said:
“you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. “
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record, then the DA isn’t just “considering” them criminals, the legal system has already FOUND them to be criminals. Big difference.
In fact, the bulk of the legitimate ACLU-type arguments against the injunction go floating away when the net is cast so narrowly that it only impacts convicted criminals that, by another part of the injunction, exibit FOUR of the known markers for gang activity.
This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror. It is only a way to stop convicted criminals who are proven to be associating with gangs.
Also very telling that the person in the article who calls Cabaldon a liar and a fool is actually saying that the Broderick Boys don’t exist!! That is laughable!! (What’s the first rule of Fight Club?)
DPD said:
“you are turning these people that you consider criminals and thugs into at least partial victims. “
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record, then the DA isn’t just “considering” them criminals, the legal system has already FOUND them to be criminals. Big difference.
In fact, the bulk of the legitimate ACLU-type arguments against the injunction go floating away when the net is cast so narrowly that it only impacts convicted criminals that, by another part of the injunction, exibit FOUR of the known markers for gang activity.
This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror. It is only a way to stop convicted criminals who are proven to be associating with gangs.
Also very telling that the person in the article who calls Cabaldon a liar and a fool is actually saying that the Broderick Boys don’t exist!! That is laughable!! (What’s the first rule of Fight Club?)
“The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories,” Cabaldon said.
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion? If convicted “recently”, I would imagine that they would already be on some form of restriction to their free association with criminals(e.g. parole).
“The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories,” Cabaldon said.
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion? If convicted “recently”, I would imagine that they would already be on some form of restriction to their free association with criminals(e.g. parole).
“The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories,” Cabaldon said.
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion? If convicted “recently”, I would imagine that they would already be on some form of restriction to their free association with criminals(e.g. parole).
“The injunction will be limited specifically to those with recent and criminal histories,” Cabaldon said.
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion? If convicted “recently”, I would imagine that they would already be on some form of restriction to their free association with criminals(e.g. parole).
Anonymous 6:46 said:
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record…..
…note that DPD did not quoted Cabaldon as referring to a criminal record but rather criminal histories, not convictions…”Convictions” would have made his position more solid and the absence of this expression(if DPD is accurate) therefore is telling.
Anonymous 6:46 said:
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record…..
…note that DPD did not quoted Cabaldon as referring to a criminal record but rather criminal histories, not convictions…”Convictions” would have made his position more solid and the absence of this expression(if DPD is accurate) therefore is telling.
Anonymous 6:46 said:
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record…..
…note that DPD did not quoted Cabaldon as referring to a criminal record but rather criminal histories, not convictions…”Convictions” would have made his position more solid and the absence of this expression(if DPD is accurate) therefore is telling.
Anonymous 6:46 said:
If one of the new Cabaldon-imposed rules is that you have to have a criminal record…..
…note that DPD did not quoted Cabaldon as referring to a criminal record but rather criminal histories, not convictions…”Convictions” would have made his position more solid and the absence of this expression(if DPD is accurate) therefore is telling.
Anonynous 9:46 said:
“This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror.”
Reisig’s public statement, in front of the court the first time around, referring to these “street terrorists” was carefully chosen to invoke the War on Terror fear connection.
Anonynous 9:46 said:
“This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror.”
Reisig’s public statement, in front of the court the first time around, referring to these “street terrorists” was carefully chosen to invoke the War on Terror fear connection.
Anonynous 9:46 said:
“This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror.”
Reisig’s public statement, in front of the court the first time around, referring to these “street terrorists” was carefully chosen to invoke the War on Terror fear connection.
Anonynous 9:46 said:
“This isn’t Guantanamo, or a part of the War On Terror.”
Reisig’s public statement, in front of the court the first time around, referring to these “street terrorists” was carefully chosen to invoke the War on Terror fear connection.
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
All these laws that target specific groups to me are unconstitutional. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it. When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line. What happened to “All men are created equal under the Law”!
Law enforcement in California is completely out of control. They create criminals.
All these laws that target specific groups to me are unconstitutional. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it. When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line. What happened to “All men are created equal under the Law”!
Law enforcement in California is completely out of control. They create criminals.
All these laws that target specific groups to me are unconstitutional. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it. When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line. What happened to “All men are created equal under the Law”!
Law enforcement in California is completely out of control. They create criminals.
All these laws that target specific groups to me are unconstitutional. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it. When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line. What happened to “All men are created equal under the Law”!
Law enforcement in California is completely out of control. They create criminals.
I think that’s a good point – the that the previous injunction did just that – targeted people for what they might do or for merely associating with people who might do something. That and the vague process of how one got on the list and how to get off the list – the problem of no notification or opportunity to defend themselves.
These things need to be resolved to get community buy-in to the strategy of imposing an injunction.
I think that’s a good point – the that the previous injunction did just that – targeted people for what they might do or for merely associating with people who might do something. That and the vague process of how one got on the list and how to get off the list – the problem of no notification or opportunity to defend themselves.
These things need to be resolved to get community buy-in to the strategy of imposing an injunction.
I think that’s a good point – the that the previous injunction did just that – targeted people for what they might do or for merely associating with people who might do something. That and the vague process of how one got on the list and how to get off the list – the problem of no notification or opportunity to defend themselves.
These things need to be resolved to get community buy-in to the strategy of imposing an injunction.
I think that’s a good point – the that the previous injunction did just that – targeted people for what they might do or for merely associating with people who might do something. That and the vague process of how one got on the list and how to get off the list – the problem of no notification or opportunity to defend themselves.
