Loss of religion is to me, one of the major problems today. I didn't say they had to actively participate or go to any particular religion. In the Army, we used to have to go during BT, most of us used the time to sleep. These people don't have a problem with being religious when they need a religion to get more money from the government. Let POTUS come out and say "Ok, if you're not Southern Baptist, you get X per month and if you are, you get X+Y." Watch and see the converts. But if you're going to shoot me over it, we can change that to ethics and philosophy. But they need some kind of right and wrong class.

On further reflection, I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing and whether it really would address the problem. How would a single mother on welfare with five kids be treated in your program?

I agree with you. The decline of religion in this country has a lot to do with our social problems. I want there to be more religious people, but I don't know how to make that happen without coercing them. There certainly are some things you could do, but I'm not sure they'd really get the job done. I also believe very strongly that people have the right to be atheists if they want.

I also believe they have a right to be atheists if they want. One of the things I think we can do is allow it back in the schools in the non-denominational way it was done when I was a kid. If you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or pray, just stand there quietly, like I do when the play the national anthems of the countries or that stuff in mass that everybody answers back down here. I refuse to sing the national anthem or say any kind of pledge of allegiance to another countries flag or soverignty because I am an American fighting man and I took the only oath I will ever take years ago. So I just stand there and keep my mouth shut.

Another thing is all these kids in school need to be wearing uniforms. You'd be surprised how much little things like that can help. In schools here, there aren't really any class distinctions because the rich kids wear the same unifroms as the porr kids. Kind of lets them now they're all human beings. No fights over clothes either.

See, I knew we'd agree because you forgot to block MY access to your OODA Loop. LOL

Is it a decline in religion or a decline in a public philosophy?

Men who established freedom of speech and freedom of religion would have said the community could not do without a public philosophy...of the doctrine of natural law, which held that there was a law "above the ruler and the sovereign people...above the whole community of mortals."

If what you do in the privacy of your own home is going to impact on the nation at large then it is no longer in the privacy of your own home. I think bearing children falls under that heading.

I agree with alot of what you all are saying BUT, do you really think that everything that has been said relates to stopping gangs or stopping poverty?

Of course not, what's your point? LOL - I just looked at your profile, no wonder you were watching this thread. I'd love to hear your input on this.

My point of view is that street gangs are just for this country as illegal drugs if not worse.

We have more people in street gangs (collectively) than we do in Law Enforcement, or the Military. Kind of scary if you ask me. Granted they are not as organized as either the Military or Law Enforcement BUT they have the numbers. The Surrenos alone have over 25,000 active members.

The reason why I asked the original question: If street gangs should be considered Domestic Terrorists or not? Is because I think they are Domestic Terrorists.

The reasons why I think that are Domestic Terrorists is b/c: they run the drugs, shoot up the neighborhoods, break in to our houses, and generally cause the majority of our crime in society today. They terrorize society in their daily doings. Granted they haven't caused anything remotely close to 9/11. But street gangs kill every day in every major city or prison, and collectively that adds up every year to about the equivelant of a 9/11. Its not as catostrophic as 9/11 but its a slower more cumulative approach.

Now the reason I said city or prison, is b/c most of the gang hits are done in prison. Granted that is not a big deal seeing how the violence is in a prison and its inmate on inmate. However it is still a murder (even if it is an inmate it is still someone's kid).

I think that a bonefide street gang member needs to be persecuted just like we are persecuting A-Q. We should be able to hunt them down and snatch them from there houses in the middle of the night. I also believe that we should be able to do it with as much (or as little) cause as we go after terrorists. I.E. lets say we don't have any concrete evidence against an A-Q member, but we know that f*cker helped orcherstrate 9/11 how do we know b/c our intel tells us so. Now we go to his house and hunt him down. Has he been found guilty in a court of law? Nope, we don't need to he is a terrorists and according to the President terrorists will be brought to justice. Well why doesn't that go for joe-shit-bag the local street gang banger? Let's say I know joe-shit-bag killed his ex girl jill-shit-bag for sleeping with jack-shit-bag (who is in another gang). But I don't have enough evidence to get a warrant on joe-shit-bag. Lets say I know that joe-shit-bag has been a busy little bee, and that he has orcherstated a drive by on jack-shit-bags gang house, but during the drive by a neighborhood kid gets killed in the cross fire. But again I don't have enough evidence to get a warrant on joe-shit-bag, and we have exhausted all our resources trying to build a case against joe-shit-bag but we still have nothing b/c joe-shit-bag is a smart criminal. Now we all know that sooner or later joe-shit-bag is going to screw up and get caught doing something, but he is never going to be held accountable for these murders.

