GANGS should be declared Domestic Terrorist

Most of you probably knew that you would have food on the table when you were 10 or 11 years of age when certain cognitive memory skills where kicken with all the hormones of youth.

I have found that those who have come of age with the idea that food and shelter where taken as a ‘for sure” are very quick to judge.

After all very few on this board have slept with no roof or no food at a young age.

And…at that age if you happen to find a form of bio survival security in the form of a so called “gang” without latching on to it then you are lacking a certain quality of life which enables a organism to survive.

I place very little blame on the individual.

The judgement rests upon American society.

Secondly, by bringing your personal indignation upon these individuals whose lives have been imprinted toward ordinary survival in contrast to your lazy ass blame the scape goat attitude will bring a fierce push back in which you will have no time to finish your Cheezios with Desperate Housewives lives.

The meek will gain the earth as they understand living under the hand of oppression.

As Crazy Horse said” My land is where my people lie buried.”


[edit on 17-1-2009 by whiteraven]

reply to post by The Change Weenie


The only dangerous gang working right now in this nation and terrorizing tax payer is call the bail out gang and they are robbing this nation blind.

How interesting to see people that spend their time complaining about gangs and domestic terrorism when the first to be arrested are actually in our own government.

Interesting to see also how with all the problems facing the nation and the economy we should now pursue laws into domestic terrorism.

Like that once people starts to gather to for a common purpose they can be considered gangs and terrorist.

Wake up America.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think the problem here is; people are confusing these gangs of little punk kids running around in a car Mommy bought them playing Rap to the real thing. A hoodie and a giant woofer in the trunk of a kid does not make them them the real thing. They are just kids who's Parents need to be slapped for not raising them with common sense.

The Crips and Bloods (and others ......

that you cannot name apparently.

In all of this you have named the same two generic gangs that anyone who has seen boyz n the hood know of. Answer my question who decides?

Are you purposely missing my question here?

Who decides the difference between the kids you describe, the "crips and bloods." and the 1000s of actual gangs in between? Who decides which gangs are real gangs? By the names they remember from tv? Please tell me how it will all be sorted out. Ok, gangs are declared enemies of the state. Now who is in a gang?

good point, in my neighborhood some of the most out of control and vicious were 16 17... And funny enough they were the guys trying to get into the gang.

Its not possible...

Originally posted by whiteraven
Gangs should be declared legal terrorists ONLY if you are willing to give up your liberty for security.

Well said.

Gangs will be considered terrorists in the future. Anyone who disagrees with authority will.

That's the whole idea.

reply to post by infolurker


Great, they need to get all the satanists and grey aliens off the street first, as they control the other gangs and the cops are afraid of them.

There's two sides to this, on one hand you have the millions of jobs (honest) that these "gang members" create in the way they commit crimes and what not but on the other you have an obvious "solution" by locking up all suspected of the activity, I'm on the fence though and trust me as a correctional officer I have plenty of experience working with gang members.

reply to post by alyosha1981


I do not want to imply that I support gangs at all.

We have had gang crackdowns in many venues of North America. Our prison population is exploding...in fact we have more people in prison in the US then any other country in the world.

America's prison population topped 2 million inmates for the first time in history on June 30, 2002 according to a new report from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government held 1,355,748 prisoners (two-thirds of the total incarcerated population), and local municipal and county jails held 665,475 inmates.

By midyear 2002, America's jails held 1 in every 142 U.S. residents. Males were incarcerated at the rate of 1,309 inmates per 100,000 U.S. men, while the female incarceration rate was 113 per 100,000 women residents.

Of the 1,200,203 state prisoners, 3,055 were younger than 18 years old. In addition, adult jails held 7,248 inmates under 18.

usgovinfo.about.com...

U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations
By Adam Liptak Published: April 23, 2008


Share Article

Text Size

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

www.iht.com...

If we decide to follow up with the final solution concerning the Drug/Gang problem America has by incarcerating all suspects as they incarcerated so called terrorists without proof or trial what kind of nation would America be considered in the eyes of future historians.

