In a press release last weekend, the District Attorney Jeff Resig announced:
“A Yolo County Superior Court Judge has re-issued a permanent injunction against specific members of the Broderick Boys criminal street gang operating in West Sacramento, CA. Judge Timothy Fall issued the permanent injunction against nine Broderick Boys gang members on December 19, 2007. The court order creates a “Safety Zone” in the City of West Sacramento in which the named members are prohibited from associating with other gang members in public, trespassing, possessing weapons, possessing graffiti tools, possessing drugs and/or alcohol and/or intimidating witnesses. The named members are also subject to a curfew within the Safety Zone from 10 p.m. until sunrise.”
District Attorney Jeff Reisig stated:
“It is impossible to ignore the devastating impact gang activity has in our communities. An effective response must focus on prevention, intervention, education and enforcement. In the big picture, gang injunctions are merely part of this equation. However, when sanctioned and monitored by the courts, gang injunctions are a lawful and powerful tool that responsible civic leaders should consider in appropriate situations. By persistently pursuing this case, City leaders have demonstrated their commitment to public safety in West Sacramento.”
As the Sacramento Bee reported on December 31, 2007:
The nine alleged members – whom prosecutors called “the worst of the worst” – did not appear in civil court earlier to defend themselves against a request for restrictions on their activities. So on Dec. 19, Yolo Superior Court Judge Timothy Fall granted the injunction against them.
“They never showed up,” Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden said Sunday.
“They’re never going to show up,” said Linden, who is handling the Broderick Boys case. “And we’ve done what we can by personally serving them and getting the court order against them.”
Sounds good right?
And now the rest of the story, that was not reported in the newspapers or at least not completely.
The case of Victor Dazo, one of the named Broderick Boys defendants. He is one of the nine who did not show up to contest the gang injunction. Now why did he not show up to contest it? He is in prison and probably because of that, is not able to go to court to fight the injunction.
Fine you say, maybe he is a bad guy and deserves to stay in prison. Maybe so, but in most cases in these sorts of cases, courts routinely continue cases due to “good cause” being found when defendants are not in court because they are in prison, rather than issue default rulings against them as we saw in this case.
A default judgment basically means that the individual did not fight the factual allegations of being a gang member, or the gang existing, or the serving of the injunction being proper, etc. In other words, the judge had no other side to look at in this case.
Where am I going with this you might ask?
Well the Sacramento Bee reports:
“On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.
The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members.”
What is actually happening on January 31, 2008, is that those defendants who are fighting the injunction will respond in court against the injunction. And if they are successful, the injunction may fall apart against Mr. Dazo and the other eight people who did not respond.
On Jan. 31, prosecutors and defense attorneys will be in court again, arguing whether to apply the new injunction to a dozen other individuals.
The hearing will also determine whether the injunction should be broadened – enforced against the Broderick Boys as a criminal street gang and to hundreds of other alleged, unnamed gang members.
The Bee goes on to report:
“In the meantime, Linden said there was no need to wait to enforce restrictions against those who hadn’t bothered to defend themselves – most of whom, the prosecutor said, are previously convicted criminals.”
They can start enforcing restriction on these individuals, if the rest of them are not in jail. However, the idea that these individuals did not bother to defend themselves is misleading at best. And the idea that the DA is home free on them, is accurate as well. That will depend on whether the judge upholds the gang injunction this time.
I know a lot of people think we are better off for having gang members or alleged gang members denied their constitutional rights to defend themselves, but from my perspective we have adhere to those rights. It puts all of us at risk of an overzealous prosecutor if we do not.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Before arguing the fine points of this particular injunction, I get the feeling DPD you are against a gang injunction of any kind. I could be wrong though.
There was a lot of impassioned debate on the other forum about hate crimes. A gang injunction of some sort would allow the DA to limit the movements and operations of skinheads, Broderickboys, and others to prevent hate crimes from happening, and I don’t see that as a bad thing.
the question comes down to civil liberties. I don’t want my civil liberties eroded by the DA, but I don’t want them eroded by gangs either. Gangs make people afraid to go out of their homes. There is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals vs. the protection of society.
If we get all of our rights taken away, we end up with a Dictatorship like Nazi Germany. If we are given too many rights, we end up with anarchy (aka mob rule). THe mob then installs their ruler and you end up with Nazi Germany anyway. Again, the balancing act.
Democracy is a large amount of freedom with some restrictions.
Before arguing the fine points of this particular injunction, I get the feeling DPD you are against a gang injunction of any kind. I could be wrong though.
There was a lot of impassioned debate on the other forum about hate crimes. A gang injunction of some sort would allow the DA to limit the movements and operations of skinheads, Broderickboys, and others to prevent hate crimes from happening, and I don’t see that as a bad thing.
the question comes down to civil liberties. I don’t want my civil liberties eroded by the DA, but I don’t want them eroded by gangs either. Gangs make people afraid to go out of their homes. There is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals vs. the protection of society.
If we get all of our rights taken away, we end up with a Dictatorship like Nazi Germany. If we are given too many rights, we end up with anarchy (aka mob rule). THe mob then installs their ruler and you end up with Nazi Germany anyway. Again, the balancing act.
Democracy is a large amount of freedom with some restrictions.
Before arguing the fine points of this particular injunction, I get the feeling DPD you are against a gang injunction of any kind. I could be wrong though.
