Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig intentionally attempted to circumvent due process requirements in order to get the injunction imposed by only serving one single individual. The fact that Yolo County Judge Thomas Warriner allowed it to stand after the initial challenge on the grounds that the individuals had no standing to contest the law, since they would not acknowledge that they were gang members, speaks volumes about his own judgment.
The attack on civil liberties here is clear–the court struck down the law based on a narrow issue–the lack of proper notification to affected parties. Reisig in his haste and attempt to impose the curfew on a broad range of individuals without anyone to contest the order, served merely one individual with a notice to appear. While he defended his decision based on a notion that they would relay the message through their informal network, the court easily threw that defense aside.
Due process of the law is paramount in any society governed by the rule of law and this policy imposed by Reisig when he was a Deputy District Attorney blatantly violated those norms.
Moreover there was not a requirement that anyone had to be convicted of a crime in order to be labeled a gang member. That combined with the failure to notice individuals about a court hearing created a clear violation of state and federal due process requirements. This was clearly a policy that threatened to sweep a number of innocent people in with hardened gang members. Those decrying this ruling have failed to take into account that a number of the individuals served here have strong evidence that they are not in fact gang members at all.
However, by far the most shocking and appalling act of cowardice was the buck that Reisig passed after the decision–for he promptly dumped the entire mess that he had created through his own laziness and attempt to circumvent due process, into the lap of the city officials of West Sacramento most particularly Mayor Christopher Cabaldon.
Reisig told reporters after the Monday decision that he would seek another injunction only if West Sacramento city leaders, including Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, wanted it.
Mayor Cabaldon of course has been a supporter of the gang injunction. He was quoted in Wednesday’s Sacramento Bee as saying:
West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon said evidence from residents and police indicates crime is down since the injunction was enforced.
“From the beginning it has all been about achieving a balance between assuring public safety in the community and to protect the constitutional rights for all of our residents,” Cabaldon said.
On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are a menace and that this is the only way to fight them.
Thus no matter what the Mayor does at this point, he will anger a large constituency as he faces a nomination fight in the Democratic Party for the 8th Assembly District. Reisig has done him no favors here by passing the decision making to Cabaldon. Cabaldon would be well served by dumping it right back into Reisig’s lap by criticizing the District Attorney for trying to cut corners with the initial injunction and recognizing to the public that Reisig is the county’s chief law enforcement officer and that Reisig himself makes such decisions.
Whatever one feels about Cabaldon here, there an issue of fairness and it was simply not fair for Reisig to dump this into the lap of the Mayor. Reisig is the one that made several crucial mistakes in the application of this policy that would be controversial enough even with proper notification. In other words, the court decision to strike down this injunction was completely and totally on District Attorney Jeff Reisig watch and instead of making a decision as to whether or not he should attempt to rewrite the injunction and properly notice individuals he dumped it on Mayor Cabaldon.
District Attorney Jeff Reisig was just seated this January as Yolo County’s first new District Attorney in over 20 years. He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently. However, this policy and the handling of this decision demonstrate that in fact it is still business as usual in the Yolo County criminal justice system. Civil liberties are still violated and responsibility and accountability skirted. At the end of the day, Yolo County needed a clean break in the District Attorney’s office and Reisig will not provide that.
The Sacramento Bee had their own scathing editorial for the District Attorney who less than one year ago they had endorsed:
After the ruling, a disappointed Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig cited the brutal attack on an Amtrak conductor last week allegedly by members of the Broderick Boys as proof of the need for the gang injunction. But Reisig overlooks the obvious: The injunction was in place and had been for more than two years when the attack took place. It did not prevent that crime.
As the court’s opinion makes clear, the injunction was too blunt an instrument. The order lacked necessary safeguards for those affected. In the tight-knit communities of working-class Broderick, the injunction posed the risk of sweeping too many innocent people into a very wide net.
The next time Reisig moves against gangs, he should consult first with local officials and residents to get their advice and their support, both of which appeared noticeably absent the first time around.
However, it remains even more appalling to me that it took an appellate court to strike down this rather obvious and blatant violation of the constitutional right to due process which seems to shape the entire Yolo County criminal justice system.
It is Reisig who needs to make the decision to revisit the injunction and not Mayor Cabaldon. Proper noticing will require great effort on the part of the prosecutor’s office and then it will involve a lengthy court challenge as the defendants and the ACLU challenge the constitutionality of the gang injunction itself. The court explicitly left open that possibility, however, the proper process will take time and expense. It would seem to us that there would be other ways to combat gang activity that do not infringe upon the rights of potentially innocent people without the possiblity of due process of law.
This entire episode has left an unfortunate smudge on Yolo County law enforcement, but even more unfortunately represents only the tip of the iceberg. Someone needs to come in and clean up Yolo County and unfortunately this case confirms what we already suspected, Jeff Reisig is not the man to do it.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Thank you,ACLU for winning this battle against the Gang Injunction. Nothing has been a greater source of infuriation for me than this blatant exploitation of peoples fears for their personal safety and need for security in Yolo County. Throughout history, there have been times frightened people have been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own protection. Destroying Democracy to save it is not an option. Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way. So, ACLU, you won one for the people.
Thank you,ACLU for winning this battle against the Gang Injunction. Nothing has been a greater source of infuriation for me than this blatant exploitation of peoples fears for their personal safety and need for security in Yolo County. Throughout history, there have been times frightened people have been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own protection. Destroying Democracy to save it is not an option. Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way. So, ACLU, you won one for the people.
Thank you,ACLU for winning this battle against the Gang Injunction. Nothing has been a greater source of infuriation for me than this blatant exploitation of peoples fears for their personal safety and need for security in Yolo County. Throughout history, there have been times frightened people have been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own protection. Destroying Democracy to save it is not an option. Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way. So, ACLU, you won one for the people.
Thank you,ACLU for winning this battle against the Gang Injunction. Nothing has been a greater source of infuriation for me than this blatant exploitation of peoples fears for their personal safety and need for security in Yolo County. Throughout history, there have been times frightened people have been willing to give up the rights and lives of others for their own protection. Destroying Democracy to save it is not an option. Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way. So, ACLU, you won one for the people.
The one thing I have noticed about the Yolo DA’s office is a tendancy to be very creative in the way they interpret the law and that means is they try to stretch the rules to some extent. That raises the level of uncertainty when dealing with the DA’s office, which obviously makes it more risky for those caught up in cases. They must be watched like a hawk.SAH
The one thing I have noticed about the Yolo DA’s office is a tendancy to be very creative in the way they interpret the law and that means is they try to stretch the rules to some extent. That raises the level of uncertainty when dealing with the DA’s office, which obviously makes it more risky for those caught up in cases. They must be watched like a hawk.SAH
The one thing I have noticed about the Yolo DA’s office is a tendancy to be very creative in the way they interpret the law and that means is they try to stretch the rules to some extent. That raises the level of uncertainty when dealing with the DA’s office, which obviously makes it more risky for those caught up in cases. They must be watched like a hawk.SAH
The one thing I have noticed about the Yolo DA’s office is a tendancy to be very creative in the way they interpret the law and that means is they try to stretch the rules to some extent. That raises the level of uncertainty when dealing with the DA’s office, which obviously makes it more risky for those caught up in cases. They must be watched like a hawk.SAH
The City of West Sacramento can target certain behavior without using the DA’s Office.
An example of this is Davis’ Open Container ordinance which targeted undesirable behavior in certain parks in Davis without banning the actual gathering of specific people. West Sacramento could ban loitering, etc. at specific problem locations without targeting specific people.
The City of West Sacramento can target certain behavior without using the DA’s Office.
An example of this is Davis’ Open Container ordinance which targeted undesirable behavior in certain parks in Davis without banning the actual gathering of specific people. West Sacramento could ban loitering, etc. at specific problem locations without targeting specific people.
The City of West Sacramento can target certain behavior without using the DA’s Office.