To consider this type of action borders on Fascism.

Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence

en.wikipedia.org...

We tried to cut off the drug trade at its source during the Reagan/Bush years. I believe the Panamanian pineapple is now almost of prison.

The prosecution presented a case that has been criticized by numerous observers. The prosecution's case was completely reworked several times because problems developed with the witnesses, whose stories contradicted one another. The United States Attorney negotiated deals with 26 different drug felons, including Carlos Lehder, who were given leniency, cash payments, and allowed to keep their drug earnings in return for testimony against Noriega. Several of these witnesses had been arrested by Noriega for drug trafficking in Panama. Some witnesses later recanted their testimony, and agents of the CIA, Drug Enforcement Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Israeli Mossad, who were knowledgeable about Central American drug trafficking, have publicly charged that accusations were embellished. Noriega was found guilty and sentenced on September 16, 1992, to 40 years in prison for drug and racketeering violations. His sentence was reduced to 30 years in 1999.

Pending release
Noriega has stated his intention to return to Panama, and that he had no desire to return to politics. It is thought Noriega will get preferential treatment by the Panamanian government; even a presidential pardon.[citation needed] The current president of Panama is Martin Torrijos, son of Noriega's mentor and friend, Omar Torrijos.

This guy was the kingpin.......who worked for.......we spent million aressting him and others...with no dent in America's consumption of drugs.

As Commander-in-Chief, Bush oversaw two major U.S. military deployments. He ordered the invasion of Panama, which began just after midnight on December 20, 1989. It was the twelfth U.S. invasion of that country since 1903. The mission of U.S. forces was to depose long-time CIA asset General Manuel Noriega, an indicted drug trafficker. It was the largest airborne assault since World War II. When it was over, the Army excluded the press and Red Cross from entering heavily bombed areas for three days while soldiers incinerated some civilian casualties and buried others in mass graves. Bush’s Defense Secretary, Richard Cheney claimed a death toll of between 500 and 600. But independent human rights groups put the death toll between 3,000 and 5,000 with about 25,000 left homeless. This military operation turned out to be practice for even greater press censorship, propaganda and human rights violations during and after Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. air and ground attack that failed to depose Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 1990. That failure eventually eroded public confidence in Bush and contributed to his defeat by Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

www.famoustexans.com...



His "arrest" speaks volumes. I often wonder what Bush thought when the picture surfaced of General Manuel Noriega sitting with VP Bush during the Iran/Contra affair.

The problem can be solved via gang preventive programs. If we pumped as much money into preventive gang measures and education as we give police forces we would then not only subvert the gangs we would gain allies in the building of North America.

The issue is poverty.

I have traveled to many parts of this world and lived in many.

The US now resembles a third world country more then a rich Western country.

Germany faced the same issues after WW 1.








[edit on 18-1-2009 by whiteraven]

Two simple things would go a long way toward solving the gang problem once and for all.

1) Legalize all drugs - many jobs could be created in the process if done correctly, also quality/safety/purity of drugs could be better controlled
2) Institute a flat tax on all purchasable items/services

This way, gangs' financial power would be cut off at the head and everyone, illegal or not, would end up paying taxes.

Why should gang affiliation matter anyway? A crime is a crime isn't it? I am not in a gang. Does that mean it is ok if I were to come and murder your loved ones? Should I get a lesser sentence than a gang member for it?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Intothepitwego]

Interesting point, but you forget the fact that murder can be incidental, as in a one-time thing... I'm far from advocating it, the peacemonger that I am, but being in a gang is like dedicating yourself to crime. Like someone said with the tattoos counting kills, its an admission that you want to do wrong. No one joins a gang for the fun basketball games. You're right, a crime is a crime, but I'd say willingly dedicating yourself to it is slightly worse. But then again, I think rapists ought to be labelled the worst and tortured in kind, but I know Im wrong on that too.

