For those who missed the news, Steve Hardy, a councilmember from Vacaville who finished third in 2002 in the 8th Assembly Democratic Primary was recently appointed to head California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The ABC is responsible for licensing and regulating 75,000 businesses statewide that sell, manufacture or distribute alcoholic beverages.
This move does two things. It ends his tenure as City Councilmember in Vacaville and it ends speculation that he would enter the 8th Assembly District Race. The council in Vacaville will decide in the next 30 days whether to hold a special election or to appoint a replacement.
Currently that race remains a two person field–with West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. The other three potential candidates have officially now bowed out with Supervisor Mike McGowan and Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor both having endorsed Cabaldon.
To this point Mayor Cabaldon appears to have vastly outworked Supervisor Yamada, this work showing up largely in the lopsided endorsement totals. This would appear to give Cabaldon an edge.
Cabaldon at this point would be the prohibitive favorite, however, the race would change drastically should a strong contender emerge from Solano County where two-thirds of the vote reside.
Valley Oak Charter School Issue Tonight
There will be a meeting to explore the idea of creating a charter for Valley Oak Elementary School. All members of the community and school staff are invited to attend.
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007,
Valley Oak Multi-purpose Room
7:30-9:30 p.m.
More on the Gang Injunction Decision
For some reason unbeknownst to me I have read a few of the comments in the Sacramento Bee under the gang injunction articles.
“Liberal thinking has once again given the upper hand to criminals. Wouldn’t want to offend any gang-bangers, would we?”
In some ways the thinking is so simplistic that it is hardly worth a response, but in other ways it is emblematic of a mindset that fails to really scrutinize government actions.
According to the logic above, the Bill of Rights is obviously a product of that liberal thinking–and in fact it is liberal thinking–the kind of 18th century liberalism that our nation’s principles were built upon. Perhaps that individual did not take a civics course and read the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution ratified in the 18th Century:
nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
Why are protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring due process of the law so vital? Because without those processes the law is bound to make mistakes. Mistakes mean innocent people get punished for crimes or actions that they have not committed.
These are the bedrocks of our society and the safeguards that we have against an arbitrary and oppressive government.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Would this gang ruling cause any set back to other injunctions such as no drugs or guns within 1000 feet of any school? If every drug dealer were not notified, then they would have no way to legally oppose those rules?? Just thinking out loud about other possible ramifications.
Would this gang ruling cause any set back to other injunctions such as no drugs or guns within 1000 feet of any school? If every drug dealer were not notified, then they would have no way to legally oppose those rules?? Just thinking out loud about other possible ramifications.
Would this gang ruling cause any set back to other injunctions such as no drugs or guns within 1000 feet of any school? If every drug dealer were not notified, then they would have no way to legally oppose those rules?? Just thinking out loud about other possible ramifications.
Would this gang ruling cause any set back to other injunctions such as no drugs or guns within 1000 feet of any school? If every drug dealer were not notified, then they would have no way to legally oppose those rules?? Just thinking out loud about other possible ramifications.
Realist: I don’t think so. One is an injunction against an activity. They generally have signs to notice individuals about the prohibition, but even then, since it is not person specific, it is likely not a problem.
The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers. That is a deprivation of liberty without due process.
Realist: I don’t think so. One is an injunction against an activity. They generally have signs to notice individuals about the prohibition, but even then, since it is not person specific, it is likely not a problem.
The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers. That is a deprivation of liberty without due process.
Realist: I don’t think so. One is an injunction against an activity. They generally have signs to notice individuals about the prohibition, but even then, since it is not person specific, it is likely not a problem.
The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers. That is a deprivation of liberty without due process.
Realist: I don’t think so. One is an injunction against an activity. They generally have signs to notice individuals about the prohibition, but even then, since it is not person specific, it is likely not a problem.
The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers. That is a deprivation of liberty without due process.
“The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers.”
Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.
“The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers.”
Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.
“The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers.”
Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.
“The other is an injunction against specific individuals based on the belief that they are affiliated with lawbreakers.”
Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.
Realist:
Those are not injunctions that you speak of, they are statutes on the books. Hence, notice has been given since under our system of law, all citizens presumptively know the laws.
By the way, kudos to Steve Hardy.
Realist:
Those are not injunctions that you speak of, they are statutes on the books. Hence, notice has been given since under our system of law, all citizens presumptively know the laws.
By the way, kudos to Steve Hardy.
Realist:
Those are not injunctions that you speak of, they are statutes on the books. Hence, notice has been given since under our system of law, all citizens presumptively know the laws.
By the way, kudos to Steve Hardy.
Realist:
Those are not injunctions that you speak of, they are statutes on the books. Hence, notice has been given since under our system of law, all citizens presumptively know the laws.
By the way, kudos to Steve Hardy.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
And you need to educate yourself on the constitution.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
And you need to educate yourself on the constitution.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
And you need to educate yourself on the constitution.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
And you need to educate yourself on the constitution.
You should put your belief to the test and camp out this weekend in the middle of Broderick. Anyplace will do. Come on, you know you will be safe….right?
You should put your belief to the test and camp out this weekend in the middle of Broderick. Anyplace will do. Come on, you know you will be safe….right?
You should put your belief to the test and camp out this weekend in the middle of Broderick. Anyplace will do. Come on, you know you will be safe….right?
You should put your belief to the test and camp out this weekend in the middle of Broderick. Anyplace will do. Come on, you know you will be safe….right?
I am well versed on the constitution. It is a flexible and fluid document. The people that created it wanted it to be that way. Not the rigid document you wish that allows criminal street gangs to exist next to families.
Thanks for your impartial analysis of the situation(sic).
I am well versed on the constitution. It is a flexible and fluid document. The people that created it wanted it to be that way. Not the rigid document you wish that allows criminal street gangs to exist next to families.
Thanks for your impartial analysis of the situation(sic).
I am well versed on the constitution. It is a flexible and fluid document. The people that created it wanted it to be that way. Not the rigid document you wish that allows criminal street gangs to exist next to families.
Thanks for your impartial analysis of the situation(sic).
I am well versed on the constitution. It is a flexible and fluid document. The people that created it wanted it to be that way. Not the rigid document you wish that allows criminal street gangs to exist next to families.
Thanks for your impartial analysis of the situation(sic).
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
A “belief” is not enough to adjudicate a punishment. It might be to arrest someone, but then there would be evidence presented in Court.
Seen talking with someone who is a known member of a gang, someone who lives in your neighborhood, someone you’ve known since grade school, is not quite sufficient evidence that you are engaged in criminal activity, is it? If it is, then the crimes of one can result in the punishment of an entire community which is really not right.
Ordinances targeting specific behavior i.e. carrying guns near a school, drinking alcohol in a park, parking your car on your front lawn, etc. are things that can be broadly enforced.
The injunction probably did affect actual gang members and gang activity in its wide net and I hope that these individuals have gotten the message that their activities are unwelcomed and are a burden on all around them. I hope that they knock it off and start being responsible about what they’ve done. I have no respect for these individuals.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
A “belief” is not enough to adjudicate a punishment. It might be to arrest someone, but then there would be evidence presented in Court.
Seen talking with someone who is a known member of a gang, someone who lives in your neighborhood, someone you’ve known since grade school, is not quite sufficient evidence that you are engaged in criminal activity, is it? If it is, then the crimes of one can result in the punishment of an entire community which is really not right.
Ordinances targeting specific behavior i.e. carrying guns near a school, drinking alcohol in a park, parking your car on your front lawn, etc. are things that can be broadly enforced.
The injunction probably did affect actual gang members and gang activity in its wide net and I hope that these individuals have gotten the message that their activities are unwelcomed and are a burden on all around them. I hope that they knock it off and start being responsible about what they’ve done. I have no respect for these individuals.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
A “belief” is not enough to adjudicate a punishment. It might be to arrest someone, but then there would be evidence presented in Court.