An example of this is Davis’ Open Container ordinance which targeted undesirable behavior in certain parks in Davis without banning the actual gathering of specific people. West Sacramento could ban loitering, etc. at specific problem locations without targeting specific people.
The City of West Sacramento can target certain behavior without using the DA’s Office.
An example of this is Davis’ Open Container ordinance which targeted undesirable behavior in certain parks in Davis without banning the actual gathering of specific people. West Sacramento could ban loitering, etc. at specific problem locations without targeting specific people.
“He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently”
And is doing just that. As the new DA, he is asking not telling city officials what his office can do to help their community fight a very real problem.
The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten. Non partisan conversations are a beautiful thing…
“He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently”
And is doing just that. As the new DA, he is asking not telling city officials what his office can do to help their community fight a very real problem.
The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten. Non partisan conversations are a beautiful thing…
“He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently”
And is doing just that. As the new DA, he is asking not telling city officials what his office can do to help their community fight a very real problem.
The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten. Non partisan conversations are a beautiful thing…
“He was elected with near unanimous support from law enforcement and yet promised to make reforms and do things differently”
And is doing just that. As the new DA, he is asking not telling city officials what his office can do to help their community fight a very real problem.
The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten. Non partisan conversations are a beautiful thing…
“Many Latinos feel that the measure unduly singles out Latinos regardless of whether or not they are gang–giving police broad discretion to harass any Latino in the gang injunction zone.”
Many Latinos? What the hell does that mean?
“Residents feel that it has a chilling effect on social and community activities.”
How many residents? One, two, five hundred, 20,000? What kind of garbage journalism is this?
“And some have accused the police of forcing gang confessions on them, placing them under the lifelong ban with no legal recourse or means to fight the charges.”
Some? What kind of numbers are you talking about? One person? Two? Eleven?
“On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are menace and that this is the only way to fight them.”
This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.
I don’t have a position one way or the other on the actual Reisig policy. However, I’m appalled — as usual by your arrogance in assuming everything about how an ethnic group feels about an issue — over the way you write this garbage. Have you no standards whatsover?
For all you or I know, 98% of the Latinos in West Sac were supporters of this policy. It’s not unlikely that Latinos were the primary victims of the gangs. Yet you hear from a handful of blowhards and assume that they speak for thousands. You seem to have this kind of know-it-all arrogant attitude on every question which involves activist minority groups. But keep this in mind: the most outspoken are not always representive of how a majority feels. It’s completely bogus to play up this issue, as you have done with many issues, as being one of the MAN against the minority. You don’t know squat about how ordinary feel about this policy.
“Many Latinos feel that the measure unduly singles out Latinos regardless of whether or not they are gang–giving police broad discretion to harass any Latino in the gang injunction zone.”
Many Latinos? What the hell does that mean?
“Residents feel that it has a chilling effect on social and community activities.”
How many residents? One, two, five hundred, 20,000? What kind of garbage journalism is this?
“And some have accused the police of forcing gang confessions on them, placing them under the lifelong ban with no legal recourse or means to fight the charges.”
Some? What kind of numbers are you talking about? One person? Two? Eleven?
“On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are menace and that this is the only way to fight them.”
This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.
I don’t have a position one way or the other on the actual Reisig policy. However, I’m appalled — as usual by your arrogance in assuming everything about how an ethnic group feels about an issue — over the way you write this garbage. Have you no standards whatsover?
For all you or I know, 98% of the Latinos in West Sac were supporters of this policy. It’s not unlikely that Latinos were the primary victims of the gangs. Yet you hear from a handful of blowhards and assume that they speak for thousands. You seem to have this kind of know-it-all arrogant attitude on every question which involves activist minority groups. But keep this in mind: the most outspoken are not always representive of how a majority feels. It’s completely bogus to play up this issue, as you have done with many issues, as being one of the MAN against the minority. You don’t know squat about how ordinary feel about this policy.
“Many Latinos feel that the measure unduly singles out Latinos regardless of whether or not they are gang–giving police broad discretion to harass any Latino in the gang injunction zone.”
Many Latinos? What the hell does that mean?
“Residents feel that it has a chilling effect on social and community activities.”
How many residents? One, two, five hundred, 20,000? What kind of garbage journalism is this?
“And some have accused the police of forcing gang confessions on them, placing them under the lifelong ban with no legal recourse or means to fight the charges.”
Some? What kind of numbers are you talking about? One person? Two? Eleven?
“On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are menace and that this is the only way to fight them.”
This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.
I don’t have a position one way or the other on the actual Reisig policy. However, I’m appalled — as usual by your arrogance in assuming everything about how an ethnic group feels about an issue — over the way you write this garbage. Have you no standards whatsover?
For all you or I know, 98% of the Latinos in West Sac were supporters of this policy. It’s not unlikely that Latinos were the primary victims of the gangs. Yet you hear from a handful of blowhards and assume that they speak for thousands. You seem to have this kind of know-it-all arrogant attitude on every question which involves activist minority groups. But keep this in mind: the most outspoken are not always representive of how a majority feels. It’s completely bogus to play up this issue, as you have done with many issues, as being one of the MAN against the minority. You don’t know squat about how ordinary feel about this policy.
“Many Latinos feel that the measure unduly singles out Latinos regardless of whether or not they are gang–giving police broad discretion to harass any Latino in the gang injunction zone.”
Many Latinos? What the hell does that mean?
“Residents feel that it has a chilling effect on social and community activities.”
How many residents? One, two, five hundred, 20,000? What kind of garbage journalism is this?
“And some have accused the police of forcing gang confessions on them, placing them under the lifelong ban with no legal recourse or means to fight the charges.”
Some? What kind of numbers are you talking about? One person? Two? Eleven?
“On the other hand, many residents feel the opposite, that the gangs are menace and that this is the only way to fight them.”
This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.
I don’t have a position one way or the other on the actual Reisig policy. However, I’m appalled — as usual by your arrogance in assuming everything about how an ethnic group feels about an issue — over the way you write this garbage. Have you no standards whatsover?
For all you or I know, 98% of the Latinos in West Sac were supporters of this policy. It’s not unlikely that Latinos were the primary victims of the gangs. Yet you hear from a handful of blowhards and assume that they speak for thousands. You seem to have this kind of know-it-all arrogant attitude on every question which involves activist minority groups. But keep this in mind: the most outspoken are not always representive of how a majority feels. It’s completely bogus to play up this issue, as you have done with many issues, as being one of the MAN against the minority. You don’t know squat about how ordinary feel about this policy.
“The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten.”
Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH
“The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten.”
Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH
“The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten.”
Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH
“The former DA told Jeff what to do or has that been conveniently forgotten.”
Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH
COMMENTARY, not journalistic reporting, is the title of this blog article, as anyone who is not caught up in self-absorbed ranting would readily recognize.
COMMENTARY, not journalistic reporting, is the title of this blog article, as anyone who is not caught up in self-absorbed ranting would readily recognize.
COMMENTARY, not journalistic reporting, is the title of this blog article, as anyone who is not caught up in self-absorbed ranting would readily recognize.
COMMENTARY, not journalistic reporting, is the title of this blog article, as anyone who is not caught up in self-absorbed ranting would readily recognize.
Rich:
“This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.”
Mr. Rifkin, if you would kindly read the first word of the title and tell us exactly what that word is and what it means to you. Thank you.
Rich:
“This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.”
Mr. Rifkin, if you would kindly read the first word of the title and tell us exactly what that word is and what it means to you. Thank you.
Rich:
“This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.”
Mr. Rifkin, if you would kindly read the first word of the title and tell us exactly what that word is and what it means to you. Thank you.
Rich:
“This is incredibly bad journalism. It’s very typical of the Vanguard. With no hard evidence, no polling data whatsoever, you imply that it is Latinos who are the victims of the Reisig policy, and therefore Latinos oppose this policy, while it is simply “many residents” who feel the opposite.”