These things need to be resolved to get community buy-in to the strategy of imposing an injunction.
Throughout history, frightened people have always been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own security. Hitler knew that. Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime. Essentially, the conservative idea that slums don’t make criminals, it is criminals that make slums.
Basically, those who live in the slums have no rights.
Throughout history, frightened people have always been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own security. Hitler knew that. Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime. Essentially, the conservative idea that slums don’t make criminals, it is criminals that make slums.
Basically, those who live in the slums have no rights.
Throughout history, frightened people have always been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own security. Hitler knew that. Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime. Essentially, the conservative idea that slums don’t make criminals, it is criminals that make slums.
Basically, those who live in the slums have no rights.
Throughout history, frightened people have always been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own security. Hitler knew that. Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime. Essentially, the conservative idea that slums don’t make criminals, it is criminals that make slums.
Basically, those who live in the slums have no rights.
Davisite said:
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion
It means a conviction. But it doesn’t have to be a felony. It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just mean that someone thinks you are a criminal.
DPD said:
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
I think you’re totally right about the need for due process, including a public defender or soemthing if you want to take yourself off the list. I don’t know the specifics of why this isn’t being provided, but I do know that the process for getting yourself off the list doesn’t include a court hearing or trial. All you have to do is sign something saying that you’re not a member of the Broderick Boys. (even if they don’t exist). If someone came to me and said I had to sign a thing saying I’m not a member of the Lolipop Guild I think I could sign it without putting up a fight about if or where it does or doesn’t exist.
But more to the point, I think the DPD posting would have been more fair to those involved if it said:
1) Cabaldon has raised the bar of what it takes to be in the injunction (from one “marker,” such as wearing gang colors, to four).
2) Cabaldon has narrowed the scope of the injunction to only those with criminal pasts.
3) Cabaldon’s most vocal critics are the same crowd that claims that the gang doesn’t exist at all. (and these are the people that Yamada is pandering to)
4) The due process argument for those who are on the list is the ONLY remaining serious civil liberties issue here, and that should be explained or dealt with. If the due process argument is just a way for someone to avoid signing a form saying they’re not a gang member, then it is all just a game. But, if there are legal challenges to getting off the injunction, then there needs to be that right to an attorney.
Davisite said:
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion
It means a conviction. But it doesn’t have to be a felony. It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just mean that someone thinks you are a criminal.
DPD said:
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
I think you’re totally right about the need for due process, including a public defender or soemthing if you want to take yourself off the list. I don’t know the specifics of why this isn’t being provided, but I do know that the process for getting yourself off the list doesn’t include a court hearing or trial. All you have to do is sign something saying that you’re not a member of the Broderick Boys. (even if they don’t exist). If someone came to me and said I had to sign a thing saying I’m not a member of the Lolipop Guild I think I could sign it without putting up a fight about if or where it does or doesn’t exist.
But more to the point, I think the DPD posting would have been more fair to those involved if it said:
1) Cabaldon has raised the bar of what it takes to be in the injunction (from one “marker,” such as wearing gang colors, to four).
2) Cabaldon has narrowed the scope of the injunction to only those with criminal pasts.
3) Cabaldon’s most vocal critics are the same crowd that claims that the gang doesn’t exist at all. (and these are the people that Yamada is pandering to)
4) The due process argument for those who are on the list is the ONLY remaining serious civil liberties issue here, and that should be explained or dealt with. If the due process argument is just a way for someone to avoid signing a form saying they’re not a gang member, then it is all just a game. But, if there are legal challenges to getting off the injunction, then there needs to be that right to an attorney.
Davisite said:
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion
It means a conviction. But it doesn’t have to be a felony. It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just mean that someone thinks you are a criminal.
DPD said:
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
I think you’re totally right about the need for due process, including a public defender or soemthing if you want to take yourself off the list. I don’t know the specifics of why this isn’t being provided, but I do know that the process for getting yourself off the list doesn’t include a court hearing or trial. All you have to do is sign something saying that you’re not a member of the Broderick Boys. (even if they don’t exist). If someone came to me and said I had to sign a thing saying I’m not a member of the Lolipop Guild I think I could sign it without putting up a fight about if or where it does or doesn’t exist.
But more to the point, I think the DPD posting would have been more fair to those involved if it said:
1) Cabaldon has raised the bar of what it takes to be in the injunction (from one “marker,” such as wearing gang colors, to four).
2) Cabaldon has narrowed the scope of the injunction to only those with criminal pasts.
3) Cabaldon’s most vocal critics are the same crowd that claims that the gang doesn’t exist at all. (and these are the people that Yamada is pandering to)
4) The due process argument for those who are on the list is the ONLY remaining serious civil liberties issue here, and that should be explained or dealt with. If the due process argument is just a way for someone to avoid signing a form saying they’re not a gang member, then it is all just a game. But, if there are legal challenges to getting off the injunction, then there needs to be that right to an attorney.
Davisite said:
Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion
It means a conviction. But it doesn’t have to be a felony. It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just mean that someone thinks you are a criminal.
DPD said:
Convictions makes it more solid, but you still have the issue of right to counsel.
I think you’re totally right about the need for due process, including a public defender or soemthing if you want to take yourself off the list. I don’t know the specifics of why this isn’t being provided, but I do know that the process for getting yourself off the list doesn’t include a court hearing or trial. All you have to do is sign something saying that you’re not a member of the Broderick Boys. (even if they don’t exist). If someone came to me and said I had to sign a thing saying I’m not a member of the Lolipop Guild I think I could sign it without putting up a fight about if or where it does or doesn’t exist.
