WEATHER »
Daraka Larimore-Hall

Paul Wellman (file)

Daraka Larimore-Hall


S.B. Dems Oppose Gang Injunction

Crime Stats Show Gang Activity Dropped This Year


Thursday, December 13, 2012
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

The Democratic Central Committee voted overwhelmingly last week to oppose the gang injunction proposed last March by Santa Barbara Police Chief Cam Sanchez. The vote came at the instigation of Latino rights activists affiliated with the new organization PODER, who argued the injunction wasn’t warranted by existing crime rates and that the money spent on the injunction would be more effectively spent on prevention programs instead. Likewise, the group — a coalition of students affiliated with City College, UCSB, and Santa Barbara High School — argued the injunction would have a negative impact on property values in affected neighborhoods and further stigmatize Latino youth. “Let’s spend money on programs that help kids, not label them,” argued Cesar Trujillo.

About 17 members of the Democratic Central Committee (DCC) voted to oppose the injunction, a handful abstained, and a couple voted against taking action. Longtime Democratic Party activist Bob Handy — and former Fire and Police Commission member — argued the committee should have heard from gang injunction supporters before voting. Committtee executive Daraka Larimore-Hall said the issues behind the gang injunction were hardly new, adding, “We’re a political party, not a debating society.” Larimore-Hall and other critics of the gang injunction expressed concern such a major policy direction was adopted without any public hearing by the Santa Barbara City Council.

To date, the City Council has reportedly not voted on the matter but has been briefed on several occasions in closed-door hearings. Councilmember Cathy Murillo, an opponent of the injunction, acknowledged she participated in one such meeting but declined to provide any details of what was said — and by whom — because of confidentiality concerns. While Murillo lauded the arguments made by PODER activists, she expressed skepticism the injunction could be reversed. “That train left the station,” she said.

Last week’s vote will cause further friction between the DCC and Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider, a Democrat, who appeared at the press conference with Police Chief Sanchez when he first announced he would file civil legal action against 30 of the “worst of the worst” gang members, limiting their ability to associate with one another in public. Sanchez, who had opposed gang injunctions for years, switched positions just months after two high-profile homicides took place in 2010 in which non-gang members were killed by gang members.

Though not available for comment this week, Sanchez has taken issue with the argument that the injunction promotes ethnic profiling. The Latino community, he’s insisted, has been disproportionately victimized by gang activity. And though filed early last year, the gang injunction has been held up in a variety of court actions. At issue is whether proponents of the injunction can avail themselves to otherwise confidential juvenile records that prosecutors insist are needed to make the injunction’s case. A case management conference is scheduled this January. In the meantime, PODER intends to take its case to the Latino Democrats, the ACLU, and the Women’s Political Committee.

According to police records, gang incidents and gang-related crime dropped in the past year. Reports of “gang related” events dropped from 259 this time last year to 179 for the first 10 months of 2012. The number of “gang incidents” — defined as offenses designed to further a street gang — dropped from 153 to 118 in the same time. Only the number of taggings increased, from 734 to 956. Not all tagging, however, can be tied to gangs. According to FBI statistics on Type I crime, the number of violent offenses related to Santa Barbara gangs dropped from 34 to 28 in the past year and gang-related property crime from 15 to 10.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Facts is stubborn thangs about declining crime rates.

And how much is this farce costing us in treasury and time spent for all the police and attorneys chasing their tail on this instead of working on the huge backlog of actual crime and legal violations that never gets addressed?

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So now the Dems count the gangs among their constituent special interest groups?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is the moron at the helm over there?

Dont they realize that the actual people who actually vote (not the illegal immigrants and low life felons and juvenile delinquents) want this type of enforcement? Dont they realize that pandering to a small and very obnoxious group of people is going to back fire on them?

Gang members are not voting nor are their parents who are either illegal or inept.. hell these people drain our systems they do not add to our community in any way at all...

One thing is for sure - the current 2 party system needs to be blown up - they no longer represent the views of the people or do they work for the benefit of the communities they're supposed to serve.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a guy who actually votes and I oppose the Draconian band-aid gang injunction because it is blatantly unconstitutional and only serves corporate interests.
Just like the current two-party system.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Committtee executive Daraka Larimore-Hall said the issues behind the gang injunction were hardly new, adding, “We’re a political party, not a debating society.”"

Wow! Single party states, ...oh, that's California now!... couldn't say it better. Larimore-Hall in his sociology studies clearly did not go afield into history or political science and take even a glance at the 20th century's fascist, communist, single party states and their party leadership ... or maybe he did.

"Larimore-Hall and other critics of the gang injunction expressed concern such a major policy direction was adopted without any public hearing by the Santa Barbara City Council." --- pot and kettle, no? The Dems. voted without hearing the full story, without a public presentation.

This attitude and stance is an example of why I, a lifelong Democrat, am ashamed of many of the local Democrats and pick and choose carefully whom to support in local elections.

Thank you, Bob Handy! Who voted how? I'd like to know for the next election of Central Committee members. And was this an open-to-the-public meeting?

at_large (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What "type of enforcement" is that?

No one knows any more what this proposed gang injunction has devolved into. But what is sure is that by the time it gets to any court ruling next year the city will have spent a million dollars in cash and staff time to injunctify maybe 20 people in the end.

Chew on that, alleged fiscal conservatives.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Divorce attitude and stance from the issue and look just at the issue. The gang injunction is a dangerous precedent.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is news how? of course the united federation of tree huggers would vote against it. I don't understand what relevance this has to getting it passed? Hopefully those with the actual vote will see thru this attempt at propaganda. Also I find irony in the fact that Cam Sanchez would try to ethnically profile latino's. Ridiculous. Go Injunction!

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The injunction may be a dangerous precedent or it may not be. The Democrat Central Committee wore blinders and heard no opposition to what they already had decided. Easier that way without the threat of choking on differing opinions, but why bother to vote at all?

Again, who voted to oppose the injunction? Here are the members, a majority of whom, probably, do not live in Santa Barbara city.