Mr. Rifkin, if you would kindly read the first word of the title and tell us exactly what that word is and what it means to you. Thank you.
Thank you Doug!!! And, a BIG thanks to the Sacramento Bee for their editorial.
I feel very good about having voted for Pat Lenzi for DA. It does not surprise me one bit that this office is already in “it” deep. I would have much preferred an intelligent, tuff DA who didn’t compromise the integrity of the DA’s office the way Reisig has. I can proudly say I voted for Pat Lenzi.
Keep up the great commentary and reporting Doug. We don’t get this kind of coverage from the “other” news source in town that Rifkin (the complainer) works for.
Just keep doing what you’re doing. Your readers are very thankful to you.
Thank you Doug!!! And, a BIG thanks to the Sacramento Bee for their editorial.
I feel very good about having voted for Pat Lenzi for DA. It does not surprise me one bit that this office is already in “it” deep. I would have much preferred an intelligent, tuff DA who didn’t compromise the integrity of the DA’s office the way Reisig has. I can proudly say I voted for Pat Lenzi.
Keep up the great commentary and reporting Doug. We don’t get this kind of coverage from the “other” news source in town that Rifkin (the complainer) works for.
Just keep doing what you’re doing. Your readers are very thankful to you.
Thank you Doug!!! And, a BIG thanks to the Sacramento Bee for their editorial.
I feel very good about having voted for Pat Lenzi for DA. It does not surprise me one bit that this office is already in “it” deep. I would have much preferred an intelligent, tuff DA who didn’t compromise the integrity of the DA’s office the way Reisig has. I can proudly say I voted for Pat Lenzi.
Keep up the great commentary and reporting Doug. We don’t get this kind of coverage from the “other” news source in town that Rifkin (the complainer) works for.
Just keep doing what you’re doing. Your readers are very thankful to you.
Thank you Doug!!! And, a BIG thanks to the Sacramento Bee for their editorial.
I feel very good about having voted for Pat Lenzi for DA. It does not surprise me one bit that this office is already in “it” deep. I would have much preferred an intelligent, tuff DA who didn’t compromise the integrity of the DA’s office the way Reisig has. I can proudly say I voted for Pat Lenzi.
Keep up the great commentary and reporting Doug. We don’t get this kind of coverage from the “other” news source in town that Rifkin (the complainer) works for.
Just keep doing what you’re doing. Your readers are very thankful to you.
He, or She who is so taken back when issues involving race or ethnicity are discussed ought to “check themselves.”
It’s glaringly obvious to intelligent bloggers that “Rifkin doth protest too much.”
Rifkin rails against the comments on this blog, but doesn’t similarly rant against his own paper, which frequently uses the catch-all groupings of ‘many’, ‘some’, and ‘a few’. Perhaps he should also ask the Enterprise to refrain from ‘some’ and use more specific numbers, like ’37 members of the community’.
Rifkin also nitpicks individual comments, rather than debate the entire issue.
He, or She who is so taken back when issues involving race or ethnicity are discussed ought to “check themselves.”
It’s glaringly obvious to intelligent bloggers that “Rifkin doth protest too much.”
Rifkin rails against the comments on this blog, but doesn’t similarly rant against his own paper, which frequently uses the catch-all groupings of ‘many’, ‘some’, and ‘a few’. Perhaps he should also ask the Enterprise to refrain from ‘some’ and use more specific numbers, like ’37 members of the community’.
Rifkin also nitpicks individual comments, rather than debate the entire issue.
He, or She who is so taken back when issues involving race or ethnicity are discussed ought to “check themselves.”
It’s glaringly obvious to intelligent bloggers that “Rifkin doth protest too much.”
Rifkin rails against the comments on this blog, but doesn’t similarly rant against his own paper, which frequently uses the catch-all groupings of ‘many’, ‘some’, and ‘a few’. Perhaps he should also ask the Enterprise to refrain from ‘some’ and use more specific numbers, like ’37 members of the community’.
Rifkin also nitpicks individual comments, rather than debate the entire issue.
He, or She who is so taken back when issues involving race or ethnicity are discussed ought to “check themselves.”
It’s glaringly obvious to intelligent bloggers that “Rifkin doth protest too much.”
Rifkin rails against the comments on this blog, but doesn’t similarly rant against his own paper, which frequently uses the catch-all groupings of ‘many’, ‘some’, and ‘a few’. Perhaps he should also ask the Enterprise to refrain from ‘some’ and use more specific numbers, like ’37 members of the community’.
Rifkin also nitpicks individual comments, rather than debate the entire issue.
This injunction was the crown jewel in Reisig’s campaign for office. It was not “Henderson’s” policy – it was “Reisig’s baby.” It has turned to dust because he did not ensure it was done right.
Our chief law enforcement officer needs to do the joby within the limits of the law. We expect and deserve no less. Protect our citzens lawfully. It’s not that difficult a task.
Gangs pose a danger and are a problem. Ok, Jeff, so do the RIGHT thing when going after them. Putting an illegally obtained injunction in place makes the problem worse, not better. You lose the hearts and minds of the citizens while failing to implement a useful tool properly.
By the way, it seems that violent crimes in West Sac INCREASED this past year, just not in the are covered by the injunction. All it seems this injunction actually did was MOVE the crimes. The nice house neighborhoods are getting tagged now aslo. Maybe it wasn’t such an effective tool after all.
This injunction was the crown jewel in Reisig’s campaign for office. It was not “Henderson’s” policy – it was “Reisig’s baby.” It has turned to dust because he did not ensure it was done right.
Our chief law enforcement officer needs to do the joby within the limits of the law. We expect and deserve no less. Protect our citzens lawfully. It’s not that difficult a task.
Gangs pose a danger and are a problem. Ok, Jeff, so do the RIGHT thing when going after them. Putting an illegally obtained injunction in place makes the problem worse, not better. You lose the hearts and minds of the citizens while failing to implement a useful tool properly.
By the way, it seems that violent crimes in West Sac INCREASED this past year, just not in the are covered by the injunction. All it seems this injunction actually did was MOVE the crimes. The nice house neighborhoods are getting tagged now aslo. Maybe it wasn’t such an effective tool after all.
This injunction was the crown jewel in Reisig’s campaign for office. It was not “Henderson’s” policy – it was “Reisig’s baby.” It has turned to dust because he did not ensure it was done right.
Our chief law enforcement officer needs to do the joby within the limits of the law. We expect and deserve no less. Protect our citzens lawfully. It’s not that difficult a task.
Gangs pose a danger and are a problem. Ok, Jeff, so do the RIGHT thing when going after them. Putting an illegally obtained injunction in place makes the problem worse, not better. You lose the hearts and minds of the citizens while failing to implement a useful tool properly.
By the way, it seems that violent crimes in West Sac INCREASED this past year, just not in the are covered by the injunction. All it seems this injunction actually did was MOVE the crimes. The nice house neighborhoods are getting tagged now aslo. Maybe it wasn’t such an effective tool after all.
This injunction was the crown jewel in Reisig’s campaign for office. It was not “Henderson’s” policy – it was “Reisig’s baby.” It has turned to dust because he did not ensure it was done right.
Our chief law enforcement officer needs to do the joby within the limits of the law. We expect and deserve no less. Protect our citzens lawfully. It’s not that difficult a task.
Gangs pose a danger and are a problem. Ok, Jeff, so do the RIGHT thing when going after them. Putting an illegally obtained injunction in place makes the problem worse, not better. You lose the hearts and minds of the citizens while failing to implement a useful tool properly.
By the way, it seems that violent crimes in West Sac INCREASED this past year, just not in the are covered by the injunction. All it seems this injunction actually did was MOVE the crimes. The nice house neighborhoods are getting tagged now aslo. Maybe it wasn’t such an effective tool after all.