But more to the point, I think the DPD posting would have been more fair to those involved if it said:
1) Cabaldon has raised the bar of what it takes to be in the injunction (from one “marker,” such as wearing gang colors, to four).
2) Cabaldon has narrowed the scope of the injunction to only those with criminal pasts.
3) Cabaldon’s most vocal critics are the same crowd that claims that the gang doesn’t exist at all. (and these are the people that Yamada is pandering to)
4) The due process argument for those who are on the list is the ONLY remaining serious civil liberties issue here, and that should be explained or dealt with. If the due process argument is just a way for someone to avoid signing a form saying they’re not a gang member, then it is all just a game. But, if there are legal challenges to getting off the injunction, then there needs to be that right to an attorney.
“It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just MEAN that someone thinks you are a CRIMINAL”
What else could it possibly MEAN when someone who accepts a misdemeanor charge is eligible to be subject to the gang injunction whose sole raison d’etre is to curtail CRIMINAL activity.
“It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just MEAN that someone thinks you are a CRIMINAL”
What else could it possibly MEAN when someone who accepts a misdemeanor charge is eligible to be subject to the gang injunction whose sole raison d’etre is to curtail CRIMINAL activity.
“It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just MEAN that someone thinks you are a CRIMINAL”
What else could it possibly MEAN when someone who accepts a misdemeanor charge is eligible to be subject to the gang injunction whose sole raison d’etre is to curtail CRIMINAL activity.
“It could be something plead down to a misdemeanor. It doesn’t just MEAN that someone thinks you are a CRIMINAL”
What else could it possibly MEAN when someone who accepts a misdemeanor charge is eligible to be subject to the gang injunction whose sole raison d’etre is to curtail CRIMINAL activity.
Huh Davisite?
Your question was if Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion.
The answer is that there needs to be a CONVICTION, either through a trial or by a plea agreement between the prosecuter and the defendant.
The injunction does not simply mean that someone says they look criminal, or who’s hairstyle is criminal, or who have criminally good looks. They actually have to have a criminal record that comes from violations of the penal code.
So, in order to be on the injunction, you have to have four signs of being in a gang (such as gang tatoos, wearing colors, being named by other gang members, be in gang photos, be seen showing signs, etc) AND you have to be a criminal. A real criminal. A criminal that has been caught committing crimes. You know, a criminal. Legal Criminal. A CROOK. Someone who actually broke the law, was caught and busted.
Mariko can defend people who are 1) Criminals, 2) continue gang activity, and 3) say there is no Broderick Boys, but I would rather support someone who is there and doing the hard work, making the injunction (that was county ordered) right for his city.
Huh Davisite?
Your question was if Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion.
The answer is that there needs to be a CONVICTION, either through a trial or by a plea agreement between the prosecuter and the defendant.
The injunction does not simply mean that someone says they look criminal, or who’s hairstyle is criminal, or who have criminally good looks. They actually have to have a criminal record that comes from violations of the penal code.
So, in order to be on the injunction, you have to have four signs of being in a gang (such as gang tatoos, wearing colors, being named by other gang members, be in gang photos, be seen showing signs, etc) AND you have to be a criminal. A real criminal. A criminal that has been caught committing crimes. You know, a criminal. Legal Criminal. A CROOK. Someone who actually broke the law, was caught and busted.
Mariko can defend people who are 1) Criminals, 2) continue gang activity, and 3) say there is no Broderick Boys, but I would rather support someone who is there and doing the hard work, making the injunction (that was county ordered) right for his city.
Huh Davisite?
Your question was if Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion.
The answer is that there needs to be a CONVICTION, either through a trial or by a plea agreement between the prosecuter and the defendant.
The injunction does not simply mean that someone says they look criminal, or who’s hairstyle is criminal, or who have criminally good looks. They actually have to have a criminal record that comes from violations of the penal code.
So, in order to be on the injunction, you have to have four signs of being in a gang (such as gang tatoos, wearing colors, being named by other gang members, be in gang photos, be seen showing signs, etc) AND you have to be a criminal. A real criminal. A criminal that has been caught committing crimes. You know, a criminal. Legal Criminal. A CROOK. Someone who actually broke the law, was caught and busted.
Mariko can defend people who are 1) Criminals, 2) continue gang activity, and 3) say there is no Broderick Boys, but I would rather support someone who is there and doing the hard work, making the injunction (that was county ordered) right for his city.
Huh Davisite?
Your question was if Does “criminal histories” mean a conviction by a court or just a police opinion.
The answer is that there needs to be a CONVICTION, either through a trial or by a plea agreement between the prosecuter and the defendant.
The injunction does not simply mean that someone says they look criminal, or who’s hairstyle is criminal, or who have criminally good looks. They actually have to have a criminal record that comes from violations of the penal code.
So, in order to be on the injunction, you have to have four signs of being in a gang (such as gang tatoos, wearing colors, being named by other gang members, be in gang photos, be seen showing signs, etc) AND you have to be a criminal. A real criminal. A criminal that has been caught committing crimes. You know, a criminal. Legal Criminal. A CROOK. Someone who actually broke the law, was caught and busted.
