Comments on: More on the Arrested “Reformed” Gang Member Alex Sanchez

By: Californio

Californio — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:11:44 +0000

“former” gang members? You mean the ones who turned to gangs because of deep deep problems in their families, a crippling lack of economic opportunities, a life that had them supplant any decency for allegiance to their gang……and you expect them to “reform” and yet LIVE IN THE SAME area?! would you have a hardcore drunk rehab so he could return to live in a BAR? A narcotic addict return to work in a pharmacy? The point is the “former” gang member seems to be a write-off; lost cause; perhaps a domestic terrorist entitled to a one-way ticket (”rendition”?) to a prison in a country with no extradition treaty with the USA.

Perhaps the city will be reclaimed one block at a time, by the people who live there…….[What lovely flowers! Why thank you, the secret is in the fertillizer.]
“What!? What are you implying!? That is wrong! I stand for rules! what you imply is savage and not worth compromising our standards!!!”
“Oh, so you live in those crime-ravaged communities?”
“What? Hell, no – I am merely pointing out that the rule of law and due process are so important that I stand ready to sacrifice thousands of poor people in neighborhoods I would never live in to prove my point.”
” Wow, you are brave.”

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:54:19 +0000

The gang problem has become impossible to manage and live with in the inner cities and outer suburbs, particularly in Los Angeles. Many friends moved their families with school age kids out of Culver City a few years ago because the potential for violence was so grave. And Culver City isnt exactly a ghetto. Middle class and caught in crossfire. That’s why so many are just leaving for safer and greener pastures. LA is a lost cause. At least, for the next quarter century.

By: Kevin Stafford

Kevin Stafford — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:55:48 +0000

The moral of this story is: people of character and common sense must cancel their LA Times subscriptions, must never buy it again, and must never advertise in it…thereby hastening the death it is richly and quickly earning. The LA Times is more than naive; it is a beacon of evil.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:35:14 +0000

but that is not a presumption of my post

Fair enough. I retract my overstatement.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:31:00 +0000

And yet the presumption in both your post and Jack’s post is that, in the case of gang members, this just doesn’t happen . . .

Can’t speak for Jack, but that is not a presumption of my post. I would imagine Jack would also acknowledge that there are such thing as former gang members.

And I agree with him that I tend to be skeptical of such claims. Doesn’t mean I would never accept them. But I would be skeptical.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:57:53 +0000

There are obstacles to reform. But to use the term “allow” means some person, some institution, some aggregate of public will puts these obstacles out there unfairly, or unfairly refuses to remove them.
My point is, these obstacles are EARNED by the perpetrator and if he has to face them in perpetuity, that’s his problem. We as a society did nothing out of the ordinary to him.
To make an analogy; If i get busted for DUI, it would bother me immensely if nobody ever wanted to drive with me again, or let me drive their kids someplace. It would be inconvenient wrt family activities. But I would never think anybody owes me riding with me. Not ever. That I am bothered puts no obligations on anybody else.
That a thief isn’t allowed around the cash box is, among other things, the merciful thing to do. He won’t be tempted–he is weaker than others–and if something goes wrong with the count, he won’t be the first suspected. But the point is, nobody owes him a job handling money, not as long as he lives.
He’ll have to reform in some other way.
If an employer doesn’t want to take a chance that he or his employees will be robbed or assaulted by a convicted thief or assailant, that’s his right, and wrt his employees, his duty.
So, to end this, I hope, the use of “allow” implies very strongly that there is agency involved unfairly.
Wrong.
If you want to say things are tough, that’s fine.
To use the term “allow” implies the rest of us are required to take chances with our lives and our property.
If an individual wishes to do so, let him. It is not a social requirement.
People have reformed IN JAIL. It isn’t necessary for them to be wandering about a garden of the unwary in order to reform.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:21:55 +0000

Where did this money come from? Was it part of the bait and switch that the politicians perpetrated after the Malibu fires in 1993 when proposition 172 was sold to the public on the basis the money would go to local agencies such as fire departments to fix problems that hampered their efforts to control the disaster? Then, years after proposition 172 passed it, it was discovered the local agencies still hadn’t gotten the equipment the public thought they had paid for. Because politicians like Hayden had spent the money raised by the increase in sales tax the voters had imposed imposed upon themselves instead on pet projects they pretended had some remote connection to public safety, such as anti-gang initiatives, but were really part of the patronage system that ultimately just benefits them politically.

Like providing money to illegal aliens. I’d be curious to know if any of LA’s “anti-gang” slush fund comes from revenue raised by prop 172.

By: Steverino

Steverino — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:05:56 +0000

Steverino: and yet we do, as a general rule, expect released former convicts to reform themselves and become productive members of society.

Agreed.

But I was addressing your concern that society doesn’t believe a former gang member to be really free of his past life. In that sense, the former gang member is no different from any former criminal: people don’t trust him, and sometimes they continue that mistrust for a long time.

It’s not an attitude reserved for gang members, and it’s also not an unwarranted attitude. Gang members who truly want to reform will accept that they must go to great lengths to reestablish trust with their community, and that the lack of trust is the result of their own actions.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:27:26 +0000

Stashiu3, you have not put word in my mouth, and you are not mistaken, and I greatly appreciate the knowledge that someone I respect has my back. Thank you.

By: Stashiu3

Stashiu3 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:26:23 +0000

aphrael,

If this Richard Aubrey is the same one from Ace’s, he is usually better than this. I don’t intend to put words in your mouth, so if I’m mistaken in anything I’ve said, let me know. It’s just difficult for me to sit by when someone I respect is being attacked unfairly.