Seen talking with someone who is a known member of a gang, someone who lives in your neighborhood, someone you’ve known since grade school, is not quite sufficient evidence that you are engaged in criminal activity, is it? If it is, then the crimes of one can result in the punishment of an entire community which is really not right.
Ordinances targeting specific behavior i.e. carrying guns near a school, drinking alcohol in a park, parking your car on your front lawn, etc. are things that can be broadly enforced.
The injunction probably did affect actual gang members and gang activity in its wide net and I hope that these individuals have gotten the message that their activities are unwelcomed and are a burden on all around them. I hope that they knock it off and start being responsible about what they’ve done. I have no respect for these individuals.
“Based on a belief? You really need to educate yourself on gangs in this country.”
A “belief” is not enough to adjudicate a punishment. It might be to arrest someone, but then there would be evidence presented in Court.
Seen talking with someone who is a known member of a gang, someone who lives in your neighborhood, someone you’ve known since grade school, is not quite sufficient evidence that you are engaged in criminal activity, is it? If it is, then the crimes of one can result in the punishment of an entire community which is really not right.
Ordinances targeting specific behavior i.e. carrying guns near a school, drinking alcohol in a park, parking your car on your front lawn, etc. are things that can be broadly enforced.
The injunction probably did affect actual gang members and gang activity in its wide net and I hope that these individuals have gotten the message that their activities are unwelcomed and are a burden on all around them. I hope that they knock it off and start being responsible about what they’ve done. I have no respect for these individuals.
The safety or lack there of is not the issue here. The issue is whether the tactics were within the parameters laid out by the fifth amendment which requires due process of law. No individual can examine this situation without coming to the conclusion that this was a rather obvious violation of that provision.
These are not raving liberals in the third appellate court of California. Morrison who wrote this opinion was a Wilson appointee. Scotland was a Deukmejian appointee as was Nicholson. So you had a panel of three REPUBLICAN appointed justices who overturned this ruling.
The safety or lack there of is not the issue here. The issue is whether the tactics were within the parameters laid out by the fifth amendment which requires due process of law. No individual can examine this situation without coming to the conclusion that this was a rather obvious violation of that provision.
These are not raving liberals in the third appellate court of California. Morrison who wrote this opinion was a Wilson appointee. Scotland was a Deukmejian appointee as was Nicholson. So you had a panel of three REPUBLICAN appointed justices who overturned this ruling.
The safety or lack there of is not the issue here. The issue is whether the tactics were within the parameters laid out by the fifth amendment which requires due process of law. No individual can examine this situation without coming to the conclusion that this was a rather obvious violation of that provision.
These are not raving liberals in the third appellate court of California. Morrison who wrote this opinion was a Wilson appointee. Scotland was a Deukmejian appointee as was Nicholson. So you had a panel of three REPUBLICAN appointed justices who overturned this ruling.
The safety or lack there of is not the issue here. The issue is whether the tactics were within the parameters laid out by the fifth amendment which requires due process of law. No individual can examine this situation without coming to the conclusion that this was a rather obvious violation of that provision.
These are not raving liberals in the third appellate court of California. Morrison who wrote this opinion was a Wilson appointee. Scotland was a Deukmejian appointee as was Nicholson. So you had a panel of three REPUBLICAN appointed justices who overturned this ruling.
Has any of you ever been a victim of violent crime?
Has any of you ever been a victim of violent crime?
Has any of you ever been a victim of violent crime?
Has any of you ever been a victim of violent crime?
Is that relevant?
As an example, I’ve seen members of murder victims families who have supported the death penalty and those who are opposed to the death penalty.
I suppose that there are victims of violent crimes that would support due process laws and those who would oppose them.
Is that relevant?
As an example, I’ve seen members of murder victims families who have supported the death penalty and those who are opposed to the death penalty.
I suppose that there are victims of violent crimes that would support due process laws and those who would oppose them.
Is that relevant?
As an example, I’ve seen members of murder victims families who have supported the death penalty and those who are opposed to the death penalty.