Mariko can defend people who are 1) Criminals, 2) continue gang activity, and 3) say there is no Broderick Boys, but I would rather support someone who is there and doing the hard work, making the injunction (that was county ordered) right for his city.
Mariko Yamada does not pander to anyone. This is a fact. In fact, her lack of pandering has lost her support with some people over other issues, specifically land planning. I don’t see any evidence that she is pandering to criminals by going to a meeting organized by a community group and attended by other politicians to hear what they had to say. It is pure fiction.
Mariko Yamada does not pander to anyone. This is a fact. In fact, her lack of pandering has lost her support with some people over other issues, specifically land planning. I don’t see any evidence that she is pandering to criminals by going to a meeting organized by a community group and attended by other politicians to hear what they had to say. It is pure fiction.
Mariko Yamada does not pander to anyone. This is a fact. In fact, her lack of pandering has lost her support with some people over other issues, specifically land planning. I don’t see any evidence that she is pandering to criminals by going to a meeting organized by a community group and attended by other politicians to hear what they had to say. It is pure fiction.
Mariko Yamada does not pander to anyone. This is a fact. In fact, her lack of pandering has lost her support with some people over other issues, specifically land planning. I don’t see any evidence that she is pandering to criminals by going to a meeting organized by a community group and attended by other politicians to hear what they had to say. It is pure fiction.
To Anonymous 3:36
You are, not surprisingly, missing the point. A plea to accept a misdemeanor charge is very often accepted as an alternative to placing ones fate in the judicial system without having the resources to defend oneself. It also frequently reflects the weakness of the felony case. It is certainly not a conviction or gulit admission of what most would consider conduct that warrants a life-long restriction to the right of free association.
To Anonymous 3:36
You are, not surprisingly, missing the point. A plea to accept a misdemeanor charge is very often accepted as an alternative to placing ones fate in the judicial system without having the resources to defend oneself. It also frequently reflects the weakness of the felony case. It is certainly not a conviction or gulit admission of what most would consider conduct that warrants a life-long restriction to the right of free association.
To Anonymous 3:36
You are, not surprisingly, missing the point. A plea to accept a misdemeanor charge is very often accepted as an alternative to placing ones fate in the judicial system without having the resources to defend oneself. It also frequently reflects the weakness of the felony case. It is certainly not a conviction or gulit admission of what most would consider conduct that warrants a life-long restriction to the right of free association.
To Anonymous 3:36
You are, not surprisingly, missing the point. A plea to accept a misdemeanor charge is very often accepted as an alternative to placing ones fate in the judicial system without having the resources to defend oneself. It also frequently reflects the weakness of the felony case. It is certainly not a conviction or gulit admission of what most would consider conduct that warrants a life-long restriction to the right of free association.
i tend to agree. underlying nearly every one of these “tough on crime” arguments is an underlying assumption that our constitutional rights are in the way of our safety, and must therefore be discarded.
it bespeaks an astounding lack of faith in our very system of justice, and the constitution itself. quite frankly, people who have no faith in that system probably shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing it, IMO.
of course, more often, what is really going on is that people are willing to sacrifice other people’s rights for their own supposed safety.
if reisig and cabaldon have the goods on people, they should bring them to trial. what is so hard about actually gathering evidence and prosecuting people in a fair trial? if you know they’re guilty, it shouldn’t be so hard to do.
i tend to agree. underlying nearly every one of these “tough on crime” arguments is an underlying assumption that our constitutional rights are in the way of our safety, and must therefore be discarded.
it bespeaks an astounding lack of faith in our very system of justice, and the constitution itself. quite frankly, people who have no faith in that system probably shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing it, IMO.
of course, more often, what is really going on is that people are willing to sacrifice other people’s rights for their own supposed safety.
if reisig and cabaldon have the goods on people, they should bring them to trial. what is so hard about actually gathering evidence and prosecuting people in a fair trial? if you know they’re guilty, it shouldn’t be so hard to do.
i tend to agree. underlying nearly every one of these “tough on crime” arguments is an underlying assumption that our constitutional rights are in the way of our safety, and must therefore be discarded.
it bespeaks an astounding lack of faith in our very system of justice, and the constitution itself. quite frankly, people who have no faith in that system probably shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing it, IMO.
of course, more often, what is really going on is that people are willing to sacrifice other people’s rights for their own supposed safety.
if reisig and cabaldon have the goods on people, they should bring them to trial. what is so hard about actually gathering evidence and prosecuting people in a fair trial? if you know they’re guilty, it shouldn’t be so hard to do.
i tend to agree. underlying nearly every one of these “tough on crime” arguments is an underlying assumption that our constitutional rights are in the way of our safety, and must therefore be discarded.
it bespeaks an astounding lack of faith in our very system of justice, and the constitution itself. quite frankly, people who have no faith in that system probably shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing it, IMO.
of course, more often, what is really going on is that people are willing to sacrifice other people’s rights for their own supposed safety.
if reisig and cabaldon have the goods on people, they should bring them to trial. what is so hard about actually gathering evidence and prosecuting people in a fair trial? if you know they’re guilty, it shouldn’t be so hard to do.
Giving them a public defender is laughable. That is worse than having no legal counsel at all. Public defenders do not practice Civil Law. They specialize in criminal defense. That would be like going to a DA and asking them to write your business contract. It make work but it will not be very good.
Giving them a public defender is laughable. That is worse than having no legal counsel at all. Public defenders do not practice Civil Law. They specialize in criminal defense. That would be like going to a DA and asking them to write your business contract. It make work but it will not be very good.
