At least 1 dead and 15 injured after Chiefs victory parade

[955876]

And to think Alvin Bragg, NYC DA, was just 4 days ago, giving the Arizona prosecutor lip service for not returning one of his NYC criminals. Who continued criminal activity out in Arizona.
And now we have another one of his NYC criminals killing this girl down in Atlanta.

Is this guy gonna have the gaul to publicly ask for yet another one of his criminals be extradited back to NY.
Is there no bounds to his moral compass........no shame, that his released criminals are spreading their death and destruction all across America.

Got to cut Bragg some slack. He’s far too busy saving NY and America from the biggest threat to humanity - Donald Trump

He simply doesn’t have the time to prosecute petty crimes like murder, rape, assault, theft etc when you have DJT elevating the values of his properties on a loan application.

[955876]

Every state should be a death penalty state.

To me this is much like the abortion debate and something each state’s voters should decide for themselves.

Now that is provided Governors then follow through with the wishes of the people.

California has looong been a death penalty state. However, Lord King Gavin Newsome has dismantled the states death chambers. This takes away the state’s ability to actually put someone to death.

Thus subverting the will of the people without putting it to vote.

The last execution to take place in CA was back in 2006.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

CA Judge Rose Byrd made death penalty next to impossible in the 1970s after the Manson case.

Still your point about federalism is a good one.

I'm generally against death penalty because I distrust government but clearly there are some cases that its hard to argue with.

I think prisons should be primarily for isolation and that the addicted, white collar and hard core criminals need to be separated into different facilities.

[CKSteeler]

We’re not talking about precrime here.

These gang members hanging out in groups on street corners, in front of businesses, at public parks…they menace the neighborhood.

They’re there to demonstrate their power/control to other gangs and to civilians.

Their presence drives down property values and economic activity.

Get rid of them and everyone’s life improves. They’ve broken the social contract, anyway. Serves them right.

Freedom to get mugged is no freedom at all.

This is very similar to the arguments for gun control on many levels.

Mugging people is already a crime as are the activities gangs engage in. Why do we need to grant the government what would be a broad, sweeping new power to criminalize people based on their associations with one another when we could simply enforce laws that already exist? It's a violation of the first amendment outright. There is a guaranteed right to the freedom of association. This suggestion is on its face unjust and you are going to end up with a shit ton of innocent people or people who would never have committed any crime with an actual victim doing hard time.

Call me what you will, but I believe in a system where we actually would rather see 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man.

And I doubt anyone could construct a law that wouldn't be abused by the government out of partisan hackery. What is a gang? How do you define it to where it can't be applied to groups the government simply doesn't like? Why would you trust the people who let Antifa run amuck (and it was government at all levels that allowed this) but ruined every life they could over January 6th to apply such a law equally or justly?

Hell, go back to the Rittenhouse case I cited earlier. They don't even enforce basic gun laws equally. Convicted felon with a gun who was taking part in an active riot, but needed to testify against politically incorrect 17 year old? No charges. Rittenhouse? Throw the book at him for first degree murder. But you trust this government to go after actual gangs and not yokels playing militia? Or other conservative groups?

And is this really a growing problem that really calls for an expansion of government in the first place? Crime rates have risen in recent years, but had been on a generation long decline prior to that. It's causes can be debated ad nauseum, but society was kind of getting better on its own before some people stoked racial tensions to a level not seen since the early 90's if not the 60's and the Democrats locked down large swathes of the country over a bad cold that was deadly for pretty much only the infirm and elderly.

And I'll sound like a progressive here for a moment, but the optics of rounding up a shit ton of military age males in minority communities for their associations would be terrible. If you think racial tensions are high now or during the Summer of Love, well then buckle up. And it would be a situation that would call for violent resistance.

Gangs are a cultural problem that require a cultural solution. Better parenting and the restoration of the nuclear family in some segments of our culture. How do we accomplish that? Fuck if I know. But I'm not about to grant the government at any level shiny new toys to suppress dissent, even what is ultimately only a thought experiment.

[CKSteeler]

CA Judge Rose Byrd made death penalty next to impossible in the 1970s after the Manson case.

Still your point about federalism is a good one.

I'm generally against death penalty because I distrust government but clearly there are some cases that its hard to argue with.