I suppose that there are victims of violent crimes that would support due process laws and those who would oppose them.
Is that relevant?
As an example, I’ve seen members of murder victims families who have supported the death penalty and those who are opposed to the death penalty.
I suppose that there are victims of violent crimes that would support due process laws and those who would oppose them.
I think if it was laid out different, such as: Any gang related activity in this certain area would be double the normal penalty. Then spell out what gang related activity is, would be a better approach. It would be similar to the drug free zones?? What do you guys think about that?
I think if it was laid out different, such as: Any gang related activity in this certain area would be double the normal penalty. Then spell out what gang related activity is, would be a better approach. It would be similar to the drug free zones?? What do you guys think about that?
I think if it was laid out different, such as: Any gang related activity in this certain area would be double the normal penalty. Then spell out what gang related activity is, would be a better approach. It would be similar to the drug free zones?? What do you guys think about that?
I think if it was laid out different, such as: Any gang related activity in this certain area would be double the normal penalty. Then spell out what gang related activity is, would be a better approach. It would be similar to the drug free zones?? What do you guys think about that?
That would be fine, except what exactly is “gang-related” activity. It could be any crime, including loitering. Also, the problem with picking a specific zone is that the behavior just moves to a different area. An example of this is Davis’ open container ordinance. The drinkers just moved their activities to another park and the neighbors requested one park after another to be added to the ordinance. Now the city is considering just making the ordinance apply to every park in town. I’m sure that the drinkers will find a vacant lot or a property with an absentee landlord for their daily partying, but at least the police can use trespassing laws for that.
If the City identified the most worrisome activity such as drug dealing or prostitution or vandalism or whatever and doubled the penalty in a zone, then that would work. But it would have to be part of a bigger campaign to create healthy activities and associations in the targeted neighborhoods.
It also sounds like the community/police relationship has taken a blow with this injunction.
That would be fine, except what exactly is “gang-related” activity. It could be any crime, including loitering. Also, the problem with picking a specific zone is that the behavior just moves to a different area. An example of this is Davis’ open container ordinance. The drinkers just moved their activities to another park and the neighbors requested one park after another to be added to the ordinance. Now the city is considering just making the ordinance apply to every park in town. I’m sure that the drinkers will find a vacant lot or a property with an absentee landlord for their daily partying, but at least the police can use trespassing laws for that.
If the City identified the most worrisome activity such as drug dealing or prostitution or vandalism or whatever and doubled the penalty in a zone, then that would work. But it would have to be part of a bigger campaign to create healthy activities and associations in the targeted neighborhoods.
It also sounds like the community/police relationship has taken a blow with this injunction.
That would be fine, except what exactly is “gang-related” activity. It could be any crime, including loitering. Also, the problem with picking a specific zone is that the behavior just moves to a different area. An example of this is Davis’ open container ordinance. The drinkers just moved their activities to another park and the neighbors requested one park after another to be added to the ordinance. Now the city is considering just making the ordinance apply to every park in town. I’m sure that the drinkers will find a vacant lot or a property with an absentee landlord for their daily partying, but at least the police can use trespassing laws for that.
If the City identified the most worrisome activity such as drug dealing or prostitution or vandalism or whatever and doubled the penalty in a zone, then that would work. But it would have to be part of a bigger campaign to create healthy activities and associations in the targeted neighborhoods.
It also sounds like the community/police relationship has taken a blow with this injunction.
That would be fine, except what exactly is “gang-related” activity. It could be any crime, including loitering. Also, the problem with picking a specific zone is that the behavior just moves to a different area. An example of this is Davis’ open container ordinance. The drinkers just moved their activities to another park and the neighbors requested one park after another to be added to the ordinance. Now the city is considering just making the ordinance apply to every park in town. I’m sure that the drinkers will find a vacant lot or a property with an absentee landlord for their daily partying, but at least the police can use trespassing laws for that.
If the City identified the most worrisome activity such as drug dealing or prostitution or vandalism or whatever and doubled the penalty in a zone, then that would work. But it would have to be part of a bigger campaign to create healthy activities and associations in the targeted neighborhoods.