We should be able to go after these guys just as aggresively as we go after international terrorists. The gang bangers get a free ride to GITMO, for an indefient stay.


I probably should have started this thread in the Terrorists section. My bad admins.

SJ:

I support many reforms that would make it easier for you to get warrants, etc. I don't like Miranda, for example. But I think what you are proposing goes too far.

No, its good here. More traffic. The problem with this as I see it is they are citizens and have constitutional rights they have not forfeited by their actions. Committing a crime does not mean you forfeit your rights. The members of AQ are not citizens and they have committed an act of war, not a crime IMO.

I agree the gang bangers are a scourge and should be dealt with. We are trying the terrorists that are citizens the same general way we do other criminals. Other than disclosure is probably not the same due to national security concerns.

One thing I think would definitely help is to get liberal judges that put the criminal's rights before the victim's off the bench. We had that discussion on another board, but we can reopen it here tomorrow.

The liberal attitude of judges is, IMO in no small part due to the perceived need to protect abortion and some other pet decisions.

We need hard judges that give hard time and are willing to issue warrants.

Thanks for your input, we can pick it up tomorrow. I'm too tired for Crips and Bloods tonight and we need the lawyers for this.

Actually Roguish Lawyer I agree with you what I purposed does go to far. However how should we as a society handle them. You know and I know we can't "force a confession" out of someone, and in many cases that is what it would take to get the necessary evidence to convict someone.

The only thing I can come up with is aggravated charges/sentences for gang members. I.E. if you or I pee in public (depending on the state) its a Misdemeanor. If a gang banger does it its a Felony.

I'm also agree with NDD....time for bed, we can solve societies problems tomorrow:)

He might be onto something. NDD posted this as a definition of terrorism - The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


My terrorism book defines it as - a purposeful human activity primarily directed toward the creation of a general climate of fear designed to influence, in ways desired by the protagonists, other human beings, and through them some course of events. Terrorism therefore is goal-directed violence. A terrorists enjoy sultimate success when they can instill in to the target audience a sense of powerlessness and helplessness.

I think that covers street gangs rather neatly.

CRad,

You hit the nail on the head. That is my exact point, they are arguably the same as international terrorist, the only exception is that most of them are U.S. citizens.

I don't agree at all, although I'm no expert. Street gangs are just criminals, sometimes very well organized criminals, but they're not terrorists in the traditional sense. When they kill innocents, it's generally inadvertent or part of a power struggle of some sort; it's not calculated to achieve broader political objectives.

Finally something RL and I agree on.


Now this is just ridiculous. I would pray you are just joking here. The crime committed is just that. Regardless of whether the person is a "gang-banger" or not does not in itself give the courts or a LEO justification to change the level of crime.

The problem as I see it here in SC, Greenville specifically, is the judges and the prison system itself. The judges are too soft on damn near every violent crime and once in the prison system they are released too soon due in no small part to overcrowding. There is no deterrent. The youth of today are not afraid of prison. And the gangs are just as big in the prison system as out, of which the Nation of Islam is the largest. I know its a religion...blah, blah, blah.

The 'fear of God' needs to be put back into their lives.

CRad, your terorism book's definition is so elastic and overgeneralized as to be meaningless. Virtually all warfare and all crime becomes terrorism by that definition. War, after all, certainly is "goal-directed violence." There may be some doctrinaire pacifist out there who believes that all are the same ("one man's terrorist is another man's 18B is another man's Crip"), but as a guide for policy in the non-tinfoil hat world, NDD's definition is far more apt.

Dave

The horror!

Oh come on. Not true. Everyone agrees with me eventually. :p

Okay Okay I get it you guys aren't going to buy in to my theory that street gangs are really domestic terrorists.