I think prisons should be primarily for isolation and that the addicted, white collar and hard core criminals need to be separated into different facilities.

I think it's crazy how many we currently incarcerate for stupid shit while people who commit violent crimes get slaps on the wrist.

I don't know how society got it into its head that locking people up in cages was some humane solution to a problem. No one - and I mean no one - should be sitting in a jail cell for a crime that didn't have an actual victim. And the state cannot be a victim. And restitution seems far more just in some cases than incarceration.

I hate what has happened to the criminal justice reform movement. It went mainstream with the progressive left, because entirely racial and politicized, and it killed any chance of actual progress being made. What you have now seems like an almost deliberate attempt by the left to breed more lawlessness across the country which is far more interested in seeing their political enemies punished than actual justice. They excuse actual deviancy to create an environment of fear and dependency while criminalizing normalcy or harmless bullshit. They love the ability to arbitrarily enforce the laws. Laws are political tools and play things for the progressive left.

Make criminals out of non-criminals and let the actual criminals run free.

IF they had their way, they'd make millions of law abiding gun owners criminals while letting the car jacker off with a slap on the wrist if they even bother to find them and prosecute his victim for using a racial slur to describe him.

Shit isn't just speculation. It's what's happening wherever they have power.

[langer]

It's what's happening wherever they have power.

They are exceedingly good at gaining and maintaining power, using many different tools.

Repubs, at least the honest ones, are so far behind the greed and rapaciousness of progressives that it's not a fair fight.

But that's life. Communists never quit, ever. They are monsters and soul-sucking vampires. Yes, I include all Democrat voters in that category.

Look at what they've done to the cities just to maintain their "electoral" power base. Turned everyone into brainless zombies.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

"No one - and I mean no one - should be sitting in a jail cell for a crime that didn't have an actual victim"

Or when the harm is financial and can be corrected with restitution and fines. When it can't like Madoff or FTX they should be in prison.

I agree and the cases of Martha Stewart, the Chrisleys and Aunt Becky are particularly loathsome.

Chrisley does not belong in prison, they should be out and working off their debt through a payment plan.

No one wins when people like that are in jail.

BTW James Comey saw it fit to put Martha Stewart in prison for a stock trade but not Hillary for destroying evidence.

I think what has happened is that half the population is fired up by sadistic jealousy.

They are perfectly fine with Trump's penalty for self-appraisals above the bid, which basically everyone does.

"And I'll sound like a progressive here for a moment, but the optics of rounding up a shit ton of military age males in minority communities for their associations would be terrible. If you think racial tensions are high now or during the Summer of Love, well then buckle up. And it would be a situation that would call for violent resistance."

Agree and all you really have to do is prosecute them for the crimes they actually commit. And I guarantee that the Justice Dept will call any pro-life or small government advocacy group a gang and start arresting them based on association. It's also unconstitutional.

[ol skool]

Mugging people is already a crime as are the activities gangs engage in.

No shit.

It's a violation of the first amendment outright. There is a guaranteed right to the freedom of association.

There is no First Amendment right to associate with a criminal organization.

This suggestion is on its face unjust and you are going to end up with a shit ton of innocent people or people who would never have committed any crime with an actual victim doing hard time.

No. I'm going to arrest gang members who HAVE committed crimes they weren't caught doing or went unreported due to fear, AND I'm going to arrest gang members who haven't committed any crimes YET, but certainly will be doing so in the future because they're IN A FUCKING GANG.

And I doubt anyone could construct a law that wouldn't be abused by the government out of partisan hackery.

You have an example in El Salvador. Show me Bukele deeming legit political groups opposed to him "gangs" and going after them with their new laws. Then you'll have a point. It can be done. Especially when the people see it working as intended.

Why would you trust the people who let Antifa run amuck (and it was government at all levels that allowed this) but ruined every life they could over January 6th to apply such a law equally or justly?

To be clear, I'm for the abolition of the FBI and total house-cleaning of federal law enforcement in general to root out the very people who did that. And Antifa isn't a gang in the traditional sense; they're the Establishment's street enforcers.

Hell, go back to the Rittenhouse case I cited earlier.

See: above.

And is this really a growing problem that really calls for an expansion of government in the first place?