Nit picking comments rather than debating the important issue that The Vanguard has raised is only an attempt to keep the public uninvolved…kind of the way the Enterprise does.
Nit picking comments rather than debating the important issue that The Vanguard has raised is only an attempt to keep the public uninvolved…kind of the way the Enterprise does.
Nit picking comments rather than debating the important issue that The Vanguard has raised is only an attempt to keep the public uninvolved…kind of the way the Enterprise does.
Nit picking comments rather than debating the important issue that The Vanguard has raised is only an attempt to keep the public uninvolved…kind of the way the Enterprise does.
We can hope that Mr. Reisig learns from this ruling and takes the lesson to heart about acting within the limits of the law.
We can hope that Mr. Reisig learns from this ruling and takes the lesson to heart about acting within the limits of the law.
We can hope that Mr. Reisig learns from this ruling and takes the lesson to heart about acting within the limits of the law.
We can hope that Mr. Reisig learns from this ruling and takes the lesson to heart about acting within the limits of the law.
Thanks for the vote, anonymous.
Pat Lenzi
Thanks for the vote, anonymous.
Pat Lenzi
Thanks for the vote, anonymous.
Pat Lenzi
Thanks for the vote, anonymous.
Pat Lenzi
Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years.
The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento. The problem with the injunction was that it was enforced against many but one individual, without due process. It doesn’t matter if it only one additional person was unjustly affected or if 1000 people were unjustly affected, the injuction was incorrectly enforced and did not allow redress if a person was incorrectly identified as part of the target group.
Injunctions have been used by cities to give relief to neighborhoods affected by problem properties (i.e. crack houses, etc.) and is a tool that can be used by cities when other methods of law enforcement have failed.
Gangs cause their own type of frightening criminal activity. We have to acknowledge that. An example of this is the recent incident where a group of 17 year olds stopped a train and beat up the engineer. This is so amazing, that it is beyond comprehension. I know that each of these kids would not have done this alone, on their own. Without the peer group egging each other on these kids would be home right now instead of facing decades in jail somewhere.
The injunction was in place for two years. The City of West Sacramento could now evaluate the effectiveness of the injuction in restoring safety and increasing the quality of life in the City and specifically the “zone” directly impacted. Now other models of community management could be used, i.e. neighborhood watch programs, community advisory boards or neighborhood associations, better lighting, street beautification and nuisance abatement (including problem commercial sites), parks and recreation programs, anti-loitering ordinances, open container ordinances, creation of job opportunities and continuing education for young adults, strict enforcement of Court orders by probation and parole, etc.
I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly. I don’t believe that there is evidence of that. I believe that he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing for the West Sacramento community and he had the support of Yolo County Court which was more likely tuned into the intensity of criminal activity in West Sacramento than the rest of us. The Court of Appeals did not say that there is a problem in West Sacramento, just that the procedure for setting up an injunction was not done properly and was deemed unconstitutional for that reason.
Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years.
The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento. The problem with the injunction was that it was enforced against many but one individual, without due process. It doesn’t matter if it only one additional person was unjustly affected or if 1000 people were unjustly affected, the injuction was incorrectly enforced and did not allow redress if a person was incorrectly identified as part of the target group.
Injunctions have been used by cities to give relief to neighborhoods affected by problem properties (i.e. crack houses, etc.) and is a tool that can be used by cities when other methods of law enforcement have failed.
Gangs cause their own type of frightening criminal activity. We have to acknowledge that. An example of this is the recent incident where a group of 17 year olds stopped a train and beat up the engineer. This is so amazing, that it is beyond comprehension. I know that each of these kids would not have done this alone, on their own. Without the peer group egging each other on these kids would be home right now instead of facing decades in jail somewhere.
The injunction was in place for two years. The City of West Sacramento could now evaluate the effectiveness of the injuction in restoring safety and increasing the quality of life in the City and specifically the “zone” directly impacted. Now other models of community management could be used, i.e. neighborhood watch programs, community advisory boards or neighborhood associations, better lighting, street beautification and nuisance abatement (including problem commercial sites), parks and recreation programs, anti-loitering ordinances, open container ordinances, creation of job opportunities and continuing education for young adults, strict enforcement of Court orders by probation and parole, etc.
I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly. I don’t believe that there is evidence of that. I believe that he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing for the West Sacramento community and he had the support of Yolo County Court which was more likely tuned into the intensity of criminal activity in West Sacramento than the rest of us. The Court of Appeals did not say that there is a problem in West Sacramento, just that the procedure for setting up an injunction was not done properly and was deemed unconstitutional for that reason.
Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years.
The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento. The problem with the injunction was that it was enforced against many but one individual, without due process. It doesn’t matter if it only one additional person was unjustly affected or if 1000 people were unjustly affected, the injuction was incorrectly enforced and did not allow redress if a person was incorrectly identified as part of the target group.
Injunctions have been used by cities to give relief to neighborhoods affected by problem properties (i.e. crack houses, etc.) and is a tool that can be used by cities when other methods of law enforcement have failed.
Gangs cause their own type of frightening criminal activity. We have to acknowledge that. An example of this is the recent incident where a group of 17 year olds stopped a train and beat up the engineer. This is so amazing, that it is beyond comprehension. I know that each of these kids would not have done this alone, on their own. Without the peer group egging each other on these kids would be home right now instead of facing decades in jail somewhere.
The injunction was in place for two years. The City of West Sacramento could now evaluate the effectiveness of the injuction in restoring safety and increasing the quality of life in the City and specifically the “zone” directly impacted. Now other models of community management could be used, i.e. neighborhood watch programs, community advisory boards or neighborhood associations, better lighting, street beautification and nuisance abatement (including problem commercial sites), parks and recreation programs, anti-loitering ordinances, open container ordinances, creation of job opportunities and continuing education for young adults, strict enforcement of Court orders by probation and parole, etc.
I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly. I don’t believe that there is evidence of that. I believe that he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing for the West Sacramento community and he had the support of Yolo County Court which was more likely tuned into the intensity of criminal activity in West Sacramento than the rest of us. The Court of Appeals did not say that there is a problem in West Sacramento, just that the procedure for setting up an injunction was not done properly and was deemed unconstitutional for that reason.
Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years.
The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento. The problem with the injunction was that it was enforced against many but one individual, without due process. It doesn’t matter if it only one additional person was unjustly affected or if 1000 people were unjustly affected, the injuction was incorrectly enforced and did not allow redress if a person was incorrectly identified as part of the target group.
Injunctions have been used by cities to give relief to neighborhoods affected by problem properties (i.e. crack houses, etc.) and is a tool that can be used by cities when other methods of law enforcement have failed.
Gangs cause their own type of frightening criminal activity. We have to acknowledge that. An example of this is the recent incident where a group of 17 year olds stopped a train and beat up the engineer. This is so amazing, that it is beyond comprehension. I know that each of these kids would not have done this alone, on their own. Without the peer group egging each other on these kids would be home right now instead of facing decades in jail somewhere.
The injunction was in place for two years. The City of West Sacramento could now evaluate the effectiveness of the injuction in restoring safety and increasing the quality of life in the City and specifically the “zone” directly impacted. Now other models of community management could be used, i.e. neighborhood watch programs, community advisory boards or neighborhood associations, better lighting, street beautification and nuisance abatement (including problem commercial sites), parks and recreation programs, anti-loitering ordinances, open container ordinances, creation of job opportunities and continuing education for young adults, strict enforcement of Court orders by probation and parole, etc.
I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly. I don’t believe that there is evidence of that. I believe that he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing for the West Sacramento community and he had the support of Yolo County Court which was more likely tuned into the intensity of criminal activity in West Sacramento than the rest of us. The Court of Appeals did not say that there is a problem in West Sacramento, just that the procedure for setting up an injunction was not done properly and was deemed unconstitutional for that reason.
“I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly.”
