Police sit down with gang leaders "over snacks and beverages"-- this made my skin crawl

Actually, the part that made my skin crawl is not in this article . . . on the TV news the last thing they said was "the gang leaders are planning their own news conference on Thursday."

WTF?


===
Cop brass sit down with gang leaders, deliver warning

August 28, 2010 5:15 PM

| 24 Comments



| UPDATED STORY


Chicago police and other law enforcement agencies have embarked on a pilot effort to stem the gang-related violence rattling through city
neighborhoods by applying direct pressure on top gang leaders, officials
said today.

Earlier this month, police Supt. Jody Weis and federal prosecutors secretly met with a group of West Side gang leaders at the Garfield Park Conservatory, informing them over snacks and beverages that they would be held directly accountable for
shootings and other violent crimes committed by their gangs.



If a crime gets traced back to a member of a particular gang, Weis said during a Saturday press conference, investigators will "come down with every bit of firepower we
have, every prosecutive trick we know."

Investigators tried to make it "a very congenial meeting" with the gang leaders, who were mainly from the Traveling Vice Lords, Weis said. But "they got up and walked out."

Before that happened, he said, federal prosecutors told the gang members that they will use federal racketeering statutes to go after houses and other assets owned by them, other members or their families.

Parolees could also be checked for violations; cars could be towed if there are outstanding violations; and law enforcement agencies in general will keep a close eye on the gang leaders, police said.

"They did not like the idea at all, because they realized something one of their colleagues may do could lead to a lot of pressure on them," Weis said. "That's what we tried to emphasize: This is group
responsibility, group accountability. So you're a leader, you'd better
influence your guys to behave."

Weis, who appeared with Mayor Richard Daley at a Saturday back-to-school rally in Pilsen, said investigators asked several gang leaders to meet them "and some of them did."

He insisted the meeting did not constitute an effort to negotiate with street gangs.

"It's not like 'If you don't kill someone we'll give you a pass to your drug-dealing activities,'" Weis said. The program is modeled on initiatives that have had success in Boston and other cities, he said.

People whose family members were killed because of gang violence also attended, to urge the gangs to stop the shootings.

Daley said giving the criminals the victims' perspective is important, because gang members live in the neighborhoods where shootings occur.

"It's the idea that you have to show from the victims' side, that's what they were showing," Daley said. "It's the families who come up and say 'That's my son or daughter. Remember? They lived down the block. You
know our families. You know our children.'"

--John Byrne and Liam Ford



Views: 81

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 1, 2010 at 3:46am
Quit talking about our aldermen like that.

Shay said:
It makes me enraged to know that our city is being terrorized by a bunch of uneducated, violent thugs.

/div>
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 1, 2010 at 3:49am
I can't disagree with any of that and I think most of the problems with the RICO act are stuff that was added on, or am I incorrect there?

My only thing is that be it the RICO act or some other form of legal wrangling they need to find away to make the actions of the kids on the street carry consequences for the people who run the show because until that happens nothing is going to get solved. We can take a million 'foot soldiers' off the street but there are going to be a million more ready, willing and EAGER to replace them stepping into those same positions; as with any war we need to go for the 'generals.'

Michael Perz said:
DUG, one of the major problems I have with the RICO act is that it, like most well-meaning legislation tends to, has been broadened far beyond its original intent. The state has the power to seize property of just about anyone deemed to be associated with active gang members. Since street gangs are mostly bred from poverty, I don't think the solution to the gang problem is to create even more poverty regardless of any alleged "deterrent" result such actions may have. My moral opposition to it stems from the fact that the state should have absolutely no power to dictate which associations I choose to make, nor should they be able to use me as an instrument of coercion to achieve a desired result if my only guilt is said association and nothing else.
Permalink Reply by Davo on September 1, 2010 at 3:54am
shapeshifter said:
which gang makes you squirm?

the ones with guns...

...and badges?

Joe TV said:
sooooo, if gang leaders have a press conference and you are a news agency, do you attend?

Ganggreen

but on a serious note. What did the police do to "control" some of the latin gangs on the west side. I have heard (don't have any references) that some sort of deal was made years ago that made it safer (relatively) for citizens on the west side of humbolt park by talking to the leadership of those gangs. Granted their was strict leadership (so I have heard) within those gangs at that time. Sorry for not knowing any specifics just wondering if anyone else knows about this.
Permalink Reply by David on September 1, 2010 at 3:54am
I don't know where the idea that got started either, but as DUG's comments point out it's an extremely widespread idea that shows up in a lot of material I read. I tend to compare gangs to the Mexican gangs I grew up with in California, and from that POV they certainly seem to be lot more hoodlum-ish and unstructured. But that's just guesses based on what I read, my ignorance on the topic goes very, very deep, a description that I suspect I share with most people in this thread.