REPRESENTATIVES PER SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Daraka Larimore-Hall, Dem Central Committee Chair, District 1
Nancy Miller, South County At Large, District 1
Hillary Blackerby, Committee Secretary, Member, District 2
Bill Rosen, Treasurer, District 3
Erik Anciaux, South County Vice Chair, District 3
Joe Pierre, North County At-Large Exec., District 5
Cheryl Hermann, North County Vice Chair, District 3
DISTRICT ONE
Joe Allen, Member, District 1
Bob Handy, Member, District 1
David Pritchett, Member, District 1
Olivia Uribe, Member, District 1
Paul Zink, Member, District 1
DISTRICT TWO
EJ Borah, Member, District 2
Lois Hamilton, Member, District 2
Daniel Ramirez, Member, District 2
RW (Hap) Ziegler, Member, District 2
DISTRICT THREE
Bill Rosen, Member, District 3
Michael Angarola, Member, District 3
DISTRICT FOUR
Jose Castellanos, Member, District 4
Ron Faas, Member, District 4
Robert Cuthbert, Member, District 4
DISTRICT FIVE
Roger Hart, Member, District 5
Russ Weed, Member, District 5

at_large (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Two items to note the 1st being that Ken the majority of injunctions have been upheld as constitutional. The other being that the non debate society that is the DCC is subsidized thru the election process, this is a private club same as the RCC their inclusion on the partisan publicly funded ballot should end. Daraka and the gang (all political parties)should pay for their own election costs for their local commitee posts as its a private group not a public office. I have no objections to whatever a little group of overinflated egos however misguided decides then.

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe, oh maybe, the proponents were invited but chose not to attend to argue their point? Sometimes the answer is obvious.

But all the self-declared majority thinkers here can hope and believe that such an injunction whatever and whenever it exists really will do something effective in the real crime world, because if they ever realized that elephant in the room had no clothes, they just might be concerned that the city will have spent a million dollars of time and money with little to show for it, as they are about to do next year.

Self-imagined fiscal conservatives should follow the money, not attack the messengers.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...PODER, who argued the injunction wasn’t warranted by existing crime rates..."

Remember when the gang injunction was introduced the crime rate was higher than it is now. In fact I was very concerned about the regular stabbings that were occurring both on the Eastside, Westside AND just off of State Street.

Since then the crime rate has gone down. Maybe a get tough stance isn't a bad thing?

local (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken's right, John's right and some other people are probably right.

"Since then the crime rate has gone down. Maybe a get tough stance isn't a bad thing?" @local

What's not clear is if another intervention could reduce the crime rate for less money without risk of civil rights abuse. Wouldn't that be better? It's not as thought the options are "injunction" or "nothing".

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"According to police records, gang incidents and gang-related crime dropped in the past year. Reports of “gang related” events dropped from 259 this time last year to 179 for the first 10 months of 2012."

SO LET'S REPEAL THE GANG INJUNCTION!!! I mean with gang crimes dropping after the injunction was put in place we obviously don't need it anymore. While we're using this logic let's also do the following:

- Remove safety regulations on cars. Less people die in accidents today.

- Remove pollution regulations. Former polluters have learned their lesson and labeling them might hurt their self esteem.

- Ect, ect, ect.

Come on people, I'm sure there's a lot of other things that have improved society we can get rid of now.

There's only one thing that a certain small percentage of the population, we call criminals, need to stay out of jail. That's to get better at not getting caught. After all, no one will stop them from being criminals.

Validated (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Validated

Grogger's or O'Deane's paper's are a good place to start.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know. Let's create as Task Force and then we can synergize our hugs.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The old 20:80 Rule. 20% of the gang members create 80% of the problems. Getting these 20% yeehaws off the street while sending the entire gang community a new and tough message is worth it alone. Eastside Ladies, you listen up too. These punks need to rethink their lives and their choices. Happy to help.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DemCentCom pretty heavy on the white male quota. Who would have guessed misogyny continues to reign supreme in the DemCentCom Star Chamber. Thanks for the lurid details of White Guys run amok. Again.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2012 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isla Vista has a crime problem too. Let's get a sorority injunction on those insane students. " Close to 25% of all serious crime in Santa Barbara County occurs in Isla Vista. That figure includes Burglary, Robbery, Grand Theft, Sexual Assault, and other violent crimes," SB Sheriff County Department

killuminati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who argue that the injunction has worked because the crime rate dropped are committing a logical fallacy: correlation is not the same as causation. Gang behavior is driven by many complex factors and is not amenable to simplistic answers.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Photo caption: "$200...we're up to $200...going, going, SOLD for $200".

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 2:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Saber es poder" is an expression in Spanish which roughly translates to "knowledge is power".

Expecting this injunction to stop the gangs is like expecting anti-drug laws to be able to stop drug use.

Our nudge-nudge- wink-wink immigration policy--supported by people on the Left and Right, is what's driving the gang problem. Connect the dots, and it will make sense.

As our country continues on its downward spiral, the reaction of the politicians will be to pass more laws restricting behavior, as opposed to dealing with the things that cause our ever-increasing variety of social ills such as gang violence, homelessness, drug use, random shootings, and so forth.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the goal is to reduce crime, especially gang-related, money is probably better spent on projects that give young people a taste of options other than the ones that are obvious to them, as compared to more policing. Promote community not jail. For example, outreach music programs such as the Harmony Project actively engage not only young children, but their families…

http://www.harmony-project.org/about-us/

Ventura has a growing program. From the Ventura Harmony Project website: “Simply put, our goal is to make certain that no child in Ventura County shall be deprived of the opportunity to learn and to perform music because their families and schools lack the financial resources to provide lessons and instruments.”

http://venturacountyharmony.com/2011/...

I don’t have proof but suspect that communities that support programs like this will produce children who are more likely to later choose more positive paths than they would have without the program. Thus less gang activity. I’m not aware of any program like this in Santa Barbara County.

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If the injunction started in 2010 and the gang related crime rate has started dropping since then, then maybe the injunction is working...

Something to think about.

jimbeltran (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MUSIC LESSONS?! Why didn't I think of that? Here's another intervention program along those lines we should consider to stop gang violence;

http://www.i-act.org

Validated (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The threat of the injunction is working. Keep it up.

Gangs have one ethic and one ethic only: glorification of violence. There is nothing complex about gangs. Eliminate them. Now. They have no place in Santa Barbara.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you get "jumped" into a gang"? You prove your worth by committing increasing levels of violence and crime that earns your way in.

Gang members then "jump" the prospective new member by inflicting violence against him/her as the honored initiation ritual.

Gang life in this town ensures a never-ending cycle of crime violence. Murder wins the killer the coveted tear-drop tattoo which is pinnacle of becoming a man in the eyes of the gang.

There are no positive virtues to gang activity. There is no basis to glorify it, apologize for it or romanticize it.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now there is a constructive anti-gang idea. Replace tattoo parlors with karaoke bars.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What’s the best strategy to prevent gang activity? “Coordinated intervention by the community and law enforcement personnel reduces the likelihood that high-risk youth will become involved in gangs. Involvement of police agencies, educators, job-training resources, parents, and community groups is essential to success.”

http://www.ncpc.org/topics/violent-cr...

