The Chainlink

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


| 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: 77

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

DD:So that they'll stop warring so violently. It's not ideal but so long as CPD is used as a patronage mill, the real policing reform that would lead to a better solution isn't going to happen.

Kevin: But thats all another debate...the fact is here and now what these people are doing, and have been doing is illegal, and Jody has just admitted, the laws have not been enforced. My issue with it is why haven't they been enforced? And why are they getting a warning that it will be enforced?

The crux of the matter IMO. CPD: "OK, OK, you win, could you pretty please just try not to kill people?"
Look, I don't mean this rhetorically, but what are they supposed to do?

Everyone knows that CPD needs to adopt Bratton-style policing, which has been astonishingly successful in New York and Los Angeles. Everyone also knows that this can't happen because the most important of Bratton's innovations involve decentralizing power, which can't be done partly because Daley won't allow it and partly because the use of CPD as a patronage mill means that many of the commanders who would gain power are total incompetents, a situation not helped by Weis' decapitation spree.

The complaints here strike me as the kind of bullshit tough guy posturing you'd hear at the local bar. As if solving the gang problem were just a matter of willpower and deciding to crack down.
You're a hard person to agree with, Dr. Doom. But I intend to keep trying.

Dr. Doom said:
Look, I don't mean this rhetorically, but what are they supposed to do?

Everyone knows that CPD needs to adopt Bratton-style policing, which has been astonishingly successful in New York and Los Angeles. Everyone also knows that this can't happen because the most important of Bratton's innovations involve decentralizing power, which can't be done partly because Daley won't allow it and partly because the use of CPD as a patronage mill means that many of the commanders who would gain power are total incompetents, a situation not helped by Weis' decapitation spree.

The complaints here strike me as the kind of bullshit tough guy posturing you'd hear at the local bar. As if solving the gang problem were just a matter of willpower and deciding to crack down.
Doom is right about the need for decentralized power in the police but Bill Bratton runs the constitution through the fucking ground and though the CPD has their own way of doing the same the enemy I am familiar with is better than the one I am not. Bratton is successful because he doesn't give a damn about the rule of law as it applies to police officers. Though I must admit that I am a fan of the NYPD Broken windows theory that Bratton after first fighting with Giuliani about accepted and made successful. It does statistically and seems to work. Too bad it's typically followed by the hounds of gentrification. But even with that I am unsure if it really is the program or other social forces. Is there really a correlation between "urban disorder" and crime? That's up for debate.
Michael,
Acknowledging gang boundaries isn't even close to having "the CPD effectively enforcing their rules!" Jeez man, such pompous moral high ground. I can't believe I am defending the CPD but seriously you're being way too moral to even attempt to understand the complexities of the situation. There is nothing at all wrong or illegal with the CPD threatening to reign hell on gang leaders. It doesn't legitimize them. The fact that the leaders gang effectively controls a chunk of Chicago with violence is what legitimizes them, they don't need or want the CPD to give them the gold star of approval. And that IS NOT what the CPD was doing in this case anyway. This was a threat. A gamble, maybe, in an attempt to keep the loss of life down.

The sad fact is this, until drug laws are changed, there will be space in Chicago for gangs. And unless we want to give the CPD even more money and additional powers like the Brown Shirt like tactics of Bratton style policing there is very little that will change.

Well....
You know was the most effective halting of gang violence in the history of Chicago? The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, that's who. Those tactics truly work. Too bad the CPD killed and illegally arrested their leadership.

Calling Bratton a stormtrooper is more than a bit over the top. Bratton-style policing has a few main elements: Decentralization of power, reliance on quant data, creating a corps of well educated detectives, adherence to broken windows theory and a focus on doing things like chasing down people with warrants out and treating shootings as being as serious as homicides. This has some really good knock on effects; for example if you're going to decentralize power effectively you have to make sure merit rather than connections determines who gets promoted, so this ends up depoliticizing the department. I don't know why anyone would be against any of this.

The bad elements really are pretty glaring. Stop and frisk policies are repugnant, and while I think the cowboy policing you got in NYC and LA was more the result of a policy of always backing officers to the hilt than of demanding aggression, it's still really bad. And while I think it's overstated, you do get an effect where officers key in on quarantining crime outside the borders of gentrifying neighborhoods. None of this is integral to the program, though.

Moreover, while the idea of Bratton as a philosopher-king is pretty silly, if you're going to say he's a brownshirt you're just begging the question of compared to what. Before he came in to New York the police were openly engaging in race riots and in LA he came in to clean up after the damn Rampart scandal. If anything the departments became much more professional and developed much better relationships with the public under his tenure, while becoming vastly, vastly more effective. The idea that the city could possibly be better off sticking with what it's done than with bringing him or one of his close disciples in is pretty ridiculous.
Pompous moral high ground? I see your mind is pretty well made up. Do realize, however, that sacrificing moral considerations in the interest of expediency is precisely what sets the foundation for monstrosities like the War on Drugs. And yes, I understand the "complexities" of this shameful situation far more than you'd assume.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
Michael,
Acknowledging gang boundaries isn't even close to having "the CPD effectively enforcing their rules!" Jeez man, such pompous moral high ground. I can't believe I am defending the CPD but seriously you're being way too moral to even attempt to understand the complexities of the situation. There is nothing at all wrong or illegal with the CPD threatening to reign hell on gang leaders. It doesn't legitimize them. The fact that the leaders gang effectively controls a chunk of Chicago with violence is what legitimizes them, they don't need or want the CPD to give them the gold star of approval. And that IS NOT what the CPD was doing in this case anyway. This was a threat. A gamble, maybe, in an attempt to keep the loss of life down. The sad fact is this, until drug laws are changed, there will be space in Chicago for gangs. And unless we want to give the CPD even more money and additional powers like the Brown Shirt like tactics of Bratton style policing there is very little that will change.

Well....
Gang members are holding their press conference right now. It's on the news, but they're not actually showing the gang members speaking.
I suspect a lot of folks participating in this discussion know a lot more about the gang problem than one might assume (hint-- those immersed in it are the most likely to say the least about what they know). It's great that we haven't degenerated to name calling but if we could do away with the "I'm the only one that knows anything about this" posts it would be even better.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
Michael,
Acknowledging gang boundaries isn't even close to having "the CPD effectively enforcing their rules!" Jeez man, such pompous moral high ground. I can't believe I am defending the CPD but seriously you're being way too moral to even attempt to understand the complexities of the situation. There is nothing at all wrong or illegal with the CPD threatening to reign hell on gang leaders. It doesn't legitimize them. The fact that the leaders gang effectively controls a chunk of Chicago with violence is what legitimizes them, they don't need or want the CPD to give them the gold star of approval. And that IS NOT what the CPD was doing in this case anyway. This was a threat. A gamble, maybe, in an attempt to keep the loss of life down.

The sad fact is this, until drug laws are changed, there will be space in Chicago for gangs. And unless we want to give the CPD even more money and additional powers like the Brown Shirt like tactics of Bratton style policing there is very little that will change.

Well....
If you read what I said I didn't attack his knowledge on the subject but rather his capacity to understand the complexities of the situation due to his stated personal moral bias, hence, "...you're being way too moral to even attempt to understand..."

And on that, I'm unsubscribing to the thread. Enjoy the rest of the debate folks.
Thanks. Enjoy your obligatory end-of-thread declaration bike ride.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:
And on that, I'm unsubscribing to the thread. Enjoy the rest of the debate folks.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service