Sharla:
The “cowardly” reference is to Reisig making the decision to put the burden on Cabaldon rather than making the decision himself as to whether or not to try to pursue the policy in the future.
“I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly.”
Sharla:
The “cowardly” reference is to Reisig making the decision to put the burden on Cabaldon rather than making the decision himself as to whether or not to try to pursue the policy in the future.
“I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly.”
Sharla:
The “cowardly” reference is to Reisig making the decision to put the burden on Cabaldon rather than making the decision himself as to whether or not to try to pursue the policy in the future.
“I would hesitate to declare Reisig’s actions as cowardly.”
Sharla:
The “cowardly” reference is to Reisig making the decision to put the burden on Cabaldon rather than making the decision himself as to whether or not to try to pursue the policy in the future.
OK, yes, I see your point.
OK, yes, I see your point.
OK, yes, I see your point.
OK, yes, I see your point.
“Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years. The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento.”
You don’t know what I know about this issue, Sharla. Just because I don’t have an opinion on one side or the other does not mean I haven’t been following this issue.
In fact, I have followed this question very closely. I understand exactly what the injunction against the Broderick Boys was intended to do.
What bothers me is that David Greenwald and his sycophants who post on his blog act as if they know more about the feelings of the majority of people in West Sacramento than they really know. It’s entirely possible that most people there benefitted from this injunction. I don’t know if that is the case, but it’s not improbable.
Nonetheless, majority or minority, that doesn’t shape my ultimate opinion. I think there is a balancing act when trying to fight and prevent crime. I’m not sure what the right answer is in this case.
“Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years. The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento.”
You don’t know what I know about this issue, Sharla. Just because I don’t have an opinion on one side or the other does not mean I haven’t been following this issue.
In fact, I have followed this question very closely. I understand exactly what the injunction against the Broderick Boys was intended to do.
What bothers me is that David Greenwald and his sycophants who post on his blog act as if they know more about the feelings of the majority of people in West Sacramento than they really know. It’s entirely possible that most people there benefitted from this injunction. I don’t know if that is the case, but it’s not improbable.
Nonetheless, majority or minority, that doesn’t shape my ultimate opinion. I think there is a balancing act when trying to fight and prevent crime. I’m not sure what the right answer is in this case.
“Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years. The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento.”
You don’t know what I know about this issue, Sharla. Just because I don’t have an opinion on one side or the other does not mean I haven’t been following this issue.
In fact, I have followed this question very closely. I understand exactly what the injunction against the Broderick Boys was intended to do.
What bothers me is that David Greenwald and his sycophants who post on his blog act as if they know more about the feelings of the majority of people in West Sacramento than they really know. It’s entirely possible that most people there benefitted from this injunction. I don’t know if that is the case, but it’s not improbable.
Nonetheless, majority or minority, that doesn’t shape my ultimate opinion. I think there is a balancing act when trying to fight and prevent crime. I’m not sure what the right answer is in this case.
“Rich, Your comment makes it very apparent that you are out of touch with this issue or have not been following it over the last two years. The injunction severely limited the freedom of a large group of individuals in a specific zone of West Sacramento.”
You don’t know what I know about this issue, Sharla. Just because I don’t have an opinion on one side or the other does not mean I haven’t been following this issue.
In fact, I have followed this question very closely. I understand exactly what the injunction against the Broderick Boys was intended to do.
What bothers me is that David Greenwald and his sycophants who post on his blog act as if they know more about the feelings of the majority of people in West Sacramento than they really know. It’s entirely possible that most people there benefitted from this injunction. I don’t know if that is the case, but it’s not improbable.
Nonetheless, majority or minority, that doesn’t shape my ultimate opinion. I think there is a balancing act when trying to fight and prevent crime. I’m not sure what the right answer is in this case.
If David is guilty of something, he’s not alone.
Sac Bee:
“On Tuesday, residents expressed mixed views of the Broderick Boys and their impact.”
Davis Enterprise:
“The injunction established a curfew and identified a 3-square-mile “safety zone” in the city, where gang members were prohibited from associating in public and engaging in unlawful activities.
But it proved a controversial action, pitting those who found it effective in curbing West Sacramento’s gang crimes against those who said it infringed upon their constitutional rights. Some claimed the injunction prevented them from attending church or family gatherings.”
So he’s not alone with the perception. This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides. I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.
If David is guilty of something, he’s not alone.
Sac Bee:
“On Tuesday, residents expressed mixed views of the Broderick Boys and their impact.”
Davis Enterprise:
“The injunction established a curfew and identified a 3-square-mile “safety zone” in the city, where gang members were prohibited from associating in public and engaging in unlawful activities.
But it proved a controversial action, pitting those who found it effective in curbing West Sacramento’s gang crimes against those who said it infringed upon their constitutional rights. Some claimed the injunction prevented them from attending church or family gatherings.”
So he’s not alone with the perception. This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides. I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.
If David is guilty of something, he’s not alone.
Sac Bee:
“On Tuesday, residents expressed mixed views of the Broderick Boys and their impact.”
Davis Enterprise:
“The injunction established a curfew and identified a 3-square-mile “safety zone” in the city, where gang members were prohibited from associating in public and engaging in unlawful activities.
But it proved a controversial action, pitting those who found it effective in curbing West Sacramento’s gang crimes against those who said it infringed upon their constitutional rights. Some claimed the injunction prevented them from attending church or family gatherings.”
So he’s not alone with the perception. This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides. I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.
If David is guilty of something, he’s not alone.
Sac Bee:
“On Tuesday, residents expressed mixed views of the Broderick Boys and their impact.”
Davis Enterprise:
“The injunction established a curfew and identified a 3-square-mile “safety zone” in the city, where gang members were prohibited from associating in public and engaging in unlawful activities.
But it proved a controversial action, pitting those who found it effective in curbing West Sacramento’s gang crimes against those who said it infringed upon their constitutional rights. Some claimed the injunction prevented them from attending church or family gatherings.”
So he’s not alone with the perception. This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides. I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.
“Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH”
No. The DAs office and law enforcement need these type of tools to fight criminal street gangs.
You people want it both ways though. You complain when he did the injunction without asking and now your complaining that he is asking. Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad names.
“Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH”
No. The DAs office and law enforcement need these type of tools to fight criminal street gangs.
You people want it both ways though. You complain when he did the injunction without asking and now your complaining that he is asking. Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad names.
“Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH”
No. The DAs office and law enforcement need these type of tools to fight criminal street gangs.
You people want it both ways though. You complain when he did the injunction without asking and now your complaining that he is asking. Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad names.
“Was that comment meant to suggest Reisig was against the injunction all along?SAH”
No. The DAs office and law enforcement need these type of tools to fight criminal street gangs.
You people want it both ways though. You complain when he did the injunction without asking and now your complaining that he is asking. Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad names.
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail.
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail.
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail.
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail.
Vincente said…
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail. “
Well said, vincente.
Vincente said…
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail. “
Well said, vincente.
Vincente said…
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail. “
Well said, vincente.
Vincente said…
Let’s get straight what the complaint is here:
1. Reisig screwed up massively to cause the court to strike down this law
2. Reisig then publicly put the onus on Cabaldon rather than either doing it privately or making the decision himself.
That gives liberals a bad name? Give me a break. What gives conservatives a bad name are these policies that are supposed to be tough on crime but cut corners and do so at the expense of the rights of the accused and it get innocent people thrown in jail. “
Well said, vincente.
“Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad name”
What is wrong with fighting crime within the framework of due process?
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Due process is something everyone should understand and follow.
Here is a refresher-
In United States law, adopted from English Law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person’s legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.SAH
“Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad name”
What is wrong with fighting crime within the framework of due process?
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Due process is something everyone should understand and follow.
Here is a refresher-
In United States law, adopted from English Law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person’s legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.SAH
“Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad name”
What is wrong with fighting crime within the framework of due process?