Surgicalcric,
I was actually grasping at straws for a final stance, but you pulled the carpet out from under me...:D

Seriously though I have no love for gang bangers. I hope that is apparent. I can't stand the fact that gangs run some neighborhoods in this country, and that the police are afarid to enter those neighborhoods after dark (unless there are 25 officers responding). I think California has it some-what-right with the 3 strikes law, however instead of any 3 felony covictions I think it should be 3 violent crime convictions, and your out for life. Additionally I think being in a gang should count against you on any offense sentence.

you think so? I'm surprised to hear that. Stephan Sloan wrote that definition in beating International Terrorism published by the Air University Press at Maxwell AFB. It was issued to the other half by the US Army at one of the courses he took on LIC.

I'm so proud! I remember the first discussions we had about unconventional warfare. CRad cheated:D and everybody else posted "Just glad to be here!" Except for the SF guys and Jimbo. LOL Now I have to study to keep up.

Welcome to the club Smokin' Joe, good gouge.

To be honest, I don't know if I'd actually classify them as terrorist even with the definition from Dr. Sloan. However, I can see why a police officer would be totally frustrated over the resrictions placed on him when it comes to dealing with them. The problem with classifying them as anything other than criminals takes away the ability of the police to treat them as individuals, and I'm sure you know from your own dealings with them that there are varying degrees of bad guys.

Most of the definitions are.


Dave


LOL

You take that back
 

I did not cheat. The other half refused to help me, told me NOT go around him by calling his friends (dammit) and said I was smart enough on my hook. I also said I had to dig through more than three feet of FMs to find an answer. If there are that many FMs on one shelf what do you think are on the other shelves?

I started readin up on this stuff before we ever got married so I could follow what he was talking about without getting lost and changing the subject to girlie stuff.

Re: You take that back
 

LOL - I CAUGHT you letting him post with your user name twice! Don't even try it.

Of course the old motto is "If you ain't..."

LOL

Not trying to draw you out. But, if you are going to make bold statements as such you are gonna to have your feet held to the fire about them.

I understand your lack of love for the gangs. I do not much like them myself. I have been in the middle of more gang related incidents than I care to recount at the moment while at either the FD or EMS. (2) III-A's down and working on my 3rd.

I, however think Kalifornia should rethink the 3 strikes rule and cut that down to 2 strikes and you are 'in' for life, not out. This is regardless of gang relationship.

Glad to have you here.

JD

...cheatin' you aint tryin' .

LOL - Reaper's gonna kick yer ass. Do you know the 2nd half?

Amen! There is no real deterrent for crime. Heck the death penalty really isn't that much of a deterrent anymore with 10-25 years of appeals while you are isolated from the general population. Life in Prison is no longer a life long sentence and most convictions I have heard have been for concurrent sentences when there are multiple convictions.

Smokin' Joe I'll give you that California does at least have it right in the conviction process. Unfortunately, they lack the resources to back that up with the incarceration for the full term of "life." Last I heard that was 25 years in the California penal system, which translates into 12 years real time.

One thing that just floored me today about my short term home state... We had a man kill a 5 year-old girl and severely (most likely permanently) brain damage her 10 year-old brother by beating them with a lug wrench, and he, according to what I am told, will not be a candidate for the death penalty. This just happened this weekend. Consequently, no one really knows for what the prosecutor will ask. However, in California compounded felony (ex: an killing during a robbery) constituted a capital case. Roguish Lawyer correct me if I am wrong because it has been a few years since I lived in LA.

All to say, I have no idea what the real answer is for street gangs. We didn't get to where we are over night, and we are not going to be able to fix this over night either. I think NDD and Roughish Lawyer were on the right (all be it somewhat parallel) track with the issue of family and the need for reform of the welfare system. Smokin Joe and Surgicalcric have a good point with real time prison terms combined with the resources to enforce them. I think it will take a combination of strategies. One of which will be to limit the damn appeals process. Yes this is a little off topic, but since I am up here on my soap box anyway, here is an example:

Gang Banger X shoots Gang Banger Y as part of a pre planned scheme to take over Gang Banger Y's drug trade. Smokin Joe witnesses the whole thing, planning to execution, as undercover Gang Banger Copman. Gang Banger X goes to trial for Murder 1, is convicted, and sentenced to death. Gang Banger X gets ONE shot at appeals in case he really did have the crappiest attorney known to man. Period. End of story.