For the last, the idea that a bar fight is a reasonable analogy to law enforcement is one of those things that just makes me go "huh?". I think what's happening is that when you live someplace where the police have really had major effects on street violence in the past then you tend to discuss their policies and actions in different ways. For example, people may have liked or disliked, say, William Bratton and his policies, but almost nobody talked about him like he was just another thug in a big brawl.

But virtually everyone in Chicago talks like that. I'm not saying there's something wrong with it, it's just something I find different and therefore interesting.

By the way, I agree with you about RICO.

Michael Perz said:
David said:
In this case, going after gang leaders with racketeering laws or by enforcing minor violations seems like a reasonable course of action. I have some questions about how effective it can be given what appears to be a lack of structure in Chicago gangs, but it certainly seems worth a try;

I don't know where this idea that Chicago gangs lack structure and organization got started but it's completely false.


David said:
And if you're going to do something like that then it's more effective to let the targets know what's coming, that way the first arrests have more of a deterrent effect.

Have you ever been in or experienced a bar fight? Who typically wins? Is it the guy spouting off a bunch of idiotic schoolyard taunts or the guy that throws the first punch without even saying a word?
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on September 1, 2010 at 3:55am
See? This echoes the unfortunate sentiment of an overwhelming majority of American voters regardless of political tendency or party affiliation. "Equal protection before the law be damned, ARE THEY TOUGH ON CRIME?!?!?" We'll enthusiastically piss away our liberties as long as we do it under the guise of extinguishing a fire. See you at Guantanamo.

Chuck a Muck said:
Screw the gangs! If it was up to me all gangs would be deemed domestic terrorist and as such, belonging to one you would lose all your constitutional rights.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on September 1, 2010 at 4:02am
I literally don't understand what the problem is supposed to be here. Gangs are essentially corporations that act in economically rational ways. The city is giving serious incentive to senior management to police the activities of their employees. I don't know why you wouldn't try to coopt them.

I was talking to an old timer this weekend about how Hyde Park kept the gangs out in the 60s and avoided a lot of the problems other college neighborhoods across the country had during Vietnam. Apparently at one point the Quakers sat down with gang leadership and negotiated the lines that still hold today: Nothing south of 47th or north of the Midway. The implied threat was that the University would raze the neighborhoods around Hyde Park, with the assent of the community, if the gang leaders didn't agree. Not nice, and not the tough guy solution to the problem, either, but effective.

Acting as if the problem is that the police are playing nice is ridiculous. They don't have the resources to pull off the NYC-style policing tactics that have been proven to work (and which would cause a huge uproar if they were used) and so they have to try something else.
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on September 1, 2010 at 4:14am
The problem with such consequence is that it will always be trumped by lucrative incentive. Hence the War on Drugs marches onward like a perpetual motion machine obliterating anything and anyone with the misfortune of crossing its path.

As for RICO, here's Wikipedia's list of famous cases that have been tried under it. Some of these things are not like the others.

notoriousDUG said:
I can't disagree with any of that and I think most of the problems with the RICO act are stuff that was added on, or am I incorrect there?
My only thing is that be it the RICO act or some other form of legal wrangling they need to find away to make the actions of the kids on the street carry consequences for the people who run the show because until that happens nothing is going to get solved. We can take a million 'foot soldiers' off the street but there are going to be a million more ready, willing and EAGER to replace them stepping into those same positions; as with any war we need to go for the 'generals.' Michael Perz said:
DUG, one of the major problems I have with the RICO act is that it, like most well-meaning legislation tends to, has been broadened far beyond its original intent. The state has the power to seize property of just about anyone deemed to be associated with active gang members. Since street gangs are mostly bred from poverty, I don't think the solution to the gang problem is to create even more poverty regardless of any alleged "deterrent" result such actions may have. My moral opposition to it stems from the fact that the state should have absolutely no power to dictate which associations I choose to make, nor should they be able to use me as an instrument of coercion to achieve a desired result if my only guilt is said association and nothing else.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on September 1, 2010 at 4:20am
I have serious problems with RICO for the reasons already outlined, but in fact Chicago gang lords are actually engaged in racketeering.
Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 1, 2010 at 5:35am
RICO is a good guy! ;-)
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on September 1, 2010 at 6:44am
A lot of self righteous platitudes being thrown around here. I am the last person you'll see unduly defending the police but y'all are being ridiculous. Those of you who are criticizing the CPD for this I must ask DO YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION? Seriously, what do you think would work? (Outside of legalizing drugs.)

Last year there was a turf war, possibly is still happening, between the Traveling and Conservative Vice Lords which has displaced a lot of old boundaries and sales corners. This is what has ratcheted up the violence throughout much of the gang areas in the city. In other words, new opportunities for drug distribution cause violence. Until those new roles are established we'll continue to see escalating violence. It's political suicide to mention it but everyone who deals with this knows that the safest place in a high crime neighborhood are those streets where the gangs have established a drug market. So it's in the interest of us all to force the gangs to finish their mapping.

The cops know this and they know that busting individual bangers doesn't really do anything other than changing the face of the kids on the street. The cops DO know who the people in charge are but, like any other organized criminal mob, those leaders keep themselves from arrest by having others do their work for them. What can they cops do? Seriously?

It's in the interest of everyone to force the gangs to settle the fuck down. If that means putting pressure on them to establish their sales zones ASAP because we'll start fucking with their leadership then so be it. You don't have to like it but this is the reality of the society we live in. And until we address the problems of economics which lead to the underground economy of drug distribution these band-aid tactics are required.
Permalink Reply by Pablo on September 1, 2010 at 7:16am
Michael Perz said:
That said, I find this debacle disturbing on a couple of levels. By holding this meeting Weis single handed legitimized every single gang in the city regardless of what was discussed. Also, I find RICO laws to be flagrantly unconstitutional and in total conflict with freedom of association. If law enforcement wants to take down organized crime (that's exactly what gangs are) they should probably start by reexamining which existing public policies make it a highly profitable institution in the first place.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Our laws create these problems. The sooner we accept it the better we can react to the situation. Organized crime is simply a supply company delivering wanted goods and services to the community. The fact that they supply illegal goods does not matter to the fundamentals. Simple supply and demand tells us that if there is a demand for a good or service, legal or not someone is willing to supply that good in exchange for a price. The more dangerous and risky the delivery of the merchandise the fewer suppliers willing to supply the merchandise. This leads to a increase in price and compensation. If you remove one supplier, supply deminishes, price increases or another supplier is drawn to the market to replace the reduced supply. Violence is just the suppliers way to restrict competition and supply. If the illegal goods were made legal many more suppliers enter the market protected by the criminal justice system. The result is less violence, cheaper goods and increased demand.
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on September 1, 2010 at 7:49am
I get it....I understand the argument...but...

Make crack legal ?

Make prostitution legal ?

Make handguns and assult weapons legal ? (well this one for law abiding people I agree with, but...)

If we make crack (or any other dope) legal what do we do with the junkies? More welfare? I guess the junkies can be prostitutes and pay for the habbit with out theft...untill they get old looking (fast) and cant sell their body anymore, of course they would never think of breaking into my home, because I can then mow them down with my (now legal) full auto AK-47

There is no one answer to this...but if doing what they are doing become financially UN rewarding (getting their car towed, thier home impounded...) changes would come.

Why they are being told "OK, NOW we will start doing the job we have been paid to do" is beyond me.
It should have been done long ago....

Pablo said:
Michael Perz said:
That said, I find this debacle disturbing on a couple of levels. By holding this meeting Weis single handed legitimized every single gang in the city regardless of what was discussed. Also, I find RICO laws to be flagrantly unconstitutional and in total conflict with freedom of association. If law enforcement wants to take down organized crime (that's exactly what gangs are) they should probably start by reexamining which existing public policies make it a highly profitable institution in the first place.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! Our laws create these problems. The sooner we accept it the better we can react to the situation. Organized crime is simply a supply company delivering wanted goods and services to the community. The fact that they supply illegal goods does not matter to the fundamentals. Simple supply and demand tells us that if there is a demand for a good or service, legal or not someone is willing to supply that good in exchange for a price. The more dangerous and risky the delivery of the merchandise the fewer suppliers willing to supply the merchandise. This leads to a increase in price and compensation. If you remove one supplier, supply deminishes, price increases or another supplier is drawn to the market to replace the reduced supply. Violence is just the suppliers way to restrict competition and supply. If the illegal goods were made legal many more suppliers enter the market protected by the criminal justice system. The result is less violence, cheaper goods and increased demand.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service