Did I advocate expansion of government, or did I advocate a heavy-handed approach to solving the gang problem using Bukele as an example? This is something that could be done by federal law enforcement, or by empowering state/local law enforcement to use that approach. All they'd really need is assurance from the Feds that they're not going to be scrutinized by woke bureaucrats for violating the "civil rights" of the not-yet-caught-offending "innocent" gang members.

And I'll sound like a progressive here for a moment, but the optics of rounding up a shit ton of military age males in minority communities for their associations would be terrible. If you think racial tensions are high now or during the Summer of Love, well then buckle up. And it would be a situation that would call for violent resistance.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

Gangs are a cultural problem that require a cultural solution. Better parenting and the restoration of the nuclear family in some segments of our culture. How do we accomplish that? Fuck if I know. But I'm not about to grant the government at any level shiny new toys to suppress dissent, even what is ultimately only a thought experiment.

Gangs are a crime problem with a law enforcement solution. They exist where they are permitted. They are permitted where law enforcement is neutered. Where law enforcement is neutered, civilians pay the price.

Encourage good parenting and promote nuclear families to your heart's content. I applaud that. But what about the CURRENT gang members? Too late for them. You have to have a solution to the problem that exists NOW.

Re-familiarize yourself with the concept of ORDERED liberty.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

I would not put it past a future Dem DOJ to consider an Elks Club or VFW to be a gang.

I warned about this 20 years ago with the Patriot Act...it will eventually be used against conservatives.

[ol skool]

I would not put it past a future Dem DOJ to consider an Elks Club or VFW to be a gang.

I warned about this 20 years ago with the Patriot Act...it will eventually be used against conservatives.

You were right about the Patriot Act, but that’s an overbroad power-grab to fight terrorism, and the definition of terrorism can be politically skewed.

That’s not the same as defining gang activity. Everyone knows gangs operate in illegal business and engage in violence in furtherance of those aims.

Let me know when the Elks start pimping, dealing heroin, etc.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Right now pro-life peaceful protestors and several mainstream churches are on FBI watch lists as terrorists. So are people who give money to any group with "patriot" in their name.

I am surprised you of all people are underestimating the viciousness and idiocy of the left and what it does to institutions.

[955876]

Right now pro-life peaceful protestors and several mainstream churches are on FBI watch lists as terrorists. So are people who give money to any group with "patriot" in their name.

I am surprised you of all people are underestimating the viciousness and idiocy of the left and what it does to institutions.

This….

And you left off parents expressing aggravation at a school board meeting.

The left has a very distorted view where the real problems are in society.

[ol skool]

Right now pro-life peaceful protestors and several mainstream churches are on FBI watch lists as terrorists. So are people who give money to any group with "patriot" in their name.

I am surprised you of all people are underestimating the viciousness and idiocy of the left and what it does to institutions.

You’re again talking about the misuse of “terrorist.” I don’t disagree.

But we’re talking about gangs. You’re simply insisting that would get abused, too. Apples to oranges.

Don’t let crooked lefties force you into a retreat from exercising power. You’re not gonna freedom your way out of this problem, libertarian.

[CKSteeler]

No. I'm going to arrest gang members who HAVE committed crimes they weren't caught doing or went unreported due to fear, AND I'm going to arrest gang members who haven't committed any crimes YET, but certainly will be doing so in the future because they're IN A FUCKING GANG.

Sorry, but how does this differ from arresting people for pre-crimes and collective guilt? Something else to note...there really wasn't much in the way of due process in El Salvador. Kind of hard to have due process when you rounding up thousands at once.

There is no First Amendment right to associate with a criminal organization.

I've already posed the challenge here. Construct a law to target criminal enterprises that couldn't and wouldn't be turned around on innocent people.

You have an example in El Salvador. Show me Bukele deeming legit political groups opposed to him "gangs" and going after them with their new laws. Then you'll have a point. It can be done. Especially when the people see it working as intended.

There is no power granted to the government that I can't show it abusing on a long enough timeline. Everything occurring in El Salvador is new. But even then, he HAS used his campaign against gang violence to go after political rivals.
https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/ ... on-rivals/

Maybe he's justified. Maybe he's just weeding out corruption. Or maybe he's being an opportunist and going after politicians of the opposition for doing what was probably standard practice in El Salvador for politicians of all stripes.