Giving them a public defender is laughable. That is worse than having no legal counsel at all. Public defenders do not practice Civil Law. They specialize in criminal defense. That would be like going to a DA and asking them to write your business contract. It make work but it will not be very good.
Giving them a public defender is laughable. That is worse than having no legal counsel at all. Public defenders do not practice Civil Law. They specialize in criminal defense. That would be like going to a DA and asking them to write your business contract. It make work but it will not be very good.
Anonymous 10:10, I think you’re mistaken.
The public defender is needed because it is a known criminal trying to get themselves out of a gang injunction. It is not a civil court, but a criminal court.
And it is silly to suggest that plea-bargains are not valid because they are sometimes used as a remedy for the wrongly accused who cannot trust the legal system. Only something like 10% of cases actually go to trial – the rest are dealt with through an admission of guilt and a plea bargain that reduces the sentence or the charges.
I’m not a fan of Megan’s Law, but it would be incredibly silly to suggest that child molesters who copped a plea shouldn’t be on the database because they weren’t convicted by a jury. Or to suggest that probation officers go easier on people who plea bargained because maybe they didn’t do it at all.
The injunction is about criminals. It is not a bad thing.
Anonymous 10:10, I think you’re mistaken.
The public defender is needed because it is a known criminal trying to get themselves out of a gang injunction. It is not a civil court, but a criminal court.
And it is silly to suggest that plea-bargains are not valid because they are sometimes used as a remedy for the wrongly accused who cannot trust the legal system. Only something like 10% of cases actually go to trial – the rest are dealt with through an admission of guilt and a plea bargain that reduces the sentence or the charges.
I’m not a fan of Megan’s Law, but it would be incredibly silly to suggest that child molesters who copped a plea shouldn’t be on the database because they weren’t convicted by a jury. Or to suggest that probation officers go easier on people who plea bargained because maybe they didn’t do it at all.
The injunction is about criminals. It is not a bad thing.
Anonymous 10:10, I think you’re mistaken.
The public defender is needed because it is a known criminal trying to get themselves out of a gang injunction. It is not a civil court, but a criminal court.
And it is silly to suggest that plea-bargains are not valid because they are sometimes used as a remedy for the wrongly accused who cannot trust the legal system. Only something like 10% of cases actually go to trial – the rest are dealt with through an admission of guilt and a plea bargain that reduces the sentence or the charges.
I’m not a fan of Megan’s Law, but it would be incredibly silly to suggest that child molesters who copped a plea shouldn’t be on the database because they weren’t convicted by a jury. Or to suggest that probation officers go easier on people who plea bargained because maybe they didn’t do it at all.
The injunction is about criminals. It is not a bad thing.
Anonymous 10:10, I think you’re mistaken.
The public defender is needed because it is a known criminal trying to get themselves out of a gang injunction. It is not a civil court, but a criminal court.
And it is silly to suggest that plea-bargains are not valid because they are sometimes used as a remedy for the wrongly accused who cannot trust the legal system. Only something like 10% of cases actually go to trial – the rest are dealt with through an admission of guilt and a plea bargain that reduces the sentence or the charges.
I’m not a fan of Megan’s Law, but it would be incredibly silly to suggest that child molesters who copped a plea shouldn’t be on the database because they weren’t convicted by a jury. Or to suggest that probation officers go easier on people who plea bargained because maybe they didn’t do it at all.
The injunction is about criminals. It is not a bad thing.
Where to begin in responding to Anonymous 12:16?? other than to say that reality is not Court TV or “Law and Order”.
Where to begin in responding to Anonymous 12:16?? other than to say that reality is not Court TV or “Law and Order”.
Where to begin in responding to Anonymous 12:16?? other than to say that reality is not Court TV or “Law and Order”.
Where to begin in responding to Anonymous 12:16?? other than to say that reality is not Court TV or “Law and Order”.
Tansey Thomas said:
Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime.
Tansey – I think you’d want to pick another example than NYC and Guiliani, if you are trying to disprove the policy — I lived in NYC before and during Guiliani years — and there is no question that NYC became a much safer,cleaner city during his tenure. At the time many people questioned the priorities of chasing the window washers and other petty crimes – but it sent the message that crimes were not to be tolerated, and the results were outstanding. To be sure, other factors were involved, but for those of us who were there, there is little doubt that the so called broken window policy was an important part of what happened. The methodology is getting another try in Los Angeles, where NYC’s former police commissioner is now employed.
Tansey Thomas said:
Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime.
Tansey – I think you’d want to pick another example than NYC and Guiliani, if you are trying to disprove the policy — I lived in NYC before and during Guiliani years — and there is no question that NYC became a much safer,cleaner city during his tenure. At the time many people questioned the priorities of chasing the window washers and other petty crimes – but it sent the message that crimes were not to be tolerated, and the results were outstanding. To be sure, other factors were involved, but for those of us who were there, there is little doubt that the so called broken window policy was an important part of what happened. The methodology is getting another try in Los Angeles, where NYC’s former police commissioner is now employed.
Tansey Thomas said:
Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime.
Tansey – I think you’d want to pick another example than NYC and Guiliani, if you are trying to disprove the policy — I lived in NYC before and during Guiliani years — and there is no question that NYC became a much safer,cleaner city during his tenure. At the time many people questioned the priorities of chasing the window washers and other petty crimes – but it sent the message that crimes were not to be tolerated, and the results were outstanding. To be sure, other factors were involved, but for those of us who were there, there is little doubt that the so called broken window policy was an important part of what happened. The methodology is getting another try in Los Angeles, where NYC’s former police commissioner is now employed.