If the SHTF you won't be counting on gangs to protect you. You will be defending your lives and property from them.

Nothing but good could come from cracking down on them. However, we need to put boots on the border to have any effectiveness.

Also, it was stated some time ago that the US was going to help Mexico crack down on their gangs and it's still a big problem there.

still can't spell edit

[edit on 18-1-2009 by seabisquit]

Only I was not one of those children.

And I abhor gangsters and thugs like the viral infection that they are.

Nothing like getting to see the least enjoyable elements of society nice and early - sometimes you become a stockholme type like you. Sometimes you can realistically look at it as the stupid crap that it is without absorbing it.

Originally posted by whiteraven
Most of you probably knew that you would have food on the table when you were 10 or 11 years of age when certain cognitive memory skills where kicken with all the hormones of youth.

I have found that those who have come of age with the idea that food and shelter where taken as a ‘for sure” are very quick to judge.

After all very few on this board have slept with no roof or no food at a young age.

And…at that age if you happen to find a form of bio survival security in the form of a so called “gang” without latching on to it then you are lacking a certain quality of life which enables a organism to survive.

I place very little blame on the individual.

The judgement rests upon American society.

Secondly, by bringing your personal indignation upon these individuals whose lives have been imprinted toward ordinary survival in contrast to your lazy ass blame the scape goat attitude will bring a fierce push back in which you will have no time to finish your Cheezios with Desperate Housewives lives.

The meek will gain the earth as they understand living under the hand of oppression.

As Crazy Horse said” My land is where my people lie buried.”


[edit on 17-1-2009 by whiteraven]

Nothing like getting to see the least enjoyable elements of society nice and early - sometimes you become a stockholme type like you. Sometimes you can realistically look at it as the stupid crap that it is without absorbing it.

My worldview encompassed both poverty and crime from an angle not often observed.

Your reference to the Stockholm Syndrome simply shows your ignorance of the effects of poverty.

It is very easy to cast stones.

It is not so easy to step into American poverty and change young peoples lives before a gang gains hold of thier worldview.

I think cracking down on gangs and using their property, assets in a monetary value to build prisons and holdings would be good. Firstly take down all the leaders of every gang in the state and use them as an example I say. This creates jobs, leaves people feeling more safer in the areas that they live in and also allows people to think twice before joining a gang.

Sure they are people, but people who have terrorised the community as a whole. I cannot respect them for what they do and cause.

You got to be joking if your saying that gangs are our first line of defence. They'll be the first ones pillaging, raping, murdering our people before anyone can move wshtf. There not fighting the system but only abusing the system for their own personal gain.

As a gang cop, I can say it comes down the courts definition of a gang.
where I live it is as follows.

Any organization, club, association or group of individuals, either formal or informal, that may have a common name or identifying symbol, whose members engage in unlawful acts that would violate the law.

Tangential to the topic at hand...

Do you notice that the rise of gangs coincides with societies letting mothers kick the fathers out of the family home (via divorce)?

Just a couple of quick thoughts...

For those who think stopping Mexicans from coming here illegally will stop the gang problems, think again. I live in the agricultural hub of CA and am surrounded by illegals. While it is true that many of the 2nd or 3rd generation Mexican teens end up in gangs, the majority of our 1st generation illegals are simply migrant workers who couldn't afford to come here legally. That doesn't excuse their methods, but if the shoes were on the other feet, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
Gangs, dangerous or otherwise, can be found in any population, regardless of race, sex, or religion, that has a low level of education and a poverty level standard of living.

Secondly, It should not be a crime to belong to, or identify yourself as a member of, a group or "gang". It doesn't matter what group it is either, Nazi, Blood, Soreno, whatever. No crime is being committed simply by belonging to a group. If a crime is committed, then the person responsible for the crime should be punished in accordance with the law. It is individuals who choose, individually, to commit crimes. It is a crime to do a drive-by, so if someone does one, gangmember or not, arrest the person responsible and charge them. We are not so despotic yet, I hope, that we see nothing wrong with doing blanket arrests of everyone in a group for the wrongdoings of specific members.