Did I advocate expansion of government, or did I advocate a heavy-handed approach to solving the gang problem using Bukele as an example? This is something that could be done by federal law enforcement, or by empowering state/local law enforcement to use that approach. All they'd really need is assurance from the Feds that they're not going to be scrutinized by woke bureaucrats for violating the "civil rights" of the not-yet-caught-offending "innocent" gang members.

I don't know what one would call it but an expansion of government to grant them the power to arrest hundreds of thousands based on their affiliations alone. Some level of government is getting broad, sweeping powers that it doesn't currently possess no matter how you slice it here. And this is being done to solve a problem that largely exists in blue urban hell holes where I'm going to remind you...people voluntarily choose to live and to vote for the local power structures that truly enable the crime in the first place.

I am not about to sign off on an expansion of government - which is what this is - to solve a problem that many of the people most impacted don't really want to solve in the first place.

But we’re talking about gangs. You’re simply insisting that would get abused, too. Apples to oranges.

Don’t let crooked lefties force you into a retreat from exercising power. You’re not gonna freedom your way out of this problem, libertarian.

I think you seriously need to reexamine who you would be allowing to exercise this power. Law enforcement in blue cities is as politically corrupted as federal law enforcement. Everyday we see what we'll call novel applications of the law against political opponents of the left at the local, state, and federal levels of government. And that's just the shit we know about.

Question for you - why don't we let the government regulate speech? There is speech that we nearly all agree is wrong. Why do we still allow it? What is the historical context of the first amendment?

[swissvale72]

No. I'm going to arrest gang members who HAVE committed crimes they weren't caught doing or went unreported due to fear, AND I'm going to arrest gang members who haven't committed any crimes YET, but certainly will be doing so in the future because they're IN A FUCKING GANG.

Sorry, but how does this differ from arresting people for pre-crimes and collective guilt? Something else to note...there really wasn't much in the way of due process in El Salvador. Kind of hard to have due process when you rounding up thousands at once.

There is no First Amendment right to associate with a criminal organization.

I've already posed the challenge here. Construct a law to target criminal enterprises that couldn't and wouldn't be turned around on innocent people.

You have an example in El Salvador. Show me Bukele deeming legit political groups opposed to him "gangs" and going after them with their new laws. Then you'll have a point. It can be done. Especially when the people see it working as intended.

There is no power granted to the government that I can't show it abusing on a long enough timeline. Everything occurring in El Salvador is new. But even then, he HAS used his campaign against gang violence to go after political rivals.
https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/ ... on-rivals/

Maybe he's justified. Maybe he's just weeding out corruption. Or maybe he's being an opportunist and going after politicians of the opposition for doing what was probably standard practice in El Salvador for politicians of all stripes.

Did I advocate expansion of government, or did I advocate a heavy-handed approach to solving the gang problem using Bukele as an example? This is something that could be done by federal law enforcement, or by empowering state/local law enforcement to use that approach. All they'd really need is assurance from the Feds that they're not going to be scrutinized by woke bureaucrats for violating the "civil rights" of the not-yet-caught-offending "innocent" gang members.

I don't know what one would call it but an expansion of government to grant them the power to arrest hundreds of thousands based on their affiliations alone. Some level of government is getting broad, sweeping powers that it doesn't currently possess no matter how you slice it here. And this is being done to solve a problem that largely exists in blue urban hell holes where I'm going to remind you...people voluntarily choose to live and to vote for the local power structures that truly enable the crime in the first place.

I am not about to sign off on an expansion of government - which is what this is - to solve a problem that many of the people most impacted don't really want to solve in the first place.

But we’re talking about gangs. You’re simply insisting that would get abused, too. Apples to oranges.

Don’t let crooked lefties force you into a retreat from exercising power. You’re not gonna freedom your way out of this problem, libertarian.

I think you seriously need to reexamine who you would be allowing to exercise this power. Law enforcement in blue cities is as politically corrupted as federal law enforcement. Everyday we see what we'll call novel applications of the law against political opponents of the left at the local, state, and federal levels of government. And that's just the shit we know about.

Question for you - why don't we let the government regulate speech? There is speech that we nearly all agree is wrong. Why do we still allow it? What is the historical context of the first amendment?