It also sounds like the community/police relationship has taken a blow with this injunction.
Wow.
I guess this is such a no brainer to me. This is not about whether or not gang members are bad people–they undoubtedly are. The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their peers.
This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.
How is this not a no brainer?
Wow.
I guess this is such a no brainer to me. This is not about whether or not gang members are bad people–they undoubtedly are. The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their peers.
This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.
How is this not a no brainer?
Wow.
I guess this is such a no brainer to me. This is not about whether or not gang members are bad people–they undoubtedly are. The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their peers.
This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.
How is this not a no brainer?
Wow.
I guess this is such a no brainer to me. This is not about whether or not gang members are bad people–they undoubtedly are. The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their peers.
This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.
How is this not a no brainer?
“The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their (sic) peers.”
Generally, I agree with this reasoning. However, what makes cases dealing with known criminal gangs different and difficult and not no-brainers is that there is a competing societal right. Society has good reason to prevent known criminal conspirators from conspiring with each other. Society also has a right to not allow groups of people from intimidating others, particularly their innocent neighbors.
Insofar as prohibiting some association of those known criminal conspirators at certain times and in certain locales is the only way of preventing that intimidation, then gang injunctions represent a balancing of rights.
What is different in this case, though, and what makes me unsure of what my view is on this particular injunction is the dubious nature of the Broderick Boys — that is, who and who is not a member, and how much (if any) real evidence law enforcement has to prove that association.
“This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.”
That is clearly what is wrong with the injunction. However, it seems reasonable to me that it could be redrawn so that it is far more specific as to just who is a member of the gang and what evidence the police have to prove those associations.
“The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their (sic) peers.”
Generally, I agree with this reasoning. However, what makes cases dealing with known criminal gangs different and difficult and not no-brainers is that there is a competing societal right. Society has good reason to prevent known criminal conspirators from conspiring with each other. Society also has a right to not allow groups of people from intimidating others, particularly their innocent neighbors.
Insofar as prohibiting some association of those known criminal conspirators at certain times and in certain locales is the only way of preventing that intimidation, then gang injunctions represent a balancing of rights.
What is different in this case, though, and what makes me unsure of what my view is on this particular injunction is the dubious nature of the Broderick Boys — that is, who and who is not a member, and how much (if any) real evidence law enforcement has to prove that association.
“This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.”
That is clearly what is wrong with the injunction. However, it seems reasonable to me that it could be redrawn so that it is far more specific as to just who is a member of the gang and what evidence the police have to prove those associations.
“The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their (sic) peers.”
Generally, I agree with this reasoning. However, what makes cases dealing with known criminal gangs different and difficult and not no-brainers is that there is a competing societal right. Society has good reason to prevent known criminal conspirators from conspiring with each other. Society also has a right to not allow groups of people from intimidating others, particularly their innocent neighbors.
Insofar as prohibiting some association of those known criminal conspirators at certain times and in certain locales is the only way of preventing that intimidation, then gang injunctions represent a balancing of rights.
What is different in this case, though, and what makes me unsure of what my view is on this particular injunction is the dubious nature of the Broderick Boys — that is, who and who is not a member, and how much (if any) real evidence law enforcement has to prove that association.
“This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.”
That is clearly what is wrong with the injunction. However, it seems reasonable to me that it could be redrawn so that it is far more specific as to just who is a member of the gang and what evidence the police have to prove those associations.
“The question is whether you believe that bad people are entitled to the same due process of law as good people. And the answer to that has to be that the only way you can determine who is bad and who is good is by having a trial and cinvicting the suspect beyond a reasonable doubt in front of the jury of their (sic) peers.”
Generally, I agree with this reasoning. However, what makes cases dealing with known criminal gangs different and difficult and not no-brainers is that there is a competing societal right. Society has good reason to prevent known criminal conspirators from conspiring with each other. Society also has a right to not allow groups of people from intimidating others, particularly their innocent neighbors.
