Chicago police chief criticized for 'gang summit'

CHICAGO – The idea seemed simple though bold: Call reputed gang leaders to a meeting with top police and federal prosecutors and deliver an ultimatum to end killings in the nation's third-largest city.

news.yahoo.com...

Since he took over in 2008, the department has been weary of Weis, a career FBI agent who continues to be seen as an outsider by many rank and file officers.

The Chicago Gang Violence Reduction Initiative launched at an unpublicized Aug. 17 meeting, when Weis met with parolees and reputed gang members from Chicago's west side. The meeting, which was also attended by family members of victims, was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times.

I was wondering what others thought about this approach.

"What are we doing negotiating or having a sit-down with urban terrorists who are killing with guns and drugs on the streets?" Chicago Alderman Bob Fioretti said. "Gangs are not to be coddled."

on the other hand...

Experts say the tactic of meeting with gang leaders — whether formally with top administrators or at the neighborhood level — is just part of good police work.

Yea, I don't see this as a good idea whatsoever.

They need to arrest these punks and put them on trial.

reply to post by whatukno


I agree with you.

Why are they negotiating with criminals?

The issue resonates deeply in Chicago, where the number of brazen shootings has escalated this year, even though the overall homicide rate is down. Earlier this year, two state lawmakers asked to send in the National Guard to patrol streets. On Wednesday, two cops were shot and injured while serving a warrant.

I thought they already sent in the National Guard earlier this year but I guess not.
I say send in the National Guard...do whatever it takes to weaken these gangs greatly.


edit to add:

Weis said the message was simple: "If you should resort to violence, we'll sharpen our focus on you and really really make your lives uncomfortable. You have the ability to influence people within your sphere. You guys are in the position to stop the killing."

If I had to say that to someone, I would quit my job!

If I had to give a message, it would be one of silence.
No warnings, no nothing.
Simple, if they "should resort to violence..." they need to be sent down the river and for a very long time!
Murder? They should go for life period!

[edit on 2-9-2010 by sweetliberty]

I dont think this is a bad idea at all.

Its not as if he is saying, look I give up, do what you want, we cant control you anymore.

He's doing good here. First he is saying we know who you are, so there no hiding from the fact that we know who is doing these killings, its then saying look we all humans, lets just sort this out with some dignity, and thirdly, the warning is, if this gets out of hand, you will be our main focus and we will sort this out, and then you will pay for your actions.

I think its good management myself, and actually sitting down and talking to people who you have had problems with, is the best way about it, rather than continually spewing hatred at each other, and its never resolved.

Good job I say!

Not a bad idea.

Talking usually works better than shooting them.

But i was also thinking, is it one step closer to police corruption, making deals with the gangs, because you cant beat them.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by MR BOB]

reply to post by MR BOB


this is chicago were talking about, i dont think that would be anything new.

I am glad at least one alderman has said he dosnt want to coddle gang members.

The only talking the police and the feds need to do with senior members is booting the boot on there neck and force them to talk about there criminal activities, in order to halp clean up the streets.

Dont negostiate with terrorist. either they talk to the badge or if they dont understand that talk to the end of a rifle.

reply to post by sweetliberty


I saw it more as the issuing of an ultimatum in person.

If it was my City , this is the kind of Police Chief i would want running things. He could of played it cagey, hunkering down in his officer reading the report of the summit from the safety of his office.

Fioretti, who is mulling a run at Chicago mayor, said Weis shouldn't have been there with reputed gangsters.

link


Let the points scoring continue and be damned with the consequences for the City.

Another problem that I see with negotiating with terrorist gang members especially the senior members, I think that most of the younger members are just as much victoms of the gang as well.

Is that they are looking at gang members over the citizens in mostly crappy living conditions and neighborhoods.

I would like to see the power put into the hands of the people.

I think one approach that the police need to take is a urban combat approach. Door to door, searches and arrest. Let the gangs no they are out of business. But to do this the people need to be impowered so they are not afraid of these urban terrorist.