People “voluntarily choose to live” in “blue urban hell holes?” Hokkayyy!! Nothing to do with poverty. I guess all the inhabitants of the hill district and homewood could just buy themselves a place in fox chapel.

[.Kodiak]

Unfortunately "lock 'em up" just continues the vicious cycle of ruining young men's lives and robbing kids of their father.

The problems are deeper than that, and I'm not saying a teenager shouldn't be locked-up for a violent crime (certainly they know better by the time they could be charged as an adult). But you need some sort of carrot to go with the stick. And by carrot I mean investing to create opportunities and alternatives in economically depressed communities.

For example, petty marijuana possession has uprooted millions of lives. While what I can tell the whole "1/2 the people in prison are there for misdemeanor pot violations" is overt hyperbole, if not outright bullshit, A LOT of people who were filling county and city jails were there awaiting a court date for....misdemeanor pot possession. 60 days or even a few weeks costs them their job, and now with that on their record it's even harder to find a new job.

In general, I think cashless bail is a noble, if not equitable, idea. However, in typical fashion the implementation was grossly incompetent and should never have been extended to felonies. Nor should simply not charging petty theft and misdemeanors been an option WITHOUT some sort of diversion program or community service in place.

At the end of the day, the alternative to potentially heavy-handed incarceration for petty crimes can't be "do nothing". And I don't believe a solution can focus on one or the other - it has to be a combination. You can't create opportunity until you clean things up, and you can't keep things clean until you create opportunity.

[ol skool]

Sorry, but how does this differ from arresting people for pre-crimes and collective guilt? Something else to note...there really wasn't much in the way of due process in El Salvador. Kind of hard to have due process when you rounding up thousands at once.

They're members of a criminal organization. If being a member of a criminal organization is a crime in itself, they are by definition collectively guilty of that crime.

If you insist we can't arrest gang members unless they're caught red-handed committing a crime, you'll end up with the status quo. The trials take months, criminal defense attorneys game the system, guys who actually get locked up get taken care of very well inside. Nothing changes because there's effectively no deterrent to choosing a life of crime.

Ask the people of El Salvador if they miss the old days or approve of the way things are done now.

I've already posed the challenge here. Construct a law to target criminal enterprises that couldn't and wouldn't be turned around on innocent people.

Very easy to do with a common sense understanding of what constitutes organized crime. You seem determined to muddy the waters as top that definition.

But even then, he HAS used his campaign against gang violence to go after political rivals.

Political rivals who...colluded with gangs. He's not sending the Feds after El Salvador's equivalent of Patriot Prayer. Also, you linked to a Soros-funded outfit. Not impressed.

And this is being done to solve a problem that largely exists in blue urban hell holes

They're not hell holes because they're blue. They're hell holes because of violent, young Black men. The tolerance of that - in the name of anti-racism - starts at the top.

I think you seriously need to reexamine who you would be allowing to exercise this power. Law enforcement in blue cities is as politically corrupted as federal law enforcement. Everyday we see what we'll call novel applications of the law against political opponents of the left at the local, state, and federal levels of government. And that's just the shit we know about.

I long ago qualified that this approach would work IF we rooted out the problem at the Federal level. Is this fact going to continue being ignored?

Question for you - why don't we let the government regulate speech? There is speech that we nearly all agree is wrong. Why do we still allow it? What is the historical context of the first amendment?

The government outsources censorship to private companies. There is no free speech. They might not be locking you up for wrongthink, but they have found a way to punish unapproved-of speech. And they're perfecting it.

[ol skool]

Unfortunately "lock 'em up" just continues the vicious cycle of ruining young men's lives and robbing kids of their father.

The problems are deeper than that, and I'm not saying a teenager shouldn't be locked-up for a violent crime (certainly they know better by the time they could be charged as an adult). But you need some sort of carrot to go with the stick. And by carrot I mean investing to create opportunities and alternatives in economically depressed communities.

For example, petty marijuana possession has uprooted millions of lives. While what I can tell the whole "1/2 the people in prison are there for misdemeanor pot violations" is overt hyperbole, if not outright bullshit, A LOT of people who were filling county and city jails were there awaiting a court date for....misdemeanor pot possession. 60 days or even a few weeks costs them their job, and now with that on their record it's even harder to find a new job.