Insofar as prohibiting some association of those known criminal conspirators at certain times and in certain locales is the only way of preventing that intimidation, then gang injunctions represent a balancing of rights.
What is different in this case, though, and what makes me unsure of what my view is on this particular injunction is the dubious nature of the Broderick Boys — that is, who and who is not a member, and how much (if any) real evidence law enforcement has to prove that association.
“This process circumvented those rights first by not allowing the individuals to contest their designation and second by not allowing them to have a trial by which to deprive them of their liberty.”
That is clearly what is wrong with the injunction. However, it seems reasonable to me that it could be redrawn so that it is far more specific as to just who is a member of the gang and what evidence the police have to prove those associations.
Gang injunctions that have survived the appellate process differ from this one in several ways. One way is that they target a specific area – 3 to 6 square blocks (not 3 square miles as in this case).
Another is that the injunctions that survived appeals target people by designating them as subject to the injunction if the people meet at least three criteria (this one needed only to meet two criteria) and that there was a total list of about 6 to 8 criteria (this one’s list was 12 items long as I recall).
Injunctions that survived the courts’ scrutiny had been served at the preliminary injunction stage – thus giving notice to the enjoined party – on at least 7 members, some of which were leaders, and who were likely to appear in court to litigate the injunction on its merits. (In this case, Yolo County served only one low level member who said he would not appear in court).
The issue here is whether we want a chief law enforcement officer seeking to use illegally obtained tools to enforce the law. Allowing that in this instance is tantamount to allowing illegal searches of your home to get evidence to use against you in court, using illegally obtained confessions after torture to ensure you are convicted of a crime, illegally obtained wiretap evidence to use against you.
I want to beleive we live in a nation of laws. I want to beleive that we live in a nation that wants to enforce the laws to protect the innocent and punish the criminal, but preserve the rights of all of us. If one set of people’s rights mean less, then all of our rights are diminished.
This is not a totalitarian government YET. Let’s keep it from becoming that.
Gang injunctions that have survived the appellate process differ from this one in several ways. One way is that they target a specific area – 3 to 6 square blocks (not 3 square miles as in this case).
Another is that the injunctions that survived appeals target people by designating them as subject to the injunction if the people meet at least three criteria (this one needed only to meet two criteria) and that there was a total list of about 6 to 8 criteria (this one’s list was 12 items long as I recall).
Injunctions that survived the courts’ scrutiny had been served at the preliminary injunction stage – thus giving notice to the enjoined party – on at least 7 members, some of which were leaders, and who were likely to appear in court to litigate the injunction on its merits. (In this case, Yolo County served only one low level member who said he would not appear in court).
The issue here is whether we want a chief law enforcement officer seeking to use illegally obtained tools to enforce the law. Allowing that in this instance is tantamount to allowing illegal searches of your home to get evidence to use against you in court, using illegally obtained confessions after torture to ensure you are convicted of a crime, illegally obtained wiretap evidence to use against you.
I want to beleive we live in a nation of laws. I want to beleive that we live in a nation that wants to enforce the laws to protect the innocent and punish the criminal, but preserve the rights of all of us. If one set of people’s rights mean less, then all of our rights are diminished.
This is not a totalitarian government YET. Let’s keep it from becoming that.
Gang injunctions that have survived the appellate process differ from this one in several ways. One way is that they target a specific area – 3 to 6 square blocks (not 3 square miles as in this case).
Another is that the injunctions that survived appeals target people by designating them as subject to the injunction if the people meet at least three criteria (this one needed only to meet two criteria) and that there was a total list of about 6 to 8 criteria (this one’s list was 12 items long as I recall).
Injunctions that survived the courts’ scrutiny had been served at the preliminary injunction stage – thus giving notice to the enjoined party – on at least 7 members, some of which were leaders, and who were likely to appear in court to litigate the injunction on its merits. (In this case, Yolo County served only one low level member who said he would not appear in court).