Tansey Thomas said:
Rudy Giuliani in New York popularized the strategy of exploiting the inability of those unable to get legal representation and forcing them to plea bargain. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The strategy is called the “Broken Windows” method of fighting crime.
Tansey – I think you’d want to pick another example than NYC and Guiliani, if you are trying to disprove the policy — I lived in NYC before and during Guiliani years — and there is no question that NYC became a much safer,cleaner city during his tenure. At the time many people questioned the priorities of chasing the window washers and other petty crimes – but it sent the message that crimes were not to be tolerated, and the results were outstanding. To be sure, other factors were involved, but for those of us who were there, there is little doubt that the so called broken window policy was an important part of what happened. The methodology is getting another try in Los Angeles, where NYC’s former police commissioner is now employed.
To anonymous 8:29
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
To anonymous 8:29
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
To anonymous 8:29
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
To anonymous 8:29
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
I hope to arrange for the showing of the PBS Frontline documentary “The Plea” shows the injustice of forcing the poor into plea bargaining. It’s enslaving and has nothing to do with justice. Many totalitarian nations have the lowest crime rates because the state becomes the biggest criminal. Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.
I hope to arrange for the showing of the PBS Frontline documentary “The Plea” shows the injustice of forcing the poor into plea bargaining. It’s enslaving and has nothing to do with justice. Many totalitarian nations have the lowest crime rates because the state becomes the biggest criminal. Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.
I hope to arrange for the showing of the PBS Frontline documentary “The Plea” shows the injustice of forcing the poor into plea bargaining. It’s enslaving and has nothing to do with justice. Many totalitarian nations have the lowest crime rates because the state becomes the biggest criminal. Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.
I hope to arrange for the showing of the PBS Frontline documentary “The Plea” shows the injustice of forcing the poor into plea bargaining. It’s enslaving and has nothing to do with justice. Many totalitarian nations have the lowest crime rates because the state becomes the biggest criminal. Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.
“Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.”
Tansey… street crime is a form of predatory activity that is spawned in those societies that breed a sense of isolation and lack of a sense of shared identity and community. Cuba’s low street crime rate has more to do with this than its political system.
“Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.”
Tansey… street crime is a form of predatory activity that is spawned in those societies that breed a sense of isolation and lack of a sense of shared identity and community. Cuba’s low street crime rate has more to do with this than its political system.
“Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.”
Tansey… street crime is a form of predatory activity that is spawned in those societies that breed a sense of isolation and lack of a sense of shared identity and community. Cuba’s low street crime rate has more to do with this than its political system.
“Castro Cuba is much safer from street crime than the U.S.”
Tansey… street crime is a form of predatory activity that is spawned in those societies that breed a sense of isolation and lack of a sense of shared identity and community. Cuba’s low street crime rate has more to do with this than its political system.
When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line.
I completely agree. Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed? That to me is going too far.
When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line.
I completely agree. Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed? That to me is going too far.
When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line.
I completely agree. Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed? That to me is going too far.
When you start prosecuting or persecuting people for what they might do you have crossed the line.
I completely agree. Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed? That to me is going too far.
“Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed?”
You miss the point entirely. When gang members associate with each other they commit crimes. Committing crimes is the only way to gain respect and rank within a gang.
The gang injunction is a good idea and will help law enforcement stop crime before it is committed.
“Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed?”
You miss the point entirely. When gang members associate with each other they commit crimes. Committing crimes is the only way to gain respect and rank within a gang.
The gang injunction is a good idea and will help law enforcement stop crime before it is committed.
“Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed?”
You miss the point entirely. When gang members associate with each other they commit crimes. Committing crimes is the only way to gain respect and rank within a gang.
The gang injunction is a good idea and will help law enforcement stop crime before it is committed.
“Prosecute people for committing crimes, fine. But banning them from having a get together with their friends and neighbors, during which time no crime is being committed?”
You miss the point entirely. When gang members associate with each other they commit crimes. Committing crimes is the only way to gain respect and rank within a gang.
The gang injunction is a good idea and will help law enforcement stop crime before it is committed.
No you’re missing the point, if they commit crimes, then prosecute them for those crimes.
No you’re missing the point, if they commit crimes, then prosecute them for those crimes.
No you’re missing the point, if they commit crimes, then prosecute them for those crimes.
No you’re missing the point, if they commit crimes, then prosecute them for those crimes.
another nyer said:
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
There may have been a pr campaign, but I am not confusing the safety that I, and most other NYers who lived there at the time came to know because because the pick pockets and window washers were not hassling us. When those crimes decreased, so did the major crime rate in nyc — if you take the time to look at the stats, you too will see that NYC became much safer. It is fair to argue that there may have been multiple causes (certainly the economy got better simultaneously) but it is very clear that the crime rate went down during this period.
another nyer said:
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
There may have been a pr campaign, but I am not confusing the safety that I, and most other NYers who lived there at the time came to know because because the pick pockets and window washers were not hassling us. When those crimes decreased, so did the major crime rate in nyc — if you take the time to look at the stats, you too will see that NYC became much safer. It is fair to argue that there may have been multiple causes (certainly the economy got better simultaneously) but it is very clear that the crime rate went down during this period.
another nyer said:
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
There may have been a pr campaign, but I am not confusing the safety that I, and most other NYers who lived there at the time came to know because because the pick pockets and window washers were not hassling us. When those crimes decreased, so did the major crime rate in nyc — if you take the time to look at the stats, you too will see that NYC became much safer. It is fair to argue that there may have been multiple causes (certainly the economy got better simultaneously) but it is very clear that the crime rate went down during this period.
another nyer said:
As another NYC expatriate, you are confusing actual crime fighting with Guiliani’s public relations campaign to remove the unpleasant sight of vagrants and panhandlers from the streets of NYC so that people could go about their business without the unpleasant reminder of those “others”.