Thump
Thump

Re: You take that back
 

You have just officially become my Yoda!

Re: Re: You take that back
 

He's sent a reply to one thread here already. ROFL! It's smart man who knows when to help the wife.

If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' - and if you get caught, you ain't tryin' hard 'nuff.

:p

HQ6:

This is not my area of expertise -- I don't practice criminal law.

LOL....thanks

Thanks.......I think :D

HQ6,

The way AZ criminal law goes, there are 2 different types of "life sentence". First is natural life which means you are never getting out. The second is a life sentence which is 25 to natural life based on your parole board. Meaning you have to serve at least 25 years in prison but if you are the model inmate you can get out after 25 years. If you are a dirt bag inmate you MAY end up spending the rest of your life in prison. That is rarely enforced b/c after a certain point in the inmates life when they are feable and can barely get out of bed in the morning the prisons don't want to spend the money to keep them alive. So miracalously they get released on parole.

And then of course there is the death sentence with the 9th circus oops I mean circuit says a judge can't hand down any more so a jury has to give it to them.

can I come to this party late?

I'm going to have to say no, street gangs are not terrorist groups. As appealing as it sounds rounding up every dude with baggy pants and a tattoo and tossing them in a cage for eternity I don't think it would fly with the constitution.

Although some gangs may cause terror as a by product of their illegal activities, they are not causing terror as a goal and they have no ideological goals other than profit. e.g. A gang does a drive by shooting to expand and protect client base and market share but hits an innocent child. this is in the news, people are afraid to go out... basically it causes 'terror' (whatever that is) but they are not terrorists. Seuranos, nortenos, et al are not trying to overthrow any governments unless it is in support of the furtherance of their drug trade across the border. Quite the contrary, messing with the US economy would destroy their customer base for their products and be detrimental to their business in the long run.

They are org crime and should be treated as such. Classification and tracking as org crime members, additional sentencing, federal prosecution for activates that are organized crime. But in reality, they are no different than the Mafia... they are just not as smart.

Now, on the other hand. I think that if you are found on the battlefield engaged in combat against Americans and you went there with the intent and purpose of fighting them, then you have forfeited your citizenship and you can be treated as an enemy combatant.. but I'll have to wait to be AG before I can change that.

I thought this was interesting:

01/24/2005

Gangs Viewed as Domestic Terrorists by Calif. Police Chief

Ceres Police Chief Says Shootings Support Worry Over Rising Militancy
By Daryl Farnsworth and Patrick Giblin, Modesto Bee (California)

CERES, Calif. - Gangs aren't just criminal organizations anymore. They are domestic terrorists.

That's the evolving view of Ceres Police Chief Art de Werk, who was forced to endure one officer being shot to death two weeks ago and another critically wounded.


The man who ambushed them, 19-year-old Andres Raya, was identified by police investigators as a Norteño gang member. He also was a U.S. Marine visiting his south Modesto home while on weekend leave from Camp Pendleton in Southern California.

"There are gang members out there like Raya who are home-grown terrorists and need to be treated with the same caution and concern," de Werk said Sunday. "You will hear me use that word (terrorist) more often in the future as we deal with this."

For the past year, police departments around the state have been reporting rumors that gangs were planning to become more militant and more likely to shoot police officers, de Werk said.

"That's backed up by recent events as well as the graffiti that appeared near the shooting scene encouraging the shooting," de Werk said. "More recently in southwest Modesto, there's been a lot of prolific 'kill the cops' graffiti that's appearing."

Besides the Jan. 9 killing of Sgt. Howard Stevenson, 39, and wounding of officer Sam Ryno, 49, two Tulare police officers were shot the morning of Jan. 17 during a traffic stop. Both officers are in serious condition.

The wounded officers were a female training officer and a male officer who had just transferred from another law enforcement agency. Two brothers were arrested in connection with the shootings.

One officer was shot as she walked toward a car stopped for a traffic violation, in which the suspects are believed to have been riding. When the other officer tried to help, he was shot.

The suspects - two brothers from Earlimart - were found hiding in oleander bushes that divide Highway 99, police said.

On Jan. 10, Turlock Police Department officials reported that someone shot at one of their officers. The gunman was hiding in an alley and fled after firing the shots. The officer returned fire but no one was hit, police reported.