In general, I think cashless bail is a noble, if not equitable, idea. However, in typical fashion the implementation was grossly incompetent and should never have been extended to felonies. Nor should simply not charging petty theft and misdemeanors been an option WITHOUT some sort of diversion program or community service in place.

At the end of the day, the alternative to potentially heavy-handed incarceration for petty crimes can't be "do nothing". And I don't believe a solution can focus on one or the other - it has to be a combination. You can't create opportunity until you clean things up, and you can't keep things clean until you create opportunity.

Quite the recipe for doing jack shit.

Create order FIRST. Then go ahead and try to fix the culture.

[.Kodiak]

Create order FIRST. Then go ahead and try to fix the culture.

That's not really different from what I said. You CANNOT maintain order without also providing opportunity - long history of incarcerations [the most in the world] proving that point.

And, sorry, guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional.

I can also turn your argument on its head and argue kids are forced into gangs by circumstance, and you're locking up the same kids you propose to save with draconian measures. That's what makes it all a viscous cycle without providing alternatives and opportunity.

Again, draconian incarceration is a proven failure. Without changing the culture, you're playing wack-a-mole with people's lives. Feds successfully brought down the two major rival gangs in Chicago through multiple sting operations over a decade. Do you need me to tell you what happened next? It's a two pronged solution - one without the other has proven inadequate.

[ol skool]

Create order FIRST. Then go ahead and try to fix the culture.

That's not really different from what I said. You CANNOT maintain order without also providing opportunity - long history of incarcerations [the most in the world] proving that point.

And, sorry, guilt by association is fundamentally unconstitutional.

I can also turn your argument on its head and argue kids are forced into gangs by circumstance, and you're locking up the same kids you propose to save with draconian measures. That's what makes it all a viscous cycle without providing alternatives and opportunity.

Again, draconian incarceration is a proven failure. Without changing the culture, you're playing wack-a-mole with people's lives. Feds successfully brought down the two major rival gangs in Chicago through multiple sting operations over a decade. Do you need me to tell you what happened next? It's a two pronged solution - one without the other has proven inadequate.

You don't have a Constitutional right to associate with a gang. Why does this argument keep coming up?

Nobody is forced to join a gang. It's seen as easy money, with some risk, and some choose to take that risk for easy money.

Want to make it an exponentially worse risk to take? Make the punishment more severe, and make it easier to prosecute them.

The kids I'm saving with draconian measures are the ones intelligent and socialized enough to understand this. And I'm protecting them from the ones too stupid or antisocial to make the correct decision.

Multiple sting operations over a decade? And how many people died needlessly in the duration? How about making it illegal to be in a gang? Oh, wait...it already is. So why not then just arrest people who are IN A GANG. They tend to make it REALLY EASY to identify themselves because they need rival gang members to know who they are.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

If the Iron Prefect can eliminate Mafia activity in Italy, the same can be done anywhere.

[.Kodiak]

You don't have a Constitutional right to associate with a gang. Why does this argument keep coming up?

You're completely missing the point. Like, embarrassingly so.

Guilt by association literally violates multiple aspects of the Bill of Rights. It violates due process. It violates probable cause. And it would appear you don't even require proof of an actual crime. Good lord.

Extending your logic, the entire 20k+ crowd on Jan. 6 should be locked up, not just the several hundred that entered the capital. But why stop there - lock up their entire family, second cousins included! They're all associated with criminals! We're going to need a bigger jail!

[.Kodiak]

How about making it illegal to be in a gang? Oh, wait...it already is.

LMFAO where - Russia?!?

Or did you mean it's illegal for people on probation to associate with known criminals [note the distinctions of PROBATION and KNOWN and CRIMINAL].

[Stosh-67]

I would not put it past a future Dem DOJ to consider an Elks Club or VFW to be a gang.

I warned about this 20 years ago with the Patriot Act...it will eventually be used against conservatives.

I am the president of a non profit organization called the "Men's Association".
Been around for 40+ years.
I've been involved for 20+ years.

Raise money for college scholarships, make donations to food pantries, donations to families who suddenly lost a young mom or dad... leaving a financial burden.

I would imagine the name of the organization alone would have many lefty loonies rolling their eyes...

I would not be surprised to find out one day in our near socialist state.... that there is a file somewhere with my name as a KAEO suspect.
Keep An Eye On....
Lol.