There may have been a pr campaign, but I am not confusing the safety that I, and most other NYers who lived there at the time came to know because because the pick pockets and window washers were not hassling us. When those crimes decreased, so did the major crime rate in nyc — if you take the time to look at the stats, you too will see that NYC became much safer. It is fair to argue that there may have been multiple causes (certainly the economy got better simultaneously) but it is very clear that the crime rate went down during this period.
And what you will also see is that all major cities had drastically decreasing time during that same time, many of these cities enacted no major changes in their policies. And so from a statistical standpoint it is difficult to make a strong case that NY’s crime reduction was due to Giuliani, even though that was a common perception perpetrated by the media.
And what you will also see is that all major cities had drastically decreasing time during that same time, many of these cities enacted no major changes in their policies. And so from a statistical standpoint it is difficult to make a strong case that NY’s crime reduction was due to Giuliani, even though that was a common perception perpetrated by the media.
And what you will also see is that all major cities had drastically decreasing time during that same time, many of these cities enacted no major changes in their policies. And so from a statistical standpoint it is difficult to make a strong case that NY’s crime reduction was due to Giuliani, even though that was a common perception perpetrated by the media.
And what you will also see is that all major cities had drastically decreasing time during that same time, many of these cities enacted no major changes in their policies. And so from a statistical standpoint it is difficult to make a strong case that NY’s crime reduction was due to Giuliani, even though that was a common perception perpetrated by the media.
DPD – do you have statistics from the major cities in the US that would back up your statements in the 10:03pm post? I’d be very interested in seeing/understanding that LA, Chicago, Boston, Wash DC also had decreasing major crime statistics.
In any event, my original post was in response to Tansey’s post claiming that NYC under Rudy was a bad place to be if you lived in the slums. I don’t think that the facts support the case that somehow slumdwellers were forced to plead to lesser crimes than pahandling or window washing b/c they didn’t have access to legal counsel. In fact, NYC became a city that refused to tolerate behavior that wasn’t legal or civil, regardless of your economic status.
DPD – do you have statistics from the major cities in the US that would back up your statements in the 10:03pm post? I’d be very interested in seeing/understanding that LA, Chicago, Boston, Wash DC also had decreasing major crime statistics.
In any event, my original post was in response to Tansey’s post claiming that NYC under Rudy was a bad place to be if you lived in the slums. I don’t think that the facts support the case that somehow slumdwellers were forced to plead to lesser crimes than pahandling or window washing b/c they didn’t have access to legal counsel. In fact, NYC became a city that refused to tolerate behavior that wasn’t legal or civil, regardless of your economic status.
DPD – do you have statistics from the major cities in the US that would back up your statements in the 10:03pm post? I’d be very interested in seeing/understanding that LA, Chicago, Boston, Wash DC also had decreasing major crime statistics.
In any event, my original post was in response to Tansey’s post claiming that NYC under Rudy was a bad place to be if you lived in the slums. I don’t think that the facts support the case that somehow slumdwellers were forced to plead to lesser crimes than pahandling or window washing b/c they didn’t have access to legal counsel. In fact, NYC became a city that refused to tolerate behavior that wasn’t legal or civil, regardless of your economic status.
DPD – do you have statistics from the major cities in the US that would back up your statements in the 10:03pm post? I’d be very interested in seeing/understanding that LA, Chicago, Boston, Wash DC also had decreasing major crime statistics.
In any event, my original post was in response to Tansey’s post claiming that NYC under Rudy was a bad place to be if you lived in the slums. I don’t think that the facts support the case that somehow slumdwellers were forced to plead to lesser crimes than pahandling or window washing b/c they didn’t have access to legal counsel. In fact, NYC became a city that refused to tolerate behavior that wasn’t legal or civil, regardless of your economic status.
Cabaldon told SN&R back in 2005 that he had “a healthy amount of skepticism” about gang injunctions generally. “I don’t think we should be like the movie Minority Report, where we are arresting people because they might commit a crime,” he said then.
Now he is ok with the injunction because he has limited the number of known gang members on the list (now at only 21 people) by requiring a higher bar, and including the fact that they have criminal records.
This shows leadership. He was hesitant to support an injunction that was too broad, but worked to narrow it and apply it in a way that was not as “minority report” as the orignial plan.
Someone, give the guy some credit.
Cabaldon told SN&R back in 2005 that he had “a healthy amount of skepticism” about gang injunctions generally. “I don’t think we should be like the movie Minority Report, where we are arresting people because they might commit a crime,” he said then.
Now he is ok with the injunction because he has limited the number of known gang members on the list (now at only 21 people) by requiring a higher bar, and including the fact that they have criminal records.
This shows leadership. He was hesitant to support an injunction that was too broad, but worked to narrow it and apply it in a way that was not as “minority report” as the orignial plan.
Someone, give the guy some credit.
