Injunctions: Constitutional or Unjust?

An open section to speak about anything on your mind from News, politics, Conspiracy Theories, and any random street or urban event.
Post Reply
X-TribalSoldier
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 2:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Injunctions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by X-TribalSoldier » April 7th, 2004, 1:34 pm

SPeak my people! I will continue to post until I reach others and they reach others and so on. I would like to see us eradicate the negative posts and educated each other. Lets make a difference starting here!

Guest

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Guest » April 7th, 2004, 5:44 pm

no doubt homie. I think injuctions juss make msot things worse because if a homie wanna go kill anotha guy, he will spend mo time thinkin it out n how to not get caught and so on. then the police will neva find him. Its tru it keeps sum homies off the corner but I think most likely most of us will juss get pissed and do sumtin mo serious then usual.

Anonymous20

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Anonymous20 » April 7th, 2004, 5:51 pm

X-TribalSoldier wrote:SPeak my people! I will continue to post until I reach others and they reach others and so on. I would like to see us eradicate the negative posts and educated each other. Lets make a difference starting here!
It's unjust. We have been stripped of our rights to wear specific clothing, carry a cell phone in case of an emergency, can't visit neighboring areas, it's bullshyt! But for the kids playing in the front yards, and the older women who frequent the sidewalks or come home at night and have people in the street or hanging in front of their house its cool.

Injunctions have its pro's and its cons. But once again there will be unjust harrassment on those who aren't committing crimes and there will be violations handed down for no reason. The crime rates usually drop, but the killers ain't gonna stop killing and the stealers ain't gonna stop stealing. They can't eradicate gangs, we can only get rid of ourselves. Period.

User avatar
Ho0dStA bOi
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 107
Joined: July 20th, 2003, 3:12 pm
Location: south central LA

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Ho0dStA bOi » April 7th, 2004, 10:08 pm

kevmac wrote:
X-TribalSoldier wrote:SPeak my people! I will continue to post until I reach others and they reach others and so on. I would like to see us eradicate the negative posts and educated each other. Lets make a difference starting here!
It's unjust. We have been stripped of our rights to wear specific clothing, carry a cell phone in case of an emergency, can't visit neighboring areas, it's bullshyt! But for the kids playing in the front yards, and the older women who frequent the sidewalks or come home at night and have people in the street or hanging in front of their house its cool.

Injunctions have its pro's and its cons. But once again there will be unjust harrassment on those who aren't committing crimes and there will be violations handed down for no reason. The crime rates usually drop, but the killers ain't gonna stop killing and the stealers ain't gonna stop stealing. They can't eradicate gangs, we can only get rid of ourselves. Period.
speak on it...preach

X-TribalSoldier
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 2:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by X-TribalSoldier » April 8th, 2004, 10:06 am

Kevmac brutha it inspires me to see some of the thoughts collaborating in your brain. You seem to be in the 3% from what i see on this board. I think that we as a people must have enough discipline to police ourselves and be more respnsible for our communities. The injustion has it's pros but the cons as usuall outwiegh the pros.

Anonymous20

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Anonymous20 » April 8th, 2004, 11:45 am

X-TribalSoldier wrote:Kevmac brutha it inspires me to see some of the thoughts collaborating in your brain. You seem to be in the 3% from what i see on this board. I think that we as a people must have enough discipline to police ourselves and be more respnsible for our communities. The injustion has it's pros but the cons as usuall outwiegh the pros.
It would be nice to believe that we could police ourselves, but honestly, we can't!

Years before the injunctions were handed down, we were aware of blocking driveways and running up to every car that passed by, nothing changed. We knew about throwing trash on the street, nothing changed. You never going to be able to make the homies stop serving on the curb or robbing passer by's and serving enemies that try an creep through. So it won't work. We can protect our community, but we can't police it! Tthe younger homies ain't going for no discipline. Try an discipline a young ridah or a G curb servin' and he gonna bust caps in yo azz ASAP.

In our hood, the injunction is sour because we feel like in 1983-1988 it was a major war over here, and there was no effort from public officials or police to combat the violence. We had ALOT of soldiers then who are now serving life sentences for murder(s) or were killed.

Now we only beefin' tough with the Hoovers. We have unity in our community and very very tight relations with 40/55/58/90/100's/111/UG and on occasions GRAPES/Menlo/30's/62EC/89EC they want to stagnate us. They don't want to see the peace, and they also want to keep us in jail with injunction violations and stiff stipulations.

Contrary to the belief of some, it's not ALL about big businesses, cause ain't no big businesses on Crenshaw, 10th ave and Brynhurst.

X-TribalSoldier
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 61
Joined: February 19th, 2004, 2:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by X-TribalSoldier » April 8th, 2004, 2:09 pm

Indeed there are no big buisnesses on 10th ave. Your point of view is well taken, however that is where we must start with ourselves saying what can't be done. We must eradicate that word from our vocabulary. The generation of banging is an inherrited traite. For example NYkers Bloodin and Crippin or as you said young ridaz who want to live out their gangsta fantasies. We can only expect that there will be knuckleheads who just won't be civil. I realize that they too like all of us must play our role in life, but some of these kids actually can and do wanna play a different role than the one society has cast them for. Those problems in which you speak of are a bother to most residents in our cummunity, so I do see a lot of good out of the injunctions, but to have revert our bruthas who are still banging to being monitored by big brother is not constitutional. Tell me why the Mafia dose'nt have injuctions against them?

Anonymous20

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Anonymous20 » April 8th, 2004, 6:26 pm

X-TribalSoldier wrote:Tell me