Target gangs, not guns

[unklekippy]

Actually it Is a culture thing. 3/4 of the people I see in Yakima County (INFESTED with gangs) that the average person would call "gang-banger" based on dress, aren't actually associated with gangs.

Every kid wearing a hoodie or a Raiders jacket or baseball cap flipped to one side isnt' a gang-member. In fact the vast majority aren't. Gang-bangers tend to keep it a lot more low-profile than that MOST of the time, and they have things like the lining of their jackets or their shoe-lace color to "represent," except in fairly limited circumstances in their own little areas.

I'm pretty good at spotting wheat among chaff, but I can't pretend to be anything like even 80% accurate based on appearance alone.

What you are saying is true, but it is even more disgusting in that if a white kid dressed like a skinhead and got his dumb *** shot by a cop or beaten up by whatever given racial "minority", it would be summed up with "Well, the idiot shouldn't have dressed like a gang member.". But again, whites are NOT to pretend to understand another culture, even if our own is apparently understood by all.

Don't get me wrong, Misterbill, I do understand what you are saying. All the kids dressing like the rap stars that are so popular is to be expected. No gang BS should be tolerated, but as it is it sure seems to be a one-way street. I grew up watching the double standard all my life in Portland. Gangs are crap and anyone emulating them is a fool. However, it is very frustrating when society allows gang "culture" to alter the clothes their adolescent children wear and the way they talk. That so many children, most never exposed to narcotics, know what an "eightball" or other street terminology is quite telling.

And you are correct in that the "real" gangsters are more low-key. At the same time, the "fake" ones can be even more dangerous. They actually have something to prove.

 

[unklekippy]

And YOU don't get out much. Because the crips and bloods are 20 years out of date. Try MS13, the surenos or nortenos, then I'll think you have anything remotely like a clue.

While the Latino gangs are a VERY big deal and have grown leaps and bounds, you are definitely going to see a lot of them in Yakima. The black gangs very much still exist, but in the northwest, the closest thing we have to that is in Seattle. LA, Chicago and Detroit have plenty of them and while they don't all go by Crips or Bloods any more, blue and red are definitely still a valid way to show what side you're on.

 

[Misterbill]

Even the white kids are dressing up like rappers these days. Even the ones from "nice" neighborhoods. Kids want to emulate what popular culture says is "cool," and the added thrill of being "naughty" makes it more attractive still. in my community at any rate, there is a price for this. People will avoid you, store clerks will watch you like a hawk and you're a lot more likely to get some police attention for just walking around. but people still do it. The ones who live in the hood routinely DON'T as much, because they don't want to get shot in a case of mistaken identity. Though the baggy pants around the knees thing seems to have become totally ubiquitous.

 

[dude young]

What if the FBI and HSA classified gangs as terror cells. Lets face it, the people on the neighborhoods that they operate in are, effectively, terrorized by the gangs. They are criminal organizations that feed on fear. Sounds like our friends in Al Qaeda, no? If you classify them as terrorists then you can put the federal LE agencies on it rather than the local law enforcement that is forever being stretched thinner by shrinking municipal budgets. We already have Gitmo. Let the Feds round up the leaders of these gangs and drag their asses to Cuba where they can be water-boarded into submission. All on the federal dime.

You think the cartels are going to come up here to wage war on the FBI when their drug stream starts to dry up? No. But they'd come after Portland PB, wouldn't they?

I, for one, would love to see it happen.

 

[Kevinkris]

Criminal streets gangs exist for the sole purpose of committing crime, ranging from assault to drug-dealing to murder. And I'm not aware of anyone joining a gang for protection, other than protection from violence at the hands of the gang they joined.

Since the vast majority of people living in even the most gang-infested areas DON'T join gangs, I think your argument falls flat on it's face.

Also, a militia is just dumb. Seriously, everyone I've ever met involved in any kind of militia group is either a delusional political wackjob or a delusional wanna-be commando. Join one or don't, at least militias aren't routinely murdering a dozen people over a weekend. I think they're pretty silly, but have at it if that's your idea of fun.