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's sad that some people who label themselves "conservative" don't want to conserve the Constitution.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness requires no gang activity exists ever again in this country as it denies all prior listed constitutional expectations in the Declaration of Independence. Constitutionally we gathered to create a more perfect union. Gang violence is a glaring flaw that harms us all.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NCPC claim their programs only "slow" the rate of crime: http://www.noozhawk.com/article/12131...

SB Gang Injuction intends to eliminate gang crime. That gets my vote.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions are necessary but not sufficient for any kind of effective policy. I'm not aware of any evidence that injunctions, especially used alone, will eliminate gang crime. The only objective evidence I’m aware of (see above for example) indicates that the most effective way of minimizing gang activity in the long haul is a combination of community activities – which may or may not include some form of injunction.

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SB is loaded with community activities and local resources that well support productive diversions at every level. The only thing missing for all these community carrots is now the stick.

The threat of the gang injunction is just the stick this community needs to wield to move more gangstas into the already existing community support network.

Judges often demand jail or getting their sorry arises up to city college which has shown high rates of success. Gangstas are simple people really. Violence is good. Threat of incarceration is bad. Diversion already exists. We just need more motivation to use what is already out there, that we are already paying for.

Keep it simple folks. Keep the gang injunction threat alive and well and demand more gangstas take a close look what this community already offers. Take thee to city college and see how well being a two-bit street punk carries weight up there. These kids are not dumb; just stupid.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SB has a lot LESS than ten years ago for kids to do after school, much less young adults that don't involve alcohol. These kids aren't dumb, just being held hostage by neoconfreaks.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Summation: the comical Bullet Train, social program spending without metrics, out of control public pension supporting crowd is now against constitutionally vetted gang injunctions for COST CUTTING REASONS? I am sure this group will support art classes, parenting classes, free meals, free day care, you name it, but when it comes to a concerted effort to identify and arrest these cretins we do not have the money?
I do not know of a single person that wants the gang injunction in a vacuum, but instead it is one constitutional tool in a multi effort plan.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahhhhh Ken, yours is such a breath of fresh air.

Imagine, SB according to Mr Volock has a critical mass of "neocon freaks" that powerfully set the agenda for gang treatment.

Or perhaps those "neocon freaks" got tired of getting kicked in the teeth when they made private donations to support good works. Maybe the progressives really have eaten all the rich and the former charitable nature of this city has been permanently diminished.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You misspelled my name. And as for the SB's establishment's handling of the gang problem, FAIL. Talk about mishandling resources.
As for the charitable nature of SB, it began disappearing with all the locals getting priced out by corporations and wannabe aristocrats.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you define productive diversion? Parking cars or pouring wine?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

List of SB bad guys:

--neocon freaks
--rapacious corporations
--wannabe aristocrats

The things one learns reading the SB Independent.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They're bigger than SB "bad guys", in fact of the voters of this country decided they're National "bad guys" this past election. In fact most voters were happy to make that determination gender neutral, so put that in your binder and stuff it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You own it, Ken. You own it.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know better than to make that stereo type KV. When I first arrived here the town was far more conservative and we had zero gang problems. ZERO. C'mon, the current slide into being amenable to creating home grown gangs is due to many factors that transcend nutty but easy political arguments. That is why I am for both social programs to help the percentage of kids that may benefit and then to arrest the rest of the recidivist garbage that act like sociopaths. If they are under age arrest their parents as well for breeding the problem.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Air dropping condoms would be a good start.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And we agree yet again...But of course to honor the Catholic Church the condoms would need to have holes in them so that conception was still possible; otherwise we'd piss off God...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If gang injunctions were so effective, we would have paradise in the LA ghettos. Actually get tough laws and injunctions like this make these people become more organized and care less when it comes to being penalized. Yes, we have to do something, but in this case we either have the option of investing in these kids or investing in prisons. Our bets have always been for prisons, and that is why there is no more room.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"When I first arrived here the town was far more conservative and we had zero gang problems. ZERO."
-- italiansurg

Unless you moved here with Junípero Serra, that is complete and utter BS.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry sezme but we had a normal council that worried more about sidewalks and streets and not social justice bs.
sure az-invest in kids and don't punish the hell out of losers, great idea. and yea, the great society has spent billions and amazingly we still have problems, how much money is enough and who says to not do some social programs?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've lived in SB since 1986 and SezMe has it over italiansurg -- there were plenty of gang issues back then. I haven't decided yet on invoking the gang injunction, at one time it seemed like it would help...
Italiansurg and I agree when s/he writes "I am for both social programs to help the percentage of kids that may benefit" and I'd include Los Prietos Boys Club up there as one. But what principles guide you in deciding which kids are "recidivist"??

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How do you invest in kids? Turn more of our tax dollars over to the teachers unions? Isn't 50% enough. Millions in this town for both public and charitable social support systems already. Has this been a good investment in our kids so far? Nope.

C'mon. What exactly to you mean when you say we "need to invest in our kids". Teaching kids as early as possible choices have consequences is investing in our kids, ourselves and our future.

Feel-gooders need to accept the dark side exists just as easily as their sunny-side. Only discipline and consequences and peer pressure keeps human nature in check.

Montessori-type parents who bred decades of progressive lawlessness and need to understand their way does not work. Being permissive about gang members is just one more detour we can no longer afford to take.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I got here a little before you DD, maybe despite speaking spanish and working with a lot of the poor population I was just too blind to see the gang activity you speak of. It did not exist.
Oh I don't know which kids... perhaps the kids that do not join a criminal enterprise and end with multiple convictions...hows that for a start?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We're all forgetting that SB doesn't exist in some geographically vacumn and is subject to the same economic and social forces as the rest of the country; all of which have an impact on crime rates..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is not an either/or question. You need both: diversion programs and gang injunctions. We have the diversion programs; now we add the injunction. This will work.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poverty breeds less crime than envy. Ken, you are wrong again reducing to such simple absolutes. Crime first and foremost are poor choices.

Swift consequences teaches more about making better choices than the opportunity to sing harmony in a jazz choir. How many gang "task forces" have we convened?

How much money down a rat hole hiring "gang specialists"? How many months before that last Ivy League trained "expert" crashed and burned and even tried to sue the city on his way out as I recall?

The one thing not tried is the injunction and the threat of it (aka swift consequences) seems to be working already. Go for it!

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Follow the money, bitches.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Santa Barbara exists as some magic fairyland completely uneffected by the outside world?
K.......