Since the Ceres shootings, many residents have contacted de Werk to offer support for the police, as well as express concern about gangs.

"I have been enormously uplifted by the broad-based support of the community," de Werk said. "They see that gangs and what they are comprised of aren't just young kids getting together to have fun. There's more to it than that."

Teaming up for crackdown

Sunday night, 60 officers from the Modesto Police Department's Gang Task Force, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department Special Investigative Unit, the California Department of Corrections and the Ceres Police Department swept neighborhoods searching for wanted gang members in Ceres, said Modesto police Sgt. Ed Steele.

"After the shooting in Ceres, we talked and realized that Ceres did not have the resources to deal with the gang problem," Steele said. "This is just one of many planned sweeps and we may be going into other areas in the county as well."

By 7 p.m. Sunday, officers had arrested 14 people on charges ranging from outstanding warrants to possession of drugs and stolen vehicles. They also handed out dozens of tickets for other offenses, Steele said. The sweep was continuing late Sunday.

Since the shooting, the members of the Ceres Police Department have been coping with the loss of a fellow officer and concern for another colleague, de Werk said, while still patrolling the streets every day, protecting the city.

Ryno remains hospitalized, but his condition has improved from critical to serious but stable, Ceres police Sgt. Michael Borges said Saturday.

"He's doing better, but he's still not out of the woods," Borges said. "The doctors are still watching for infections and blood clots, and other problems."

Borges said Stevenson is deeply missed by everyone with whom he worked. "He (Stevenson) was a fixture around here for 20 years," Borges said.

Despite the gloom and sadness for their fallen and injured colleagues, it was business as usual at the station for officers and other employees Saturday afternoon.

Stevenson's death is a constant reminder to all law enforcement officers and civilians of the inherent danger of being a police officer.

Borges said the atmosphere at the Ceres Police Department is now one of "apprehension and uncertainty about what is going on with gang bangers." He also cited the anti-police graffiti and the rise of violence against police officers by gang members.

"At this point, we're trying to reorganize and regroup," Borges said.

Oops Double tap

The rise of the Muslim Boys
By David Cohen, Evening Standard
3 February 2005

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

When I was a wee lad, back when they only had black and white TV and the most dangerous weapon of choice on the street was a switchblace, we had street gangs. The way we dealt with them was to beat the crap out of them. Normally one of us would take on the local bad ass who proclaimed himself the leader and that would resolve the problem. Then things sort of progressed to rumbles where it would be groups against groups and the weapons became more exotic-tire irons, chains, clubs. What always struck me was that the "gangs" where self-disenfranchised kids that sort of got together, hated school and school organizations (sports, clubs, etc). This was not a poor community or group of communities as we regionalized schools. It sort of boiled down to those that hated authority, had lack of self-respect, little self-esteem. Some had lousey family life, some were from single parents, some had big bucks, some had no other problems other than those of bad choices but yet came from a solid family where the other siblings were "normal". Now I have no solution to this situation, I deplore the social programs/welfare approaches where everyone else steps in to solve problems like there was a magic button for everyone's poor choices and bad luck, but for the most part those with whom I have been associated over the years that got the snot knocked out of them by their parents when they needed to never gravitated into the gangs. Now I'm not saying that they never got into trouble or walked a fine line, but gangs-no. So, from my limited view point, part of the problem stems from family structure and discipline in the home. The other part of the equation is that this country is becoming more and more like tribes. While I do not ever want to give hollywood any credit for anything, that was the whole deal in West Side Story and was closer to the truth as to gang formation than anything else. We have to get away from this crap about the formation of little ethnic centers in the cities and country side that form the loyalties to their home country and get back to being the United States and not a haven for displaced persons who fled their country because they did not have the balls to stay at home and fight for their own freedom and rights. When folks identify with their own culture and bring their "inbred hatred and god-given truths" here with the sole purpose of living in freedom so that they can pursue their single minded view of the world from which they came rather than willing be assimilated into this country we are always going to produce gangs loyal to their own values and not those of the US. So what's the solution, I am not a sociolgist and I don't know, but I will be damned before I let some street punk take away my rights to live a free and safe life.

Jack Moroney