Try to say the same thing about gangs or gang-members with a straight face.

well youre not entirely wrong about people joining gangs, the vast majority do join gangs to be part of the criminal organization and some are forced into it. now when i say "many" its because many teenagers join gangs for protection from gangs in neighboring "territories" who assume they are part of a gang that controls the area they live in. i know several people who have joined gangs for that specific reason. as far as your comments on militias, you are dead on when you only consider todays image of todays american militias but the comparison by definition is still spot on. in the end these inner city gangs are just spin offs of gangs created to help young black men get a start in working life and protection from prejudice police and the white community (which would be historically speaking). they have organizational structures and rules to be followed just like militias.

someone also was saying how gangs have been labelled terrorist groups; when it comes to the criminally active gangs this may not be unfair but another view on it may be that these are groups of people who take up arms to fight for a way of life they choose to live. its not a view i think is right, just a thought.

my original comment was just to point out that we need to be careful about trying to label any type of group as bad. even movements for the right reasons can turn into very bad decisions. if you want to compare it to guns in politics, maybe think of how requiring back ground checks at a gun dealer would prevent selling guns to criminals from being big business (which i understand is not accurate) but leads to requiring back ground checks when selling to a life long friend. saying groups labelled as gangs should be attacked, how long would it take for your protest gatherings seen the same way? being a member of a gang should be protected just as much as any other group but that does not mean the criminals in the group cannot be weeded out. as far as im concerned it doesnt matter how you refer to your group.

 

[Kevinkris]

i have no problem with that opinion but i like to think you should be able to do anything you want so long as youre not hurting anyone else. still, it doesnt mean i think its okay to be a member of a criminal organization.

 

[Misterbill]

You have IMO a VERY misinformed idea of who joins gangs and why. I worked in Watts and Compton, I worked specifically with Gang-at risk kids in Yakima in the 1990s. Granted my information is old, but I don't think the dynamics have changed much.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that's changed is the sheer volume of power and money available to criminal street gangs, mostly thanks to the failed war on drugs and the new involvement of the Mexican cartels.

I NEVER talked to one of my kids who said they wanted to join a gang for protection from rivals from some other hood. NOT ONCE. I'm sure it happens, but not enough to pay attention to it. The lure of the only guys in the hood who have money, nice clothes and girls is enough. Add to that risking getting robbed and beaten every time you leave your house if you DON'T join your local set, and ya, it's a bad deal. If anyone wants to cripple American street gangs TOMOOROW, INSTANTLY, just legalize drugs. They'll go back to being poor, powerless and not much of an attraction for anyone with an IQ over 70. Can't even buy STOLEN guns on a welfare check.

 

[PopsBdog]

IMHO, The worst gangs are the ones running off with our nation (and it is not the evil liberals or evil conservatives) while we fight over culture and words. They control our military, our law enforcement, our medical system, just about everything. It crosses our borders to around the world. $$$$ control and we fight over crumbs and blame basically powerless people. I just fffn laugh and go fishing.

It's better than crying or getting worked up and shooting someone. Until "WE" are united, it will just keep on happening.
:nuts::angry:eace::yes::love::bash::drink::huh:
I love this country, all of it.

 

[Brutus57]

And YOU don't get out much. Because the crips and bloods are 20 years out of date. Try MS13, the surenos or nortenos, then I'll think you have anything remotely like a clue.

I know how to spell Crips and have probably spent more time actually talking to gang members I am sure over the past 15 years than you including the founder of the Hilltop Crips. It wasn't my quote to begin with I was correcting a spelling and slang error.
If you read the original post it has nothing about your Hispanic gangs except to include them likely in the catch all phrase "rest of you SOBS"...
Brutus Out

 

[Misterbill]

I know how to spell Crips and have probably spent more time actually talking to gang members I am sure over the past 15 years than you including the founder of the Hilltop Crips. It wasn't my quote to begin with I was correcting a spelling and slang error.
If you read the original post it has nothing about your Hispanic gangs except to include them likely in the catch all phrase "rest of you SOBS"...
Brutus Out

You're right, and I was wrong. The comment was uncalled for and I apologize for making it.
Best, Bill.

 

[Kevinkris]

You have IMO a VERY misinformed idea of who joins gangs and why. I worked in Watts and Compton, I worked specifically with Gang-at risk kids in Yakima in the 1990s. Granted my information is old, but I don't think the dynamics have changed much.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that's changed is the sheer volume of power and money available to criminal street gangs, mostly thanks to the failed war on drugs and the new involvement of the Mexican cartels.

I NEVER talked to one of my kids who said they wanted to join a gang for protection from rivals from some other hood. NOT ONCE. I'm sure it happens, but not enough to pay attention to it. The lure of the only guys in the hood who have money, nice clothes and girls is enough. Add to that risking getting robbed and beaten every time you leave your house if you DON'T join your local set, and ya, it's a bad deal. If anyone wants to cripple American street gangs TOMOOROW, INSTANTLY, just legalize drugs. They'll go back to being poor, powerless and not much of an attraction for anyone with an IQ over 70. Can't even buy STOLEN guns on a welfare check.

well im sure you do know more than i do about it considering the position you held but it still doesnt change what friends of mine told me about their affiliation with gangs. i will concede that you probably nailed the biggest influence for joining a gang though.

 

[U201491]

well youre not entirely wrong about people joining gangs, the vast majority do join gangs to be part of the criminal organization and some are forced into it. now when i say "many" its because many teenagers join gangs for protection from gangs in neighboring "territories" who assume they are part of a gang that controls the area they live in. i know several people who have joined gangs for that specific reason. as far as your comments on militias, you are dead on when you only consider todays image of todays american militias but the comparison by definition is still spot on. in the end these inner city gangs are just spin offs of gangs created to help young black men get a start in working life and protection from prejudice police and the white community (which would be historically speaking). they have organizational structures and rules to be followed just like militias.

someone also was saying how gangs have been labelled terrorist groups; when it comes to the criminally active gangs this may not be unfair but another view on it may be that these are groups of people who take up arms to fight for a way of life they choose to live. its not a view i think is right, just a thought.

my original comment was just to point out that we need to be careful about trying to label any type of group as bad. even movements for the right reasons can turn into very bad decisions. if you want to compare it to guns in politics, maybe think of how requiring back ground checks at a gun dealer would prevent selling guns to criminals from being big business (which i understand is not accurate) but leads to requiring back ground checks when selling to a life long friend. saying groups labelled as gangs should be attacked, how long would it take for your protest gatherings seen the same way? being a member of a gang should be protected just as much as any other group but that does not mean the criminals in the group cannot be weeded out. as far as im concerned it doesnt matter how you refer to your group.

The only things gangs (criminals) need is to be warned to go back to being normal citizens and cease all criminal gang activity within 10 days and then a few hundred Bronsons turned loose on any that continue.
To compare them to any normal group is insane. They are, were and will be criminals and need to be treated as such. To rationalize mini mafias is ludicrous !

 

[Kevinkris]

the word gang may be synonymous in today's vocabulary for the most part but a gang does not mean criminal organization. my point is when you start targeting groups of any kind, you open the door to attack other types of groups. its probably a good time for me to say this again, i have no issue with going after criminals.

 

[U201491]

the word gang may be synonymous in today's vocabulary for the most part but a gang does not mean criminal organization. my point is when you start targeting groups of any kind, you open the door to attack other types of groups. its probably a good time for me to say this again, i have no issue with going after criminals.

The reference here is to street gangs, cartel gangs, criminals in every way. The hoods on the corner, the drug pushers, the theives, the gangbangers, and I think that is what most people comprehend.
Squash them and send them all to the pit. !

 

[Kevinkris]

yea i know that but as we have all noticed when laws are written and later ruled on, the language can be twisted in many ways. when you say gang today, you think criminal (most of us do) but tomorrow could be a different story. in the end gang is just another word for group and the last thing we need is to open the door for attacking different kinds of groups.

when it comes down to preventing these terrible things from happening to people, no one really has a good plan but further restricting anyone for any actions or property will only make more criminals. i realize Dave wasnt talking about new law (in the context of gangs) but when it comes to political discussions, i think its a safe assumption to incorporate it in there.