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you might be projecting when you say "envy" is a motivating factor in most crimes.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I can tell you is that the approach we have been using doesn't work. There are way more knuckleheads and not enough prisons, but some of them are temporary knuckleheads and they can be changed.Put it to you this way, you can start shooting people in the streets tomorrow and all you would have is a war, not the answer.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A big factor is children being raised to think that adults behave like "knuckleheads".
Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is confined to a single ethnic group or even an economic one. In the end it is a question of values and Oblati was correct to identify "envy" as a factor, errs in identifying that as the raison d'etre.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting that the Catholic Church is being mentioned. Funny how many progressives support Planned Parenthood yet wouldn't dare connect the anti-birth control policy of the Catholic Church with the gang problem for fear of violating the laws of Political Correctness.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm no longer vilified as a Progressive?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only reason race even gets mentioned is because our particular gang bangers are almost 100% Latino and we are in the heartland of the pro illegal alien lobby, which on the left coast happen to be overwhelmingly Latino. If we were in Boston with the Irish lowlifes this would not be an issue because we would be focused on crime instead of some perceived societal reason for having oppressed a particular ethnic group; and the Italians, Irish, Chinese etc. were all horribly stereo typed.
AZ-That is why nobody wants to use enforcement without social programs and the great society solutions, more money without metrics for success, have been an abject failure. This country had better stop spending money on the good intentions (or otherwise) of philosophical ideologues because the policy has been a failure and the experiment is now over 40 years old.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 5:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, well lets take it back before those 40 years you were talking about, was the problem of gangs non-existent? Did busting heads help more? What I see according to history is that it made harder criminals, not erradicate them. Hell look at the story of Les Miserables, the unfairness of French justice is one of the main reasons for the revolution, and they had zero tolerance for crime.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Les Miserables? French Justice? Huh?
Please propose something that can be measured. Jailing gang members can be measured in the number of crap heads that are no longer terrorizing people. All the while having programs to steer good kids to good activities.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We can have both: a gang injunction and diversionary programs. Both have their place and work well together. Carrot and stick. We need both, and shall have both.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@italiansurg: " If we were in Boston with the Irish lowlifes this would not be an issue because we would be focused on crime instead of some perceived societal reason for having oppressed a particular ethnic group; and the Italians, Irish, Chinese etc. were all horribly stereo typed."

That's totally incorrect. The racism and economic suppression against those specific racial groups, along with the ghettoization of ethnic minorities in major urban areas, ABSOLUTELY contributed to the rise of a organized criminal element within those ethnic minorities. Until those in Santa Barbara stop viewing the Latino population as a permanent service class, we'll continue to have problems with gangs.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both the Latino and the student population are regarded as servant.. err I mean service classes in SB.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Until those in Santa Barbara stop viewing the Latino population as a permanent service class, we'll continue to have problems with gangs.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 9:13 a.m.

We're on the same page on this.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most Latinos who on arrival may have worked in the service sector are up and out of the service class in one generation. Most are business entrepreneurs, they saved to buy a house and their kids go to college. Not sure I know what Santa Barbara you are talking about.

I worry more about the yachts, vagrants and permanent slacker class in this town and they are primarily Anglo. Not sure gang activity is multi-generational either. I suggest people like Eat the Rich and Volok get out a bit more and honor the diversity found in our of our diversity.

Gangs, druggies and criminals cross all lines here and they get targeted for their poor choices, not their gene pool.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Make that yoaches, not yachts - slackers can't own yachts. Too much work and preventive maintenance. Slackers no can do.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rich motherslackers can own yachts.
Slackers aren't an economic class, its a cultural/generational class as well as a brilliant movie by Richard Linklater.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Italiansurg before living on Westside since 1986, I also lived on the West Ortega St area (400 block) in 1983 and there was plenty of gang crud then. Guess you weren't there.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2012 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea, I was there. OK, and so this entire chain of comments stays somewhat centered on reality, of course there were gang affiliations back in the late 70's, albeit there were more Caucasians involved then. There was, however, no gang warfare on the streets, open and public stabbings, or even a hint that these activities would be tolerated.
Wow ETR-you did not address my point; the ethnicity of the perpetrators was irrelevant to the application of the law, except here AND now where if we enforce the law and the perp's happen to be nearly 100% of a single ethnic background the rules change.
Perhaps if the Latino culture valued education like the Chinese there would be no room to be treated like a permanent underclass?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 4:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, there was nothing serious happening back in those days. Oh, wait check out this article first and see if anything sounds familiar: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid...

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@italiansurg: "Wow ETR-you did not address my point; the ethnicity of the perpetrators was irrelevant to the application of the law, except here AND now where if we enforce the law and the perp's happen to be nearly 100% of a single ethnic background the rules change. "

I addressed it fine. If you think the law is applied equally across all ethnicities, and that it's simply a matter of certain perps being 100% of a certain minority, then I have a bridge to sell you. You only need to look at the application of drug laws to see that your assertion is total B.S.

@italiansurg: "Perhaps if the Latino culture valued education like the Chinese there would be no room to be treated like a permanent underclass?"

If you are suggesting that Chinese immigrants have not had similar problems with criminal elements within their various communities during periods of active social and economic discrimination, then you simply do not know what you are talking about. The problem is the discriminatory policies, not which ethnic minority is better at 'pulling themselves up by their bootstraps'.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

go ETR!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1960 - 85% of population was Anglo. Minorities made up only 15% of the US population - primarily African-Americans back then. Sheer numbers of demographics made "gang" activity small and confined in the 1960's.

The Latino culture was historic and landed in the 1960's: not the underground and unwieldy illegal culture that it later became. We had seasonal agricultural "guest workers" in those days, remember? Today and in the come years Latinos alone will be 30% of the entire US population. You can't fight birth rates when it comes to future demographic projections.

Therefore Latino culture will define the US of the future, the same way Anglo culture was its dominant culture in the 1960's. There was nothing racist about Anglo culture in the 1960's - it was by far the overwhelming culture by sheer numbers. Of course the fact most Latinos and other immigrant groups today came to the US to take advantage of what the Anglo culture had built in this country is another topic for discussion.

The question is really whether the gang culture is growing in the US or are there the same proportional numbers as always, but because sheer demographic increases in the Latino population makes this minority gang culture appear more prevalent. One gang death a year in 1960 now becomes 10 gang deaths a year by sheer demographic increases.

If you look closely in this town you find almost all mid-level public employment positions both in government and corporate organizations now filled by Latino origin workers - making good middle class salaries and not complaining it is "too expensive to live in Santa Barbara" - a dual income public employment job like with the county of SB brings in $200,000 a year with lifetime benefits.

Too bad those Anglo slackers who rail against greedy corporations and banisters and claim they can't afford to live here and want to "eat the rich" to compensate for their own failures, did not take these cushy $100,000 a year jobs Latinos were smart enough to grab and now not let go of until fully vested in their equally cushy retirement pensions.