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Due process is something everyone should understand and follow.
Here is a refresher-
In United States law, adopted from English Law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person’s legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.SAH
“Geeez, no wonder liberals get such bad name”
What is wrong with fighting crime within the framework of due process?
This has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Due process is something everyone should understand and follow.
Here is a refresher-
In United States law, adopted from English Law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a person’s legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.SAH
“So he’s not alone with the perception.”
I never said he was alone. Low standards for evidence don’t make him unique.
“This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides.”
“A number” is terribly vague to the point of meaningless. Nonetheless, of course there are people on both sides. That is not news. The questions (to my mind) are how many and have more benefitted or been injured by this injunction.
Often times, questions like this injunction involve a balancing of the rights of gang members and the rights of people who are being victimized by the Broderick Boys. While it is generally true that our laws are designed to punish those who have specifically harmed specific individuals, criminal gangs present a different problem — not unlike those who perpetrate hate crimes — because much of their criminality involves intimidation and generalized fear-mongering. Beyond that, of course, there is a societal interest in preventing criminal conspiracies. And to effect that, prohibiting certain associations among known criminal conspirators makes common sense.
“I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.”
I called him out specifically because he implies — in this and in many of his articles — that the suppression of the Broderick Boys is opposed by the Latino community in West Sacramento. He does not know that. He only knows what a small handful of people have said, not what most Latino people really think.
By constrast, when he mentions that there are “other residents” of West Sac who support the injunction, they are not identified by any ethnic categorization. It’s entirely possible that most Latinos in West Sacto like the injunction. Yet, from Greenwald’s screed it would seem that Reisig’s injunction was an attack on their community.
“So he’s not alone with the perception.”
I never said he was alone. Low standards for evidence don’t make him unique.
“This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides.”
“A number” is terribly vague to the point of meaningless. Nonetheless, of course there are people on both sides. That is not news. The questions (to my mind) are how many and have more benefitted or been injured by this injunction.
Often times, questions like this injunction involve a balancing of the rights of gang members and the rights of people who are being victimized by the Broderick Boys. While it is generally true that our laws are designed to punish those who have specifically harmed specific individuals, criminal gangs present a different problem — not unlike those who perpetrate hate crimes — because much of their criminality involves intimidation and generalized fear-mongering. Beyond that, of course, there is a societal interest in preventing criminal conspiracies. And to effect that, prohibiting certain associations among known criminal conspirators makes common sense.
“I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.”
I called him out specifically because he implies — in this and in many of his articles — that the suppression of the Broderick Boys is opposed by the Latino community in West Sacramento. He does not know that. He only knows what a small handful of people have said, not what most Latino people really think.
By constrast, when he mentions that there are “other residents” of West Sac who support the injunction, they are not identified by any ethnic categorization. It’s entirely possible that most Latinos in West Sacto like the injunction. Yet, from Greenwald’s screed it would seem that Reisig’s injunction was an attack on their community.
“So he’s not alone with the perception.”
I never said he was alone. Low standards for evidence don’t make him unique.
“This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides.”
“A number” is terribly vague to the point of meaningless. Nonetheless, of course there are people on both sides. That is not news. The questions (to my mind) are how many and have more benefitted or been injured by this injunction.
Often times, questions like this injunction involve a balancing of the rights of gang members and the rights of people who are being victimized by the Broderick Boys. While it is generally true that our laws are designed to punish those who have specifically harmed specific individuals, criminal gangs present a different problem — not unlike those who perpetrate hate crimes — because much of their criminality involves intimidation and generalized fear-mongering. Beyond that, of course, there is a societal interest in preventing criminal conspiracies. And to effect that, prohibiting certain associations among known criminal conspirators makes common sense.
“I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.”
I called him out specifically because he implies — in this and in many of his articles — that the suppression of the Broderick Boys is opposed by the Latino community in West Sacramento. He does not know that. He only knows what a small handful of people have said, not what most Latino people really think.
By constrast, when he mentions that there are “other residents” of West Sac who support the injunction, they are not identified by any ethnic categorization. It’s entirely possible that most Latinos in West Sacto like the injunction. Yet, from Greenwald’s screed it would seem that Reisig’s injunction was an attack on their community.
“So he’s not alone with the perception.”
I never said he was alone. Low standards for evidence don’t make him unique.
“This has been a controversy for quite some time with a number citizens divided on both sides.”
“A number” is terribly vague to the point of meaningless. Nonetheless, of course there are people on both sides. That is not news. The questions (to my mind) are how many and have more benefitted or been injured by this injunction.
Often times, questions like this injunction involve a balancing of the rights of gang members and the rights of people who are being victimized by the Broderick Boys. While it is generally true that our laws are designed to punish those who have specifically harmed specific individuals, criminal gangs present a different problem — not unlike those who perpetrate hate crimes — because much of their criminality involves intimidation and generalized fear-mongering. Beyond that, of course, there is a societal interest in preventing criminal conspiracies. And to effect that, prohibiting certain associations among known criminal conspirators makes common sense.
“I see nothing controversial about his position that necessitates you calling him out.”
I called him out specifically because he implies — in this and in many of his articles — that the suppression of the Broderick Boys is opposed by the Latino community in West Sacramento. He does not know that. He only knows what a small handful of people have said, not what most Latino people really think.
By constrast, when he mentions that there are “other residents” of West Sac who support the injunction, they are not identified by any ethnic categorization. It’s entirely possible that most Latinos in West Sacto like the injunction. Yet, from Greenwald’s screed it would seem that Reisig’s injunction was an attack on their community.
“Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way.”
Tansey, what way then is the right way?
“So, ACLU, you won one for the people.”
You don’t know this. Don’t presume that you know what “the people” in this case want. What right have you to arrogate such a position?
According to the WSPD, the injunction resulted in a 17 percent reduction in violent crime and a 26 percent reduction in Broderick and Bryte. If that is true, then there sure must be a lot of “the people” who would have been victimized by the Broderick Boys who were not. I doubt those people would share your view that “the people” won; nor do I think they would be so celebratory of the ACLU.
“Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way.”
Tansey, what way then is the right way?
“So, ACLU, you won one for the people.”
You don’t know this. Don’t presume that you know what “the people” in this case want. What right have you to arrogate such a position?
According to the WSPD, the injunction resulted in a 17 percent reduction in violent crime and a 26 percent reduction in Broderick and Bryte. If that is true, then there sure must be a lot of “the people” who would have been victimized by the Broderick Boys who were not. I doubt those people would share your view that “the people” won; nor do I think they would be so celebratory of the ACLU.
“Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way.”
Tansey, what way then is the right way?
“So, ACLU, you won one for the people.”
You don’t know this. Don’t presume that you know what “the people” in this case want. What right have you to arrogate such a position?
According to the WSPD, the injunction resulted in a 17 percent reduction in violent crime and a 26 percent reduction in Broderick and Bryte. If that is true, then there sure must be a lot of “the people” who would have been victimized by the Broderick Boys who were not. I doubt those people would share your view that “the people” won; nor do I think they would be so celebratory of the ACLU.
“Yes, we have a terrible gang problem but Reisig’s way is not the way.”
Tansey, what way then is the right way?
“So, ACLU, you won one for the people.”
You don’t know this. Don’t presume that you know what “the people” in this case want. What right have you to arrogate such a position?
According to the WSPD, the injunction resulted in a 17 percent reduction in violent crime and a 26 percent reduction in Broderick and Bryte. If that is true, then there sure must be a lot of “the people” who would have been victimized by the Broderick Boys who were not. I doubt those people would share your view that “the people” won; nor do I think they would be so celebratory of the ACLU.
Not to answer for Tansey, but for me at least, the right way would be to not violate the constitution.
I would imagine that given Greenwald’s wife and his ties to Pat Lenzi, that he probably knows pretty well the West Sacramento Latino community. Probably better than you do.