Anyway...
I will always cherish the 100s of hours a year, 1000s of hours.... that I've spent with great guys raising funds for a great cause....

So yeah.
The watchful eye and control that this government wants to rule with is heading in the wrong direction

[ol skool]

You don't have a Constitutional right to associate with a gang. Why does this argument keep coming up?

You're completely missing the point. Like, embarrassingly so.

Guilt by association literally violates multiple aspects of the Bill of Rights. It violates due process. It violates probable cause. And it would appear you don't even require proof of an actual crime. Good lord.

Extending your logic, the entire 20k+ crowd on Jan. 6 should be locked up, not just the several hundred that entered the capital. But why stop there - lock up their entire family, second cousins included! They're all associated with criminals! We're going to need a bigger jail!

There's a definition of what a criminal street gang is in 18 USC, if you'd like to take a look.

Given that definition, and the fact that law enforcement knows:
-Which gangs exist in their jurisdiction
-What those gangs' colors are
-What those gangs' symbols are
-Who many of the gangs' members are
It becomes quite reasonable to assume that guys sporting those colors, symbols, tattoos, etc., and in the company of known gang members are themselves members of that gang. And under RICO, all members of said criminal organization are guilty of the gang's crimes, even if any individual kept his "hands clean" regarding any particular crime.

So....ARREST them.

Don't do stakeouts over the period of a decade, letting bodies pile up and lives get ruined while you compile your case. Just arrest them and be done with it.

I know libertarians are afraid of state power. But without state power wielded by just men, these gangs violate the Non-Aggression Principle, if that's what you hold dear, by their very existence. They intimidate, steal, rape, kill and depress the local economy of wherever they publicly flex their muscles. By wielding the power of the state to smash these fuckers, I create more liberty for every law-abiding citizen.

Your J6 comment is so pants-on-head retarded, it doesn't merit response.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Can't believe this is even an argument. You actually do have a right to belong to a "gang", and it's codified in the first amendment right to free association.

The left has no trouble considering MAGA to be a gang or a cult, and will definitely use your get the gangs and lock them up against you.

They will make any organization that they don't like a "gang". This is not theoretical, they are already doing it.

They've studied aikido and you think that you can win by their rules swinging haymaker punches that miss.

It's very simple, just throw them in jail for the crimes they commit and there is no shortage of that.

[CKSteeler]

The entire argument is...yea. It boils down to government power is fine if only we could have the right people in charge ignoring the fact that the other side not only currently dominates all those institutions, but will inevitably regain control over them at some point even if you could theoretically purge them.

I asked my question on the first amendment and why it exists to kind of highlight that point. There's speech that we nearly universally agree is "harmful," but we don't ban it because giving the government an inch leads them to taking the whole yard. You have to protect the unpopular speech, as well, because the popular speech doesn't need to be protected. No one needs their right to say puppies are great protected.

RICO was mentioned....I'll just highlight that it is limited to a very narrow set of crimes. Not street level stuff. Not my friend who is in the same made-up group as I am mugged someone so now I'm guilty of the mugging. Gangs haven't been criminalized outright precisely because yes...there is a first amendment right to the freedom of association.

We already see progressives moving to ban "militia" groups. We see them selectively apply laws to go after pro-lifers. There's no doubt what they'd do to really hated groups like the KKK or actual Nazis.

The definition of what a gang is is just as malleable as terrorism.

If you insist we can't arrest gang members unless they're caught red-handed committing a crime, you'll end up with the status quo.

OK, and I already posed the question to you whether the status quo is really that bad and you didn't really answer it. Crime was already going down on its own until very recently. Had been for a generation.

Ask the people of El Salvador if they miss the old days or approve of the way things are done now.

How many Australians want their gun rights back? I've already stated I find this to be the flip side of the gun banning debate. You just want to ban groups of people based on association and rob them of due process to avoid banning guns. We don't live in a country where cartels own the government (we're corrupt in our own different ways). I also just don't care about democracy all that much.

Political rivals who...colluded with gangs. He's not sending the Feds after El Salvador's equivalent of Patriot Prayer. Also, you linked to a Soros-funded outfit. Not impressed.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on El Salvadorean politics to make any definitive statement. Hey, maybe those in the opposition party had it coming. Maybe el presidente's party is as pure as the fresh fallen snow and no one who follows him now has ever colluded with the gangs that pretty much ran the country before.