Gangs are a small, deadly part of the Latino culture. They do not belong in the US and particularly not in Santa Barbara which boasts high levels of economic success for the first wave of immigrants and especially for their children who came and picked up the gold left lying on the streets the local Anglo kids refused to stoop down and pick up.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

interesting, Oblati. don't you mean barristers, not banisters? I agree with you on the smart hard-working not-complaining Latinos who have gotten good jobs here, I work with many of them and enjoy it. Not so sure when you write "Therefore Latino culture will define the US of the future", that's not entirely true... And you get back on your hobby horse with "their equally cushy retirement pensions" Jealousy?
Defined benefits pensions now comprise just 15% of all pensions, and the move toward putting workers on 401(k) type annuities (whatever) is winning. You should be pleased.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr Dan, Darn spell check substituted bannisters for "banksters". Yes, I am pleased public pensions are moving to defined-contribution plans. Not jealous; proud to have done just fine on an IRA's myself. And happy present tax dollars will increasingly get used for present services instead of being cannibalized for past performance.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course the interesting numbers about defined-benefit plans in your 15% number, is what percentage of that 15% total go to public-union employees.

99% of remaining defined-benefit plans go to public-union employees? Just guessing. Perhaps your ready data bank on this topic can further enlighten us, Dan?

We already know much of the current job creation has come in the public sector - part of wealth redistribution and not part of true economic growth. Something also go guard against when trotting out statistics.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From CNNMoney:

"Traditional pensions (defined-benefit plans) are still offered by about 90% of state and local governments. How come? Simple: It's hard for a politician to get elected, or re-elected, on a platform that vows to take away the traditional pension gravy train.

That said, given the budget challenges in many states, many public-sector pension plans do not have enough money set aside to cover all the future payouts promised to current workers.

That doesn't bode well for taxpayers in those states; short of a miraculous stock market rally that pushes all the plans into overfunded status, at some point the government is going to have to find the money to pay the retirees.

And that probably will require higher taxes."

From CNNMoney: 10% of private company pensions remain defined benefit plans. 80% of all public employee plans remain defined-benefit plans)

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What ETR said (which is what I've been saying) about Latinos being viewed as a service class, strikes at the root of the problem. How can Latinos in this country view education the way the Chinese do when the parents are treated as though they cannot assimilate? When the kids see this, of course the low self esteem will become a factor.

The gang issue is an elliptical discussion which like the drug problem, or the random shootings problem, is met with the cry for yet more laws, as opposed to asking ourselves why this is a problem.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And yet, despite not having social programs nor making "victims" out of criminals, the Irish, Italians, and Asians in general got the point. Hell, we even imprisoned our own citizens of Japanese descent, stole their property, and they excelled

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is viewing Latinos as a permanent service class?

Certainly not the immigrant home-owning, business entrepreneur Latino parents, nor their college bound kids, nor the Latino middle-management one now sees in almost every local government sector, as well as most banks, health care and other private business opportunities.

If it was not for tenure preserving most teaching positions for long-standing Anglos we would see a lot more Latino faces in education as well. Clausen, I think your image is as dated as other people's demographics.

Gangs are only one part of the Latino culture which by trouble caused appear to be a large part, but in fact are only a narrow but troubling part. Latino neighborhoods are more impacted by gangs than other ones. No one wants gangs in their midst. Particularly those who live among them, by choice or design.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry Oblati but your last post was pretty much a pretzel.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So tell us Oblati, are you a politician or have political aspirations? You write in that roundabout way.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Volok, Stop looking at gangs as a racial matter: they are a criminal matter.

Gangs serve only to celebrate violence, from initiation to membership ritual and don't belong here, or anywhere. Injunctions are an important tool that limits gang violence.

The threat of a gang injunction threat is already working. Get these criminal punks off our streets and out of our neighborhoods.

Why Democrats favor enabling more crime in our most vulnerable neighborhoods is theirs to answer.

Gangs aren't good for punks and gangs aren't good for society. Gangs are good for nothing; except apparently some misguided Democratic Party social agenda.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati,
If you'd been paying attention you would have noticed I was the first in this thread to point out that "gangs" cross all economic, ethnic/racial and soceo-cultural strata.
The NRA could be legitimately classified as a gang given the amount of blood on their hands.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Who is viewing Latinos as a permanent service class? "

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2012 at 6:56 p.m.

Answer: The politicians and their supporters who insist that without the unlimited flow of illegal, cheap, immigrant labor our economy would fall apart. Many of these people also decry the poverty among the Latino demographic while failing to see that their support of cheap labor is what causes this poverty.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wages are being driven into the ground across the board, and as a result people subconsciously take less pride in their work as well.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 1:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cheap first generation labor has long fueled the US and every other country's economy, no matter what its ethnic origin. That is a statement of fact. Look at the Turks in Germany, the disapora of Eastern Europeans, and Indians across the globe. The middle east is rife with first generation immigrant cheap labor. Being a border state our first wave of cheap labor just happened to be Latino.

It is the second generation of that initial immigrant labor force that is the interesting national assimilation story. Gang violence belongs no where in this economic transition scenario in any country.

Keep the topic separate and don't justify its organized and intentional culture of violence with any ethnic group or socio-economic status, temporary or not. Intentional and ritual violence celebrated by gangs belongs no where in any expression of human society.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I checked you get "jumped into" the NRA by paying $35 membership fee. The NRA is devoted to two primary issues: safe and responsible gun use and protection of the legal expression of the 2nd amendment.

You get "jumped into" gangs by committing accelerating acts of violence, which are the coin of the realm of continued gang membership.

Volok, if you see these as similar that is your choice. But making gang member also members of the NRA might teach them how to use firearms responsibly, instead of criminally. Do ya think?

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When wages are "driven into the ground" people stop taking those jobs and the market has to respond appropriately. "Living wage" demands depress the far market more than competition from immigrant labor because they price themselves out of it and then there are no jobs for anyone. Businesses fail and move elsewhere. History is ripe with examples.

Most immigrants take immense pride in their work and craftsmanship because this is in their character; not because it is in their pocket-books. Immigrants, legal and illegal, come for better opportunities and make the most of them or best of all create opportunities finding a need and filling it. First wave need is often in the service sector. Always has been.

Home grown (groan?) slackers with entitlement demands on the other hand who only work for money and not pride in accomplishment, only complain their "morale" suffers if they don't get X numbers of dollars regardless of the quality of their output. No wonder employers like immigrant labor.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Irish and the Italians didn't have gangs? Have you ever heard of the mafia? Then there was the Ting Wars, Chinese immigrants own gang warfare. Don't bother cherry picking history as long as I'm around, I'll embarass you each time.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who said these prior first wave immigration gangs did not exist? Who said many such as the Italian mafia are not still operating today? Who doesn't want to throw the book at their their illegal and violent conduct? Who forgets the Zoot Suit riots in LA?