Not to answer for Tansey, but for me at least, the right way would be to not violate the constitution.
I would imagine that given Greenwald’s wife and his ties to Pat Lenzi, that he probably knows pretty well the West Sacramento Latino community. Probably better than you do.
Not to answer for Tansey, but for me at least, the right way would be to not violate the constitution.
I would imagine that given Greenwald’s wife and his ties to Pat Lenzi, that he probably knows pretty well the West Sacramento Latino community. Probably better than you do.
Not to answer for Tansey, but for me at least, the right way would be to not violate the constitution.
I would imagine that given Greenwald’s wife and his ties to Pat Lenzi, that he probably knows pretty well the West Sacramento Latino community. Probably better than you do.
To rely on violating the constitutional rights of people and not providing them a way to ask for redress of wrongs as a way to fight crime is lazy. It also cannot be sustained and have a healthy, vibrant community.
There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them. Treat people with disrespect and that is what you’ll get back.
Also, if the injuction were inforced on my neighborhood, I’d move or at least spend my time somewhere else. Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.
Someone who has the educational background to analyse something like this should study this and shed some light on the actual effects of the injunction.
To rely on violating the constitutional rights of people and not providing them a way to ask for redress of wrongs as a way to fight crime is lazy. It also cannot be sustained and have a healthy, vibrant community.
There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them. Treat people with disrespect and that is what you’ll get back.
Also, if the injuction were inforced on my neighborhood, I’d move or at least spend my time somewhere else. Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.
Someone who has the educational background to analyse something like this should study this and shed some light on the actual effects of the injunction.
To rely on violating the constitutional rights of people and not providing them a way to ask for redress of wrongs as a way to fight crime is lazy. It also cannot be sustained and have a healthy, vibrant community.
There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them. Treat people with disrespect and that is what you’ll get back.
Also, if the injuction were inforced on my neighborhood, I’d move or at least spend my time somewhere else. Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.
Someone who has the educational background to analyse something like this should study this and shed some light on the actual effects of the injunction.
To rely on violating the constitutional rights of people and not providing them a way to ask for redress of wrongs as a way to fight crime is lazy. It also cannot be sustained and have a healthy, vibrant community.
There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them. Treat people with disrespect and that is what you’ll get back.
Also, if the injuction were inforced on my neighborhood, I’d move or at least spend my time somewhere else. Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.
Someone who has the educational background to analyse something like this should study this and shed some light on the actual effects of the injunction.
“Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.”
What? The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all parts, not just in Broderick and Bryte. The rate of reduction in crime in B&B is higher. But it is still substantial elsewhere. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, then cite your source.
“There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them.”
C’mon. When murder rates and other violent crimes are dropping dramatically, it’s very hard to believe that the rates have fallen because people won’t call the cops to report a dead body.
Common sense (and a lot of hard evidence) suggests that violent street gangs do intimidate people into not reporting crimes committed by the gang-bangers. People fear reprisal. This is not new or unique to contemporary gangsters. Such intimidation by street gangs goes back 100 years.
According to CNN, this kind of intimidation is being fueled by violent gangsters affiliated with the rap music industry. Those gang-bangers have completely intimidated ordinary people, to the point that they are afraid of reporting the crimes of the gang-bangers.
Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.
“Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.”
What? The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all parts, not just in Broderick and Bryte. The rate of reduction in crime in B&B is higher. But it is still substantial elsewhere. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, then cite your source.
“There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them.”
C’mon. When murder rates and other violent crimes are dropping dramatically, it’s very hard to believe that the rates have fallen because people won’t call the cops to report a dead body.
Common sense (and a lot of hard evidence) suggests that violent street gangs do intimidate people into not reporting crimes committed by the gang-bangers. People fear reprisal. This is not new or unique to contemporary gangsters. Such intimidation by street gangs goes back 100 years.
According to CNN, this kind of intimidation is being fueled by violent gangsters affiliated with the rap music industry. Those gang-bangers have completely intimidated ordinary people, to the point that they are afraid of reporting the crimes of the gang-bangers.
Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.
“Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.”
What? The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all parts, not just in Broderick and Bryte. The rate of reduction in crime in B&B is higher. But it is still substantial elsewhere. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, then cite your source.
“There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them.”
C’mon. When murder rates and other violent crimes are dropping dramatically, it’s very hard to believe that the rates have fallen because people won’t call the cops to report a dead body.
Common sense (and a lot of hard evidence) suggests that violent street gangs do intimidate people into not reporting crimes committed by the gang-bangers. People fear reprisal. This is not new or unique to contemporary gangsters. Such intimidation by street gangs goes back 100 years.
According to CNN, this kind of intimidation is being fueled by violent gangsters affiliated with the rap music industry. Those gang-bangers have completely intimidated ordinary people, to the point that they are afraid of reporting the crimes of the gang-bangers.
Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.
“Notice that crime in other areas of West Sacramento increased.”
What? The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all parts, not just in Broderick and Bryte. The rate of reduction in crime in B&B is higher. But it is still substantial elsewhere. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, then cite your source.
“There is a concern that the crime rate in the “zone” has decreased because people are not contacting the police to report incidents, that there is a wariness about police in the community and an unwillingness to talk with them.”
C’mon. When murder rates and other violent crimes are dropping dramatically, it’s very hard to believe that the rates have fallen because people won’t call the cops to report a dead body.
Common sense (and a lot of hard evidence) suggests that violent street gangs do intimidate people into not reporting crimes committed by the gang-bangers. People fear reprisal. This is not new or unique to contemporary gangsters. Such intimidation by street gangs goes back 100 years.
According to CNN, this kind of intimidation is being fueled by violent gangsters affiliated with the rap music industry. Those gang-bangers have completely intimidated ordinary people, to the point that they are afraid of reporting the crimes of the gang-bangers.
Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.
“Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.”
That’s the key point in question. I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.
“The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all part”
Link?
“Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.”
That’s the key point in question. I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.
“The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all part”
Link?
“Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.”
That’s the key point in question. I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.
“The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all part”
Link?
“Insofar as it can be done constitutionally, the only answer to that kind of intimidation and brutality is to break up the gangs.”
That’s the key point in question. I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.
“The reports I have seen have all suggested that crime in West Sac is way down in all part”
Link?
Here you go. Make of it what you will
http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/police/crime_stats.cfm
Here you go. Make of it what you will
http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/police/crime_stats.cfm
Here you go. Make of it what you will
http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/police/crime_stats.cfm
Here you go. Make of it what you will
http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/cityhall/departments/police/crime_stats.cfm
“Link?”
This article from The Democrat is a little bit old, but it has the same numbers that I’ve referenced:
“The West Sacramento Police Department announced that violent crime in the past months has dropped 17 percent as a result of stronger enforcement against gangs. In neighborhoods targeted by the injunction, the drop has been 26 percent.”
“Link?”
This article from The Democrat is a little bit old, but it has the same numbers that I’ve referenced:
“The West Sacramento Police Department announced that violent crime in the past months has dropped 17 percent as a result of stronger enforcement against gangs. In neighborhoods targeted by the injunction, the drop has been 26 percent.”
“Link?”
This article from The Democrat is a little bit old, but it has the same numbers that I’ve referenced:
“The West Sacramento Police Department announced that violent crime in the past months has dropped 17 percent as a result of stronger enforcement against gangs. In neighborhoods targeted by the injunction, the drop has been 26 percent.”
“Link?”
This article from The Democrat is a little bit old, but it has the same numbers that I’ve referenced:
“The West Sacramento Police Department announced that violent crime in the past months has dropped 17 percent as a result of stronger enforcement against gangs. In neighborhoods targeted by the injunction, the drop has been 26 percent.”
“I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.”
I’m not an ideologue. I do strongly believe in civil liberties. But I’m honest and pragmatic enough to understand that there are competing rights at play. I’ve found that people who reflexively support the ACLU don’t seem to understand that.