I don't think you guys are getting a clear picture of what happened here...the OP is framing it as "negotiating"...but that isn't really what happened.

It was more like a threat than a negotiation. Plus they pretty much tricked the gang leaders into the meeting telling them they were meeting with their parole officers.

There was no "negotiation"...they basically told them that if violence/killings were traced back to the gangs of these leaders....they would be held responsible and prosecuted with the RICO laws.

Weis said prosecutors at the meeting threatened attendees that they could be charged under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act if killings were traced back to gangs with members attending the meeting. The federal law, commonly known as RICO, provides stiffer penalties for acts performed as part of a criminal organization such as the Mafia.

And also, experts are saying this was a good idea and has worked in other cities

Experts say the tactic of meeting with gang leaders — whether formally with top administrators or at the neighborhood level — is just part of good police work.

"It's become almost standard practice in police departments around the country," said David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "It's simply saying to people that violence is going to get special attention from law enforcement and that a whole lot of violence, especially in places like Chicago, is driven by gangs."

And it appears to have worked...the gang leaders are so rattled they said they feel like are being harrased and being treated unfairly. Well boo-hoo...but no one can say the meeting didn't get their attention...and now they seem scared.


Again...I think the claims that this was "negotiating" with gang leaders is just wrong. This was a threat...not a negotiation...and I think it was a smart move.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

I saw it more as the issuing of an ultimatum in person.

If it was my City , this is the kind of Police Chief i would want running things. He could of played it cagey, hunkering down in his officer reading the report of the summit from the safety of his office.

Fioretti, who is mulling a run at Chicago mayor, said Weis shouldn't have been there with reputed gangsters.

link


Let the points scoring continue and be damned with the consequences for the City.

If that is what the Chief is truly doing....issuing an ultimatum in person, he has my vote.
I hope his presence in this actually makes a difference but I feel it might be taken as more of a challange just as other ultimatums from other gangs have most likely been taken as challanges.

I wish the cowboy and the citizens the best

sl

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Thank you for the clarification, I did take it more as negotiating.
I seem to see a lot more people speaking out and taking different approaches lately.
Is this the year of "I'm fed up!"? I hope so.

sl

Originally posted by humbleseeker
I think one approach that the police need to take is a urban combat approach. Door to door, searches and arrest. Let the gangs no they are out of business. But to do this the people need to be impowered so they are not afraid of these urban terrorist.

So you are for having martial law basically? Give me a break. This was a pretty good move. He delivered an ultimatum which was stop or its your butts that will be paying for it. RICO is a very tricky thing for gang members. All that has to be proven is that you know somebody that committed a crime and the government can put you as the front man then you are in jail for pretty much life. Arresting gang members like they have done in the past doesnt do any good at all. In a year or two they are out and smarter then they were when they went in. RICO is a good thing in this situation along with threatening them with it.

And door to door searches? Really? Have you ever read the constitution? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Show me where its cool in those documents to do door to door searches as if ALL the citizens in those projects and neighborhoods are terrorists? If you start doing that you create presedent to do it in other areas and for less reason and then we will have a solid police state. No thanks.

Also what will work is loosening up the gun laws in that city. The supreme court rulled that their gun laws that were in place are crap and they overturned them. But, chicago will and does find ways to keep guns out of the hands of innocent civilians who can and will defend themselves against thugs. Trust me, it has worked in other cities and it will work in this one as well. Having gun laws where you cant get a gun if you are an innocent civilian hasnt prevented crime rates from rising nor has it stopped the gangs from getting guns. Put the guns in the hands of the citizens and give them the right to defend themselves wherever they may be like we have hear in Florida and the crime rates will go down and thugs will thing twice before they try and jack somebody.

reply to post by dizzie56


I agree its not constitutional, I was just saying what would need to be done if you realy wanted to get rid of the major gang influence in some of those neighborhoods, the law is not enforced.