Point is, Volok: gangs cross all racial/ethnic lines and need to be stopped wherever and whenever by what ever legal means available. No gangs, no matter what their ethnic/racial affiliation belong in Santa Barbara.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Get rid of gangs? Might as well end the human race. We have always rolled in gangs, it just that some are bigger and better armed than others.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do what is legally appropriate that limits the violence perpetrated by gangs. Everyone has a right to a safe community within community standards. Gangs have no place in Santa Barbara.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with Oblati. I have no f*ck*en clue what the gang injunction does, who it will affect, or how it will be conducted, but I do know that it makes me feel better because I can somehow believe that the city government is doing something, anything.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Believe the city is operating within sound legal guidelines first, and then start believe they are doing something, anything. The injunction is one of many tools within the city's legal authority to secure the safety of all its residents.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Define gang. I'll start, Chase Manhattan Bank.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gangs: dedicated to physical violence, intimidation, and illegal activity as a pre-requisite to membership - getting "jumped in" and the basis of its ongoing-culture of violence, intimidation and illegal activity once inside.

Murder gets you a tattoo tear drop and is considered the ultimate sign of successful gang membership.

Go ahead and be cute about your "banksters", Volok. We get your point. But better yet, sit in during a trial of gang members when they testify under oath about their culture, their lives and their choices. And what awaits violating the gang code of silence. Watch their "ladies" act as messengers to identify who squealed in court and then what happens to their friends and family.

Then explain why the Democrat Party wants these people under their tent and their protection. Do they honestly think this will ensure them the "latino" vote, just their support of legalizing pot is their ticket to get the youth vote? What kind of country do they want us to be?

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Cheap first generation labor has long fueled the US and every other country's economy, no matter what its ethnic origin. " Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

Is this the case in Japan and Iceland? Also, I remember listening to Lee Kwan Yew (former president of Singapore) on the Charlie Rose show about three years ago emphasizing the need for *skilled* (his emphasis) immigration to his country.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Oblati: Your implicit question, “Then explain why the Democrat Party wants these people under their tent and their protection.” is answered in the subject article:

“The vote came at the instigation of Latino rights activists affiliated with the new organization PODER, who argued the injunction wasn’t warranted by existing crime rates and that the money spent on the injunction would be more effectively spent on prevention programs instead. Likewise, the group — a coalition of students affiliated with City College, UCSB, and Santa Barbara High School — argued the injunction would have a negative impact on property values in affected neighborhoods and further stigmatize Latino youth. “Let’s spend money on programs that help kids, not label them,” argued Cesar Trujillo.””

The “democrats” don’t want the gangs “under their tent” or in their city any more than you do. The ‘logic’ you are using is circular and counter-productive: essentially you believe, but haven’t proved, that an injunction is the best tool against gangs. Similarly PODER and others think, but haven’t proved, that the best tool to use against gangs is prevention programs. You share a vision of a SB without gangs and you are both are willing to spend money and energy to accomplish that. You just don’t agree on the best strategy or tactic to employ. But accusing people who disagree with you of coddling criminals is no more productive to your common cause than it would be for them to dismiss you as a right-wing wacko.

I can’t prove it, but I believe that the best way to get rid of gangs is to encourage and strengthen the law-abiding parts of our community, starting by finding middle ground and building on that.

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kids are not gang members. Gang members are gang members. Property values go up when gangs get out.

Iceland was populated by Vikings who raped, robbed and pillaged to settle there and drag women by their hair to settle this forbidding land. Read your Icelandic Sagas please. So the Viking. had a "cheap service" class to when immigrating to these new shores.

Cheap geo-thermal energy today sets Iceland's need for "cheap labor" to fuel its economic growth into a unique category. However, first generation fiscal mismanagement of that geographical advantage did turn this country into economic free fall making them slaves to economic realities after all.

Gang injunctions are just one tool in the war against gangs. They don't have to prove their are the exclusive answer any more than the obviously failed history of only "social intervention" needs to be wiped out once gang injunctions are added to the armamentaria against this social scourge.

Put those PODER kids who think differently on the front lines and out of city hall it they want to make a difference. And have them all write essays on why gang violence is a good thing.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with hodgmo, that is the right approach. Not everyone in these neighborhoods are in agreence what is going on, but have no support from the rest of the city. And Oblati- The hardcores give a damn about injunctions or RICO's or SHO's or anything else you can dream up in a court of law.The hardcores also are not scared of 23-1 lockup in SHU.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are gang injunctions effective? Yes.

"Effectiveness

In March 2011, a study entitled the "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Gang Injunctions in California" was published in the Journal of Criminal Justice Research (JCJR).

The purpose of the study was to determine whether gang injunctions reduce crime, when compared to baseline and matched control areas. Twenty-Five (25) gang injunctions from four California counties were evaluated by extracting crime data from court records and police agencies.

The control areas (communities with a similar gang problem, but no gang injunctions) were matched for similar gang ethnicity, gang size, proximity, and gang activity. Criminological deterrence, association, environmental, and economic theories served as theoretical foundations for the study.

Calls for service were evaluated for one year, pre-injunction, and one year, post-injunction, using paired t-tests which revealed that gang injunctions reduce crime. Calls for service were significantly reduced compared to baseline and compared to matched controls.

It was found that Part 1 (violent crime) calls decreased 11.6% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 0.8%, a net benefit of 12.4%.

Part 2 (less serious) calls decreased 15.9% compared to baseline, while controls averaged a mild increase of 1.6%, a net benefit of 17.5%.

Total calls for service decreased 14.1% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 2.3%, a net benefit of 16.4%.

This study confirmed that gang injunctions can be a very beneficial tool if used and implemented correctly and that they can have a corresponding impact on reducing gang crime in the communities they are implemented.[2]"

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iceland was populated by Vikings who raped, robbed and pillaged to settle there and drag women by their hair to settle this forbidding land. Read your Icelandic Sagas please. So the Viking. had a "cheap service" class to when immigrating to these new shores. -Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.-

Obati, I thought you were saying that cheap labor was still neccessary to sustain national economies. Maybe I misunderstood. Either way, Japan, Iceland, and perhaps other countries do well without exploiting people via cheap labor, and certainly Iceland has evolved tremendously in the area of gender equality.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Canada seems pretty chill.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you read the Icelandic Sagas you find the "wives" (sex slaves of the Viking marauders) often murdered their husbands in their beds. And thus a country celebrating gender equality was eventually born.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This video states my position perfectly, watch it in it's entirety before you comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTXLvC...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)


If you read the Icelandic Sagas you find the "wives" (sex slaves of the Viking marauders) often murdered their husbands in their beds. And thus a country celebrating gender equality was eventually born.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.

Meanwhile back in Santa Barbara...