And speaking of the ACLU, it bothers me that anyone would say that the mission of the ACLU is to fight for the Bill of Rights. On a few of the first ten amendments, the ACLU has an untarnished record. But it’s rather obvious that the ACLU has an ideological bias toward a few of the Rights, while either ignoring the others or even (due to its membership) hostile to some.
For example, could you ever imagine the ACLU filing a lawsuit against the Federal government for violating the 10th Amendment? To my knowledge, it never has. (I Googled this to be sure, but couldn’t find anything definitive.) Like with the other Rights, there are competing interests and the 10th ought not be viewed (in my opinion) ideologically. But, at the same time, it shouldn’t be ignored.
“I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.”
I’m not an ideologue. I do strongly believe in civil liberties. But I’m honest and pragmatic enough to understand that there are competing rights at play. I’ve found that people who reflexively support the ACLU don’t seem to understand that.
And speaking of the ACLU, it bothers me that anyone would say that the mission of the ACLU is to fight for the Bill of Rights. On a few of the first ten amendments, the ACLU has an untarnished record. But it’s rather obvious that the ACLU has an ideological bias toward a few of the Rights, while either ignoring the others or even (due to its membership) hostile to some.
For example, could you ever imagine the ACLU filing a lawsuit against the Federal government for violating the 10th Amendment? To my knowledge, it never has. (I Googled this to be sure, but couldn’t find anything definitive.) Like with the other Rights, there are competing interests and the 10th ought not be viewed (in my opinion) ideologically. But, at the same time, it shouldn’t be ignored.
“I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.”
I’m not an ideologue. I do strongly believe in civil liberties. But I’m honest and pragmatic enough to understand that there are competing rights at play. I’ve found that people who reflexively support the ACLU don’t seem to understand that.
And speaking of the ACLU, it bothers me that anyone would say that the mission of the ACLU is to fight for the Bill of Rights. On a few of the first ten amendments, the ACLU has an untarnished record. But it’s rather obvious that the ACLU has an ideological bias toward a few of the Rights, while either ignoring the others or even (due to its membership) hostile to some.
For example, could you ever imagine the ACLU filing a lawsuit against the Federal government for violating the 10th Amendment? To my knowledge, it never has. (I Googled this to be sure, but couldn’t find anything definitive.) Like with the other Rights, there are competing interests and the 10th ought not be viewed (in my opinion) ideologically. But, at the same time, it shouldn’t be ignored.
“I apparently had you pegged as more of a libertarian than you actually are.”
I’m not an ideologue. I do strongly believe in civil liberties. But I’m honest and pragmatic enough to understand that there are competing rights at play. I’ve found that people who reflexively support the ACLU don’t seem to understand that.
And speaking of the ACLU, it bothers me that anyone would say that the mission of the ACLU is to fight for the Bill of Rights. On a few of the first ten amendments, the ACLU has an untarnished record. But it’s rather obvious that the ACLU has an ideological bias toward a few of the Rights, while either ignoring the others or even (due to its membership) hostile to some.
For example, could you ever imagine the ACLU filing a lawsuit against the Federal government for violating the 10th Amendment? To my knowledge, it never has. (I Googled this to be sure, but couldn’t find anything definitive.) Like with the other Rights, there are competing interests and the 10th ought not be viewed (in my opinion) ideologically. But, at the same time, it shouldn’t be ignored.
Rich:
A few quick thoughts…
The question I have with reduction in crime rates and these are rarely cited in actual stories, is that a drop in crime rate is not necessarily an indicator that policies are working. For instance for a period of time, crime rates were dropping in many locales–some of whom made changes in policy, some of whom did not. That suggests that the variable underlying the change may not be the policy changes.
Second point, I can think of a couple of incidents where I think the ACLU did fight for state supremacy. I’m not sure if they took up the issue of medical marijuana, but it seems to me that there was also a religious issue up in Oregon that reached the Supreme where the normal sides were reversed and liberals were arguing states rights.
Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it. Someone told me the other night that they couldn’t believe the third appellate court overturned a DA’s policy.
Rich:
A few quick thoughts…
The question I have with reduction in crime rates and these are rarely cited in actual stories, is that a drop in crime rate is not necessarily an indicator that policies are working. For instance for a period of time, crime rates were dropping in many locales–some of whom made changes in policy, some of whom did not. That suggests that the variable underlying the change may not be the policy changes.
Second point, I can think of a couple of incidents where I think the ACLU did fight for state supremacy. I’m not sure if they took up the issue of medical marijuana, but it seems to me that there was also a religious issue up in Oregon that reached the Supreme where the normal sides were reversed and liberals were arguing states rights.
Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it. Someone told me the other night that they couldn’t believe the third appellate court overturned a DA’s policy.
Rich:
A few quick thoughts…
The question I have with reduction in crime rates and these are rarely cited in actual stories, is that a drop in crime rate is not necessarily an indicator that policies are working. For instance for a period of time, crime rates were dropping in many locales–some of whom made changes in policy, some of whom did not. That suggests that the variable underlying the change may not be the policy changes.
Second point, I can think of a couple of incidents where I think the ACLU did fight for state supremacy. I’m not sure if they took up the issue of medical marijuana, but it seems to me that there was also a religious issue up in Oregon that reached the Supreme where the normal sides were reversed and liberals were arguing states rights.
Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it. Someone told me the other night that they couldn’t believe the third appellate court overturned a DA’s policy.
Rich:
A few quick thoughts…
The question I have with reduction in crime rates and these are rarely cited in actual stories, is that a drop in crime rate is not necessarily an indicator that policies are working. For instance for a period of time, crime rates were dropping in many locales–some of whom made changes in policy, some of whom did not. That suggests that the variable underlying the change may not be the policy changes.
Second point, I can think of a couple of incidents where I think the ACLU did fight for state supremacy. I’m not sure if they took up the issue of medical marijuana, but it seems to me that there was also a religious issue up in Oregon that reached the Supreme where the normal sides were reversed and liberals were arguing states rights.
Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it. Someone told me the other night that they couldn’t believe the third appellate court overturned a DA’s policy.
“Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it.”
I tend to agree with that. However, as my above comments make clear, the concept of a gang injunction is not without merit. The specific manner used here — of not being specific as to who was and who was not a member of this gang; and the county’s failure to clearly communicate to the gang members that they were subject to this injunction — is unacceptable…. I hope the Yolo DA will reform his policy so that it does conform to the dictates of the court, following the norm of other gang injunctions used elsewhere.
“Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it.”
I tend to agree with that. However, as my above comments make clear, the concept of a gang injunction is not without merit. The specific manner used here — of not being specific as to who was and who was not a member of this gang; and the county’s failure to clearly communicate to the gang members that they were subject to this injunction — is unacceptable…. I hope the Yolo DA will reform his policy so that it does conform to the dictates of the court, following the norm of other gang injunctions used elsewhere.
“Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it.”
I tend to agree with that. However, as my above comments make clear, the concept of a gang injunction is not without merit. The specific manner used here — of not being specific as to who was and who was not a member of this gang; and the county’s failure to clearly communicate to the gang members that they were subject to this injunction — is unacceptable…. I hope the Yolo DA will reform his policy so that it does conform to the dictates of the court, following the norm of other gang injunctions used elsewhere.
“Third point, whatever you think of the ACLU, and I go back and forth on them as an organization as a whole, they were correct on this issue. This was a violation of due process and if the third district court ruled that, pretty much any court is going to uphold it.”
I tend to agree with that. However, as my above comments make clear, the concept of a gang injunction is not without merit. The specific manner used here — of not being specific as to who was and who was not a member of this gang; and the county’s failure to clearly communicate to the gang members that they were subject to this injunction — is unacceptable…. I hope the Yolo DA will reform his policy so that it does conform to the dictates of the court, following the norm of other gang injunctions used elsewhere.