I long ago qualified that this approach would work IF we rooted out the problem at the Federal level. Is this fact going to continue being ignored?

No, but you are ignoring the larger questions about why we restrict governmental powers in the first place. Why we don't just have a benevolent monarch anymore. If only the right people were in charge is the same rallying cry of every ideology that supports more governmental power. It's not a very convincing argument on paper, let alone in reality where the uniparty has kept a pretty firm grip on power for generations and has a bureaucracy underneath the president that is millions strong and constitutes a government unto itself that can't easily be removed.

[CKSteeler]

There are things government could do, or rather stop doing, to end culture that breeds crime.

Cut off the welfare. What was supposed to be a safety net for people who have fallen on hard times has become a way of life. Swiss made a comment on how people are too poor to move. Well, there are cheaper places to live than blue urban hellscapes. Perhaps not with section 8 housing factored in and other handouts they receive. You see, the people who work and want to better their lives do and leave. The ones who stay? They aren't necessarily the criminals, but they are the parents, siblings, and friends of the criminals.

Let citizens be armed everywhere for real. I guarantee the gang bangers will think twice about who they are inflicting violence on. Armed society is a polite society, and it doesn't take everyone carrying to offer what we'll call herd immunity here.

School choice. Gut the public education system and let parents who give a damn put their kids in schools where they'll be around kids from likeminded families.

Most controversially - stop with the war on drugs. It's been a failure on every level and has created the black markets which enable gangs to thrive in the first place. This does not mean tolerating deviancy and degeneracy ala San Francisco. But you can't stop people from getting high, and you can't stop people from selling the shit. I know this will be the subject of scorn and mockery, but the current policy doesn't work. There's probably some middle ground between war on drugs and letting junkies shoot up outside school zones. And don't let the progressives dominate this issue because they could fuck up a wet dream with bureaucracy and nonsensical and arbitrary rules. Where marijuana legalization is failing, it's because there's too much red tape.

You know, I'd describe these policies as empowering. I'm always going to try and freedom my way out of a problem, though, because the government sure as shit not only can't be trusted, but isn't capable of solving these problems. When the government gets involved, you end up with 10 more problems that are worse than what they sought to solve in the first place.

[ol skool]

I guess that a wrap, then.

This whole thing was basically a hypothetical where I’m the benevolent dictator cracking down on crime, but everyone insists on dragging me into their own hypothetical where I’m just a good President who will have to leave office, having created dangerous tools for the Left to eventually use against us.

On the drug legalization thing, I get that it would remove a means of earning money from gangs. But only a little. They can still steal product and re-sell it cheaper than the legal store. They do this with cigarettes and alcohol today.

An underrated argument for it is that legalization takes away the “cool” and “rebelliousness” of flaunting drug laws. I’d love it if the pot heads I find so annoying would universally be regarded as cringe.

And I’m glad I no longer have to hear impassioned pleas for medical marijuana when the only things those advocates ever really wanted was to get high legally.

That said, all drugs would be illegal under my regime. Because I say so. And pot would be illegal under the Anti-Cringe Act, which would also ban American soccer fans from calling their sport “football”, and ban male feminism.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

The history of dictators and kings shows you are extremely unlikely to get a benevolent or enlightened one in your lifetime. Even the best of them would not hesitate to behead critics and enemies on occasion to keep order.

Stay with the wisdom of George Washington, you want an executive functioning in a framework of limited government, not a king.

And by historical standards, King George III wasn't even that bad.

The answer to fentanyl is not a war on drugs, it's border enforcement. Enough fentanyl was found in CA last year to kill the world's population 2x over.

Another solution is direct confrontation with China and Mexico. China itself went to war twice defending itself on this issue, even though they lost both times.

[langer]

Back to mass shooting news.

More NRA members causing a whole bunch of trouble with their AR15 super automatic assault rifles. We need to pass legislation to ban them.

Still haven't heard much about that KC mass shooting. That is puzzling. It's almost as if the media has guidance to not mention it.

They sure mentioned the shit out of Kyle Rittenhouse, for some reason.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukf77IaMFDQ[/youtube]