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 3:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like Oblati indicated here, all gang injunctions are the same so we might as well comment here based on nothing specific about the devolved version that would affect few people and rather innocuously and toothlessly at that in downtown Santa Barbara, if it ever is paid for and enacted at all.

Besides, as long as 20 people remain on the injunction list in the real world, the million dollars spent by the city will be worth it, as Oblati and friends are convinced.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We are perfectly capable of doing both: (1) continuing diversion programs and (2) instituting gang injunctions. Synergy.

Plan (1) alone has not worked. Threatening Plan (2) seems to be getting traction and will further solidify this nascent benefit when fully implemented.

Folks, we have a gang problem in this town and it behooves all of us to throw everything we can at it and not let some small, but noisy, special interest group politicize, exploit and drive class warfare issues into something that is clearly inexcusable violent and criminal activity.

Shame on the Daraka-Dems for degrading this troubling matter we all have to deal with into a political and polarizing side-show.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And Oblati just verified my point. He does not know squat about what the wannabe injunction really involves or will involve if a court of law ever approves one here. He then jabs innuendo about a boogeyman "special interest group"

He also conveniently ignores the facts reported in the news article regarding the declining crime rates.

Bonus goneapechitness/fiscalwrecklessness: "throw everything we can at it"

Follow the money.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"it behooves all of us to throw everything we can at it"

I've got an old shoe...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are gang injunctions effective? Yes.

"Effectiveness

In March 2011, a study entitled the "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Gang Injunctions in California" was published in the Journal of Criminal Justice Research (JCJR).

The purpose of the study was to determine whether gang injunctions reduce crime, when compared to baseline and matched control areas. Twenty-Five (25) gang injunctions from four California counties were evaluated by extracting crime data from court records and police agencies.

The control areas (communities with a similar gang problem, but no gang injunctions) were matched for similar gang ethnicity, gang size, proximity, and gang activity. Criminological deterrence, association, environmental, and economic theories served as theoretical foundations for the study.

Calls for service were evaluated for one year, pre-injunction, and one year, post-injunction, using paired t-tests which revealed that gang injunctions reduce crime. Calls for service were significantly reduced compared to baseline and compared to matched controls.

It was found that Part 1 (violent crime) calls decreased 11.6% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 0.8%, a net benefit of 12.4%.

Part 2 (less serious) calls decreased 15.9% compared to baseline, while controls averaged a mild increase of 1.6%, a net benefit of 17.5%.

Total calls for service decreased 14.1% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 2.3%, a net benefit of 16.4%.

This study confirmed that gang injunctions can be a very beneficial tool if used and implemented correctly and that they can have a corresponding impact on reducing gang crime in the communities they are implemented.[2]"

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we're at the point at which we're basically copying and pasting previous comments.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vikings aside, Oblati is quoting quoting part of the abstract of a 2007 graduate dissertation submitted to Walden University,

http://gradworks.umi.com/32/83/328346....

A more in-depth study, “Can Civil Gang Injunctions Change Communities? A Community Assessment of the Impact of Civil Gang Injunctions,” published by The US Dept of Justice in 2005, is available at

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/g....

This work is interesting because it monitored the injunction and neighboring areas. The conclusions reported a “modest” improvement in the injunction area, but deterioration in neighboring areas. This suggests an injunction in certain SB neighborhoods could pose problems for other nearby areas, eg, Goleta. Interestingly, the report recommends coupling injunctions with complementary programs such as those that offering skill-development and other resources to targeted gang members.

I agree with KV. No point in tossing around more old shoes in this thread. Time to point my long boat at ravaging dinner!

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we're at the point at which we're basically copying and pasting previous comments.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 5:04 p.m.
Not me.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not me.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 7:55 p.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Repetition is the key to learning. I'll take my alleged "2007" published in 2011 study over your 2005 study. The trend is obvious: gang injunctions work.

Plus since we are surrounded by mountains and ocean, a gang injunction moving gangs out of the area and into new territory sounds like a good business plan.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where do you get these pompous lines, O? Repetition is certainly important to learning, it isn't the "key"...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Repetition IS they key to learning.

It is elementary: http://www.kbyutv.org/kidsandfamily/r...

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"hodgmo" nailed it; "Oblati's" study is a graduate dissertation first published in 2007, and reprinted unchanged in The Journal of Criminal Justice Research in 2011:

:: "Effectiveness of gang injunctions in California: A multicounty 25-year study
-- by O'Deane, Matthew David, Ph.D., Walden University, 2007, 598 pages;
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=30...

I remember in the Prop 30 comments left by "Oblati" he often played fast and loose with his attributions and was very liberal with his interpretation of easily found facts. And never provides links to his online findings.

leopard ∧ Δspots

binky (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati liberal? Never would've guessed.....
While any Graduate Dissertation is commendable, they are far from infallible.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2012 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblata doesn't seem like a liberal.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant to say "Oblati". Oblati, Oblata, life goes on.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oblati, learning is a complex and wonderful phenomenon, and Memory (Mnemosyne), the mother of the 9 Muses, is critical in "learning". Repetition and drill do help with learning since they help memory, as I said, O, but it is at best one of several "keys". Oh yes, your link doesn't work, but it sends me to Utah and a blocked BYU site.
You play fast and loose with facts, your diatribes are endless. O, enjoy paying your extra Prop 30 taxes to support public school students. Yes, and their teachers modest salaries.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 5:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Instead of a student dissertation from five years ago, perhaps the "facts" should be what the local wannabe gang injunction actually includes in its actual text?

Those facts remain stubborn thangs.

Maybe the Independent should report on that?

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When the gang injunction protesters trot out misinterpreted study findings from 2005, they too will benefit from reading the 2007 study as well as the actual text of the 2005 study - both conclude gang injunctions work.

We have ample proof not having gang injunctions do not work as well. Gang injunctions are but one tool in fighting this problem in our city. Carry on.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And with that, we all can conclude that Oblati has not read a single word of the real gang injunction for Santa Barbara as it currently is written in 2012.

Carry on, indeed.

And follow the money, Independent.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what kind of grade this groundbreaking piece of academia received. In another thread you'll see where Oblati wants teachers' pay and benefits cut, perhaps the ones that gave that paper a bad grade?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://magicinsantabarbara.wordpress....

The Bellwether of how “JUST” a people are is how well they care for their women. How well they care for their children, their elderly, their poor and needy. Is in fact how healthy their society is. Well going through some of my research this morning I found that antidote written down on a piece of paper. I wish who ever had given that to me had signed it. Some times I think many in our society whose responsibility it is to be “JUST” have failed to act within the guidelines of their duties.

Just, adjective;

1. Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. Done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. In keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.