Cabaldon told SN&R back in 2005 that he had “a healthy amount of skepticism” about gang injunctions generally. “I don’t think we should be like the movie Minority Report, where we are arresting people because they might commit a crime,” he said then.
Now he is ok with the injunction because he has limited the number of known gang members on the list (now at only 21 people) by requiring a higher bar, and including the fact that they have criminal records.
This shows leadership. He was hesitant to support an injunction that was too broad, but worked to narrow it and apply it in a way that was not as “minority report” as the orignial plan.
Someone, give the guy some credit.
Cabaldon told SN&R back in 2005 that he had “a healthy amount of skepticism” about gang injunctions generally. “I don’t think we should be like the movie Minority Report, where we are arresting people because they might commit a crime,” he said then.
Now he is ok with the injunction because he has limited the number of known gang members on the list (now at only 21 people) by requiring a higher bar, and including the fact that they have criminal records.
This shows leadership. He was hesitant to support an injunction that was too broad, but worked to narrow it and apply it in a way that was not as “minority report” as the orignial plan.
Someone, give the guy some credit.
Of course you skipped the interim steps between 2005 and 2007, where at the beginning of this year, before the injunction was thrown out, he was in support of them. Seems maybe less leadership and more political pandering in an election year.
Of course you skipped the interim steps between 2005 and 2007, where at the beginning of this year, before the injunction was thrown out, he was in support of them. Seems maybe less leadership and more political pandering in an election year.
Of course you skipped the interim steps between 2005 and 2007, where at the beginning of this year, before the injunction was thrown out, he was in support of them. Seems maybe less leadership and more political pandering in an election year.
Of course you skipped the interim steps between 2005 and 2007, where at the beginning of this year, before the injunction was thrown out, he was in support of them. Seems maybe less leadership and more political pandering in an election year.
The Vanguard poll asking who you would choose as the candidate for Assembly has revealed an interesting voting dynamic over the last 5 days. Calbadon jumped out ahead on the day that the blog talked about Calbadon’s lack of leadership along with a flurry of postings that had a distinctly campaign organization “feel”. Since then,with the polling numbers increasing by about 150% to near 100, Yamada has matched Cabaldon as the candidate choice. This suggests that,in spite of the fact that Cabaldon clearly has the upper hand with respect to money and campaign organization,the Davis voters are currently about evenly split on the Cabaldon/Yamada primary race.
The Vanguard poll asking who you would choose as the candidate for Assembly has revealed an interesting voting dynamic over the last 5 days. Calbadon jumped out ahead on the day that the blog talked about Calbadon’s lack of leadership along with a flurry of postings that had a distinctly campaign organization “feel”. Since then,with the polling numbers increasing by about 150% to near 100, Yamada has matched Cabaldon as the candidate choice. This suggests that,in spite of the fact that Cabaldon clearly has the upper hand with respect to money and campaign organization,the Davis voters are currently about evenly split on the Cabaldon/Yamada primary race.
The Vanguard poll asking who you would choose as the candidate for Assembly has revealed an interesting voting dynamic over the last 5 days. Calbadon jumped out ahead on the day that the blog talked about Calbadon’s lack of leadership along with a flurry of postings that had a distinctly campaign organization “feel”. Since then,with the polling numbers increasing by about 150% to near 100, Yamada has matched Cabaldon as the candidate choice. This suggests that,in spite of the fact that Cabaldon clearly has the upper hand with respect to money and campaign organization,the Davis voters are currently about evenly split on the Cabaldon/Yamada primary race.
The Vanguard poll asking who you would choose as the candidate for Assembly has revealed an interesting voting dynamic over the last 5 days. Calbadon jumped out ahead on the day that the blog talked about Calbadon’s lack of leadership along with a flurry of postings that had a distinctly campaign organization “feel”. Since then,with the polling numbers increasing by about 150% to near 100, Yamada has matched Cabaldon as the candidate choice. This suggests that,in spite of the fact that Cabaldon clearly has the upper hand with respect to money and campaign organization,the Davis voters are currently about evenly split on the Cabaldon/Yamada primary race.
The proposed injunction contains the same 11 criteria as before and names 400 John and Jane does. Like before this will allow the city of West Sacramento to once again place individuals who have not committed any crime to be placed on the injunction. These individuals will be placed in databases on a state and sometimes national level listed as gang members when they have never belonged to any gang. This will affect their ability to be employed and to further their education. We should all be concerned about these aspects of the injunction.
The proposed injunction contains the same 11 criteria as before and names 400 John and Jane does. Like before this will allow the city of West Sacramento to once again place individuals who have not committed any crime to be placed on the injunction. These individuals will be placed in databases on a state and sometimes national level listed as gang members when they have never belonged to any gang. This will affect their ability to be employed and to further their education. We should all be concerned about these aspects of the injunction.
The proposed injunction contains the same 11 criteria as before and names 400 John and Jane does. Like before this will allow the city of West Sacramento to once again place individuals who have not committed any crime to be placed on the injunction. These individuals will be placed in databases on a state and sometimes national level listed as gang members when they have never belonged to any gang. This will affect their ability to be employed and to further their education. We should all be concerned about these aspects of the injunction.
The proposed injunction contains the same 11 criteria as before and names 400 John and Jane does. Like before this will allow the city of West Sacramento to once again place individuals who have not committed any crime to be placed on the injunction. These individuals will be placed in databases on a state and sometimes national level listed as gang members when they have never belonged to any gang. This will affect their ability to be employed and to further their education. We should all be concerned about these aspects of the injunction.