The issue here is whether we want a chief law enforcement officer seeking to use illegally obtained tools to enforce the law. Allowing that in this instance is tantamount to allowing illegal searches of your home to get evidence to use against you in court, using illegally obtained confessions after torture to ensure you are convicted of a crime, illegally obtained wiretap evidence to use against you.
I want to beleive we live in a nation of laws. I want to beleive that we live in a nation that wants to enforce the laws to protect the innocent and punish the criminal, but preserve the rights of all of us. If one set of people’s rights mean less, then all of our rights are diminished.
This is not a totalitarian government YET. Let’s keep it from becoming that.
Gang injunctions that have survived the appellate process differ from this one in several ways. One way is that they target a specific area – 3 to 6 square blocks (not 3 square miles as in this case).
Another is that the injunctions that survived appeals target people by designating them as subject to the injunction if the people meet at least three criteria (this one needed only to meet two criteria) and that there was a total list of about 6 to 8 criteria (this one’s list was 12 items long as I recall).
Injunctions that survived the courts’ scrutiny had been served at the preliminary injunction stage – thus giving notice to the enjoined party – on at least 7 members, some of which were leaders, and who were likely to appear in court to litigate the injunction on its merits. (In this case, Yolo County served only one low level member who said he would not appear in court).
The issue here is whether we want a chief law enforcement officer seeking to use illegally obtained tools to enforce the law. Allowing that in this instance is tantamount to allowing illegal searches of your home to get evidence to use against you in court, using illegally obtained confessions after torture to ensure you are convicted of a crime, illegally obtained wiretap evidence to use against you.
I want to beleive we live in a nation of laws. I want to beleive that we live in a nation that wants to enforce the laws to protect the innocent and punish the criminal, but preserve the rights of all of us. If one set of people’s rights mean less, then all of our rights are diminished.
This is not a totalitarian government YET. Let’s keep it from becoming that.
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend? Really, a first hand look at what you so admirably want to protect would give you a completely different perspective. So who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend? Really, a first hand look at what you so admirably want to protect would give you a completely different perspective. So who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend? Really, a first hand look at what you so admirably want to protect would give you a completely different perspective. So who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend? Really, a first hand look at what you so admirably want to protect would give you a completely different perspective. So who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Got to go to Big Sur (a marathon – I walk) this weekend, but this sounds like a challenge. I have walked around Harlem at night, walked through Central Park at night and walked around East LA quite a bit. Can Broderick be that bad? – I guess I better check it out.SAH
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Got to go to Big Sur (a marathon – I walk) this weekend, but this sounds like a challenge. I have walked around Harlem at night, walked through Central Park at night and walked around East LA quite a bit. Can Broderick be that bad? – I guess I better check it out.SAH
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Got to go to Big Sur (a marathon – I walk) this weekend, but this sounds like a challenge. I have walked around Harlem at night, walked through Central Park at night and walked around East LA quite a bit. Can Broderick be that bad? – I guess I better check it out.SAH
Okay then, who is camping out in Broderick this weekend?
Got to go to Big Sur (a marathon – I walk) this weekend, but this sounds like a challenge. I have walked around Harlem at night, walked through Central Park at night and walked around East LA quite a bit. Can Broderick be that bad? – I guess I better check it out.SAH
Since violating people’s civil rights is a federal crime,who will seek a gang injunction against Joe Reisig and his gang of deputy district attorneys?
Since violating people’s civil rights is a federal crime,who will seek a gang injunction against Joe Reisig and his gang of deputy district attorneys?
Since violating people’s civil rights is a federal crime,who will seek a gang injunction against Joe Reisig and his gang of deputy district attorneys?
Since violating people’s civil rights is a federal crime,who will seek a gang injunction against Joe Reisig and his gang of deputy district attorneys?
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.
I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.
I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.
I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.
“I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone, no underwear – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.”
Prostitutes don’t count.
“I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone, no underwear – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.”
Prostitutes don’t count.
“I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone, no underwear – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.”
Prostitutes don’t count.
“I’ve walked around Broderick in the evening – alone, no underwear – female. No problem. In fact, the peole have been quite nice to me.”
Prostitutes don’t count.