Now I am not an idiot. Like I said I live in an area rife with gangs, and I am well aware of the pain and damage that has been caused by many of their members crimes. It is also a fact that in my county it IS a crime to simply be a member of a gang, but it hasn't hurt the gang's membership roll. The police can (and do) arrest EVERYONE in a group for being a gang affiliate, if they identify ANYONE in that group as being a member of a gang, and without any other crimes having been committed. To some of you that may sound like a brilliant idea, but to me it invokes visions of gestapo-like tactics that will inevitably come to be used against anyone who joins with others in opposition to those in power. Just because the powers that be say they'd never do such a thing, doesn't mean they won't. If history has taught us anything, I would think THAT would be it.

Oh yeah, the legal definition of "gang" from the Dictionary of Law:

gang (n) :a group of persons associating for antisocial and often criminal purposes and activities

(me again...antisocial is awfully vague and often, by no means, means always)

Why should gang affiliation matter anyway? A crime is a crime isn't it? I am not in a gang. Does that mean it is ok if I were to come and murder your loved ones? Should I get a lesser sentence than a gang member for it?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Intothepitwego]

It makes me sick to hear supposedly intelligent people try to make excuses for gangs. We are not talking about the Boy Scouts. We are not talking about the Knights of Columbus. We are not talking about the Shriners. We are not talking about the American Legion. Gangs exist for one reason only and that is to commit crime. Gangsters can be tried for conspiracy to commit crime. It is why everyone joins a gang. They want to be bigtime gangsters.

Make it open season on gang members. Give the community a free pass to kill anyone with a gang affiliation. Publish lists of the names and addresses of known gang members and let the good citizens who respect their communities go at them. Make it known that anyone proclaiming themselves in a gang will have a target on their back. I long for the day when citizens will freely shoot cowardly gangsters. Knee cap them. Shoot them in the back. Blow them up in their stolen vehicles. Slit their throats. Set them on fire. Chop them up with machetes. Burn them with acid.

They do not deserve to live in our communities. They do not deserve to live in our prisons.

I cannot believe people who come on here and act like gangs are benign and innocent. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. KILLERS, RAPISTS, EXTORTIONISTS, THIEVES, DRUG DEALERS. They get your children addicted to hard drugs and then turn them into thieves and whores so they can pay for their habits.

How exactly do you think those "murderers, rapists, and thieves" who obviously place no value on human life as it is, would react to such a tactic? Fear of death is apparently not too much of an issue for them. Do you think that they would see a bunch of vigilantes as anything more than another gang trying to remove them from their territory? What would stop these base individuals from retaliating against such an attack, by killing the families and friends of their foes? Would that justify even more brutal measures being employed by the vigilantes, who are already chopping them up with hatchets and shooting them in the head? What makes that type of behavior any different than that of the "bad gangs" they want to eliminate, other than the fact that the "good guys" perceive their own actions as justified? Murder and justifiable homicide are two terms for the same thing. It just depends on which side of the gun (or hatchet) you are on at the time.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
So who will decide what exactly constitutes a gang and what will stop this from reaching farther to clubs orginizations, groups, people. This is still the U.S. and I would like to see that happen for a little while longer.

A sign of the times ! Oh lets see, perhaps those good folks at DHS or our alleged representatives in Congress ( HR 1955 ) the wonderful Americans that gave us the concept of " Home grown terrorism " Yes ! We can certainly trust them to define the word 'gang' or 'gang affiliation.' You seem to be one of the few who have stayed on topic. To the OP, BAD BAD BAD BAD idea !

Many US church groups would fall under the class of "anti social" and be subject to arrest just as many gang members are arrested.

Once you start to slide the idea of freedom of speech to mean "whoever freely speaks the opinion of the majority" rather then "speak your mind freely" you have stepped outside the constitution and toward facism.