I dont agree with going door to door, yet if you realy want to take the fight to them, if it was possible and legal I would incorporate gang profiling anyone weaing hats sideways, blatent gang clothing, ect would be searched.

Maybe the govt could create small militias in the gang ridden nighborhood, made up of the good citizens in those neighborhoods arm them, empower them, and if the gang members dont submit kill them.

Gangs are a threat to innocent people especially to people living in those communities. They kill and still, and sell drugs, without a care

I whole heartedly stand by the constitution, unless we consider a member of a gang to be a terrorist then we could go to war with them like the taliban.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
reply to post by dizzie56

 

I agree its not constitutional, I was just saying what would need to be done if you realy wanted to get rid of the major gang influence in some of those neighborhoods, the law is not enforced.

I dont agree with going door to door, yet if you realy want to take the fight to them, if it was possible and legal I would incorporate gang profiling anyone weaing hats sideways, blatent gang clothing, ect would be searched.

Maybe the govt could create small militias in the gang ridden nighborhood, made up of the good citizens in those neighborhoods arm them, empower them, and if the gang members dont submit kill them.

Gangs are a threat to innocent people especially to people living in those communities. They kill and still, and sell drugs, without a care

I whole heartedly stand by the constitution, unless we consider a member of a gang to be a terrorist then we could go to war with them like the taliban.

Governments aren't suppossed to create small militias, the citizens are. The government allready has the national guard, police, fbi etc. If they want to help the citizens help themselves then they should relax the gun laws and it would work itself out. And if you dont agree with going door to door then why bring it up in the first place. I believe that you are looking at this emotionally instead of as a bystander. Everybody knows what gangs do and where they are at. Now look at what is restricting the citizens from ridding the violence that is in their own communities and there in lies the answer.

I agree I am looking at it emotioaly you have good points. Chicago desperatly needs to change there gun laws.

reply to post by sweetliberty


This reminds me of Hill Street Blues. The opening sequence of the series was filmed in Chicago...... Season 1 Episode 2 contained a gang summit that was convened by Captain Furillo in order to secure the peace before the President of the United States came to town to visit the area.....Below is the link to Hulu. Check it out at out 35:08 into the show.

"How ya doin Frankie? What a party ya got here Frankie!"....lol.

www.hulu.com...

[edit on 3-9-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

I do not see this as a bad thing as all hail from the same community so in that regards this exemplifies Community-LE relations.

If all you do is threaten everyone all day it will get nothing constructive accomplished but continually add to the violence and bloodshed. At times you must be willing to talk to your enemy in order to bring a successful resolution to any item before you that all can agree on.

The mandate from the Chief is simple, work with us if not we will work to end you. Become apart of the solution and do not consistantly be time and time again a part of the problem.

I'd if I was a Chicagoian I'd give this like a year and a half to see if this approach actually erases or knocks back violent crime. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

There is no shades of corruption here so to the poster who thought this is corruption stop.

The sad reality is that approaches like this are not even nessecary when all the honest, good and decent people abandon the neighbourhood which allows the criminal element to invade and takeover. If more people were willing to stand up to these criminal azzhats on your own terms and acually force them out means that those honest, good and decent people won't have the need to run out of the city everytime someone gets shot or stabbed.

I flat out refuse to allow the criminal element to take my neighbourhood over and have done things in the past to push back against it.

Evil flourishes and is allowed to thrive when good men do nothing to prevent it. By not willing to be a part of the solution makes you instantly a part of the problem.

Most won't ever speak out or up because they fear retaliation, you know what I say to that? Whose neighbourhood is it? Yours or some criminals?

When the entire neighbourhood stands united and together the criminals know they cannot setup shop and take over and will leave with thier head hung low in shame. It when you fear your neighbourhood is when they win, that is what the criminal element looks for and preys on.

I dont get it. The cops had a meeting with known gang leaders and threatened that if the gangs continued committing crimes the cops would have to do their jobs? Then they let the known gang leaders walk out the door?

[edit on 3-9-2010 by thisguyrighthere]