There was a lot of impassioned debate on the other forum about hate crimes. A gang injunction of some sort would allow the DA to limit the movements and operations of skinheads, Broderickboys, and others to prevent hate crimes from happening, and I don’t see that as a bad thing.
the question comes down to civil liberties. I don’t want my civil liberties eroded by the DA, but I don’t want them eroded by gangs either. Gangs make people afraid to go out of their homes. There is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals vs. the protection of society.
If we get all of our rights taken away, we end up with a Dictatorship like Nazi Germany. If we are given too many rights, we end up with anarchy (aka mob rule). THe mob then installs their ruler and you end up with Nazi Germany anyway. Again, the balancing act.
Democracy is a large amount of freedom with some restrictions.
Before arguing the fine points of this particular injunction, I get the feeling DPD you are against a gang injunction of any kind. I could be wrong though.
There was a lot of impassioned debate on the other forum about hate crimes. A gang injunction of some sort would allow the DA to limit the movements and operations of skinheads, Broderickboys, and others to prevent hate crimes from happening, and I don’t see that as a bad thing.
the question comes down to civil liberties. I don’t want my civil liberties eroded by the DA, but I don’t want them eroded by gangs either. Gangs make people afraid to go out of their homes. There is always a balancing act between the rights of individuals vs. the protection of society.
If we get all of our rights taken away, we end up with a Dictatorship like Nazi Germany. If we are given too many rights, we end up with anarchy (aka mob rule). THe mob then installs their ruler and you end up with Nazi Germany anyway. Again, the balancing act.
Democracy is a large amount of freedom with some restrictions.
DPD, it does seem apparent to me that there is some major spin going on by the DA’s office in issuing a press release on this default judgment against some of the defendants just before the end of 2007. Especially, in light of the fact that legal arguments regarding the injunction will actually be heard January 31st. Is this a “look what I’ve accomplished in my first year” tactic. Hmmm?
One can argue (pro or con) the merits and necessity in the use of Gang injunctions. I see valid points in both sides of this argument. But, how much of this is based on true conviction in doing what’s best for the community as opposed to doing what someone thinks looks best politically?
DPD, it does seem apparent to me that there is some major spin going on by the DA’s office in issuing a press release on this default judgment against some of the defendants just before the end of 2007. Especially, in light of the fact that legal arguments regarding the injunction will actually be heard January 31st. Is this a “look what I’ve accomplished in my first year” tactic. Hmmm?
One can argue (pro or con) the merits and necessity in the use of Gang injunctions. I see valid points in both sides of this argument. But, how much of this is based on true conviction in doing what’s best for the community as opposed to doing what someone thinks looks best politically?
DPD, it does seem apparent to me that there is some major spin going on by the DA’s office in issuing a press release on this default judgment against some of the defendants just before the end of 2007. Especially, in light of the fact that legal arguments regarding the injunction will actually be heard January 31st. Is this a “look what I’ve accomplished in my first year” tactic. Hmmm?
One can argue (pro or con) the merits and necessity in the use of Gang injunctions. I see valid points in both sides of this argument. But, how much of this is based on true conviction in doing what’s best for the community as opposed to doing what someone thinks looks best politically?
DPD, it does seem apparent to me that there is some major spin going on by the DA’s office in issuing a press release on this default judgment against some of the defendants just before the end of 2007. Especially, in light of the fact that legal arguments regarding the injunction will actually be heard January 31st. Is this a “look what I’ve accomplished in my first year” tactic. Hmmm?
One can argue (pro or con) the merits and necessity in the use of Gang injunctions. I see valid points in both sides of this argument. But, how much of this is based on true conviction in doing what’s best for the community as opposed to doing what someone thinks looks best politically?
Agreed, DPD should patrol the streets where the the loser gang bangers inflict crime on the rest of us. I know I’ve never been victimized by the DA’s ofice. What do you think?
Agreed, DPD should patrol the streets where the the loser gang bangers inflict crime on the rest of us. I know I’ve never been victimized by the DA’s ofice. What do you think?
Agreed, DPD should patrol the streets where the the loser gang bangers inflict crime on the rest of us. I know I’ve never been victimized by the DA’s ofice. What do you think?
Agreed, DPD should patrol the streets where the the loser gang bangers inflict crime on the rest of us. I know I’ve never been victimized by the DA’s ofice. What do you think?
ARe we talking about the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL immigrants here???
ARe we talking about the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL immigrants here???
ARe we talking about the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL immigrants here???
ARe we talking about the son’s and daughter’s of ILLEGAL immigrants here???
Has anyone making comments for a public nuisance injunction in West Sacramento actually gone there to see if residents there are afraid to come out of their homes because of the alleged gang members? Forget the rehtoric of the DA and police….what do the people who live there think?
Has anyone making comments for a public nuisance injunction in West Sacramento actually gone there to see if residents there are afraid to come out of their homes because of the alleged gang members? Forget the rehtoric of the DA and police….what do the people who live there think?
Has anyone making comments for a public nuisance injunction in West Sacramento actually gone there to see if residents there are afraid to come out of their homes because of the alleged gang members? Forget the rehtoric of the DA and police….what do the people who live there think?
Has anyone making comments for a public nuisance injunction in West Sacramento actually gone there to see if residents there are afraid to come out of their homes because of the alleged gang members? Forget the rehtoric of the DA and police….what do the people who live there think?