Are you all aware of the recent turn of events in regards the need and or want of a “Gang Injunction” here in Santa Barbara? Here is a recent Santa Barbara Independent headline;
“S.B. Dems Oppose Gang Injunction

Crime Stats Show Gang Activity Dropped This Year”
A link and the entire story can be found at the end of this posting. I just wish people could be honest about the whole Gang Injunction situation. Because truth be told the Santa Barbara Independent has released crime data since 2009 that has shown a Gang Injunction could never be justified by those numbers. In fact the only reason Gang Injunction talk came about was to save Santa Barbara police chief Cam Sanchez’s job. I feel he still needs to be FIRED because he lacks any integrity and has no true leadership skills and that’s just for starters.

I have included some of my past postings where I challenged the exploitation of truly sad and unnecessary deaths for political power. Further on you will find some real “Gang Crime Data” all the way back to 2005. The Democratic Central Committee has to play politics not me, but ok we don’t need a Gang Injunction because of 2012 crime data (wink wink).

pazzingtime (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In closing a few weeks back I went for a ride first on the Eastside, then the Westside and finally the mesa and not only did I not see a “Gang Member” I never saw no youth out. Now my ride was taken on a Saturday evening after 8:30 pm, oh and I did end up having a beer on State street with some of the finer representatives of Santa Barbara law enforcement.( I mean that from the heart)

A public comment on the Gang Injunction;
http://www.independent.com/news/2012/...
The gang injunction was/is racist in motivation. This community like most has the ability to scapegoat without reflection. We do have systemic racial problems resulting phobic reactions. We elected council members, like Randy Rowse who while addressing another mesa gang, of really an all anglo crowd before him, praised them and actually flashed a 3-fingers down gang sign while saying "Go Mesa!" The flashing of Rowses peoples gang sign was not just an insensitivity but a provocation that no one seems to care about because they are part of the problem. Otherwise we should have been aghast. We've got a major malfunction going on here. The problem starts with our chamber of commerce type club members who use people, chews them up and then spits them out when they find they are of little use to them.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2012 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My challenge on crime states used found in the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s presentation to the Board of Supervisors
http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorru...

Do the Crime Stats Justify the need for the Injunction? Gang Injunction Further Moth-Balled Judge Takes Trial Date off Calendar

When you read numbers given out about "Gang Issues/Crime” here in Santa Barbara more often than not a high percentage number is used rather than factual numbers. For example in last years 14 page District Attorney's budget flyer (attached to this email) it immediately starts out on pg 3 under "highlights key trends", with the statistic that Gang crime is up by 1422% over the last ten years. In order to get some type of perspective on the raise in "Gang Crime" I looked at the right hand side of Page 3 and saw that the S.B.D.A.'s office handled a total of 14,633 felony cases in 1 year. Then I went to page 5 and saw were the D.A.'s office shows only 274 cases were classified as "Gang", or in other words 0.0187 of 1% percent was "Gang related". Now lets break that down even further and ask how many of the 274 case were from the City of Santa Barbara and what portion of those cases came from Santa Maria and Lompoc . Let’s see 1422% vs. .0187 of 1 percent, 1422% does not seem to really reflect anything does it.

Santa Barbara District attorney's budget and gang crime data

pazzingtime (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crime data found in a 2009 Independent story that covers all the way back to 2005
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/...
Clouds Gathering Over Police Chief

Budget Showdown, Mayoral Face-Off Confront Cam Sanchez

Thursday, April 23, 2009

by NICK WELSH (CONTACT)

Santa Barbara Citywide Crime Stats

1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
HOMICIDE
7
6
6
3
0
3
RAPE
24
26
33
38
34
26
ROBBERY
75
132
107
58
76
117
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT*
139
467
436
371
399
347
AUTO THEFT
225
350
247
122
207
114
LARCENY/THEFT
1,740
3,052
2,614
1,953
2,125
1,912
ARSON
19
8
18
14
43
32

Gang-Related Offenses

2005
2006
2007
MURDER
0
0
2
ATTEMPTED MURDER
1
0
0
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
16
25
26
BRANDISHING
1
3
4
ROBBERY
5
3
6
BURGLARY
3
5
1
VANDALISM
30
37
37

BATTERY

5
12
13

KNIFE IN PUBLIC

3
7
8

TOTAL GANG RELATED OFFENSES

102
163
177

TOTAL CITYWIDE NUMBER OF OFFENSES

26,137
24,346
23,002

PERCENTAGE OF CRIME GANG-RELATED

00.39%
00.70%
00.77%

pazzingtime (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And how much of these statistics are "gangmembers" from outside the area lured in by tourist trap bars ect?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't get rid of gangs, you prove you don't care for children because gangs prey on children as fodder for their sustained criminal network.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is someone trying to justify gang crime when a tool as easy as an injunction can get rid of a lot of it? The biggest crimes in this town are vagrants, domestic violence, drugs and alcohol.

But that does not mean gang activity that hold whole neighborhoods in terror does not count. Gang injunctions are just one tool police need at their disposal. Get moving on them.

One cigarette may not pollute a planet but banning smoking in public places benefits everyone.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeez talk about a nanny.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions are pretty simple. You identify objectively known bad actors and make them personas non grata in your community for others to associate with. Done. Starve them into going someplace else, if they choose to continue their life of crime. Otherwise, good conduct lets them live ordinary lives. Their call.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Nanny Oblati, your fantasies of Santa Barbara being a magical kingdom from which people can be banished is pure fantasy.
As for associations, again you have no right to decide who can associate freely with one another.
I think you might be in the wrong country.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gang injunctions are pretty simple and constitutionally protected. People get to make choices about being involved in criminal activity an associations or not. Beats going to jail later. Choice is cool. Breeds responsibility. Responsibility is cool too.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I deem the Taxpayer's Association a gang and forbid them from communicating with each other. They've done just as much damage as any street gang.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"pazzingtime."

274 of 14,733 crimes is 1.87%, not...

- - - "0.0187 of 1% percent [was "Gang related"]."

... as you state above.

Your general points may be valid, but you must know that you are comparing county-wide stats from the DA's report with city police stats from Welsh's article.

binky (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Won't somebody make a Nazi reference and kill this thread?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hit...Hit...HHHH..Hitl...Adol....No, I just can't do it.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It may be premature to call Springtime for Hilter since Volok still needs to meditate on the difference between moral relativity, moral certainty and moral absolutes.

Oblati (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now you're scaring me Oblati. A few hours before I read this I was actually considering posting the "springtime" video (The Nathan Lane version) with "Heil Myself". Stop reading my mind.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While others grapple with common sense.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dirty Knobs

The Dirty Knobs and The Coffis Brothers & The Mountain ... Read More