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: 81

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I'm interested to see what they did in Boston that worked out so well. Gang leaders and their minions are beyond reasoning. I hate to be so negative, but what is law enforcement really expecting from this? Forget the meet and greet and start enforcing the things they say they are going to. This really speaks to what a joke our law enforcement has been reduced to and that they are losing this war....
sooooo, if gang leaders have a press conference and you are a news agency, do you attend?
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?
I've been watching the reaction to this, and this is really one of the many times over the past year when being from out of town really puts me at a disadvantage; people get extremely upset over things that just seem normal to me. It always kind of confuses me.

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've seen similar things work very well in LA, but that's a very different place than Chicago's west side. 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. You can't rely on the media for that, so you have to have a meeting of some kind. The targets, on the other hand, are naturally going to have their own conference in response to claim they're innocents being harassed, etc. A bit distasteful, but again nothing surprising.

So to me it's not really a big deal, indeed it's a small step forward, but people are *really* upset about it. I suspect it's a "straw that broke the camel's back" effect. In isolation this is pretty ordinary stuff, but I suppose if you've lived through years of police ineffectiveness then the visuals of the police being polite to gang members could get very grating. Or is it that people have seen the police announce these things over and over and fail to follow through?

There's something in the recent history of the city that's giving people a very visceral reaction to this meeting, and talking with people I sort of get it but can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is. I find it all very fascinating.
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?
Gang members are worth nothing. I would just shut up and hit them with everything I had as a police department. Remember, this isnt the boy scouts. They are criminals who make the city unsafe for others. I don't give a hoot about their side of the story and meeting with them. Make their lives hell, the gangs do that to others all the time. disgusting that anyone thinks the gang members' opinion means anything. Lock them up and throw away the key.
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.
It is not as much that they lack leadership as it is that the leadership has lost control. From what I have been reading and understand the young gang members are offering little to no respect for the established hierarchy in the gangs; there is leadership but it is loosing control.

I don't really have a problem with the police threatening the leaders with prosecution under RICO laws. I think it is what needs to be done to help quell the violence; gangs leaders have used younger members who they were willing to sacrifice to isolate themselves from the dirty work for decades and the only way to stop it is to move up stream.

I do, however, have an issue the media treating the gang leadership as if they are a legitimate group entitled to a press conference.

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?
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.
I agree with Chuck. Speaking as someone who lives in a neighborhood with many gangs and who actually had some of these jokers shooting at each other outside of my building a few months ago - who is more dangerous at the moment: Islamic terrorists or gangs taking over our cities? I say gangs. I see the effects of them every single day in my neighborhood.

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


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.
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.
I wonder if this incident will prompt police to stop playin nice: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/09/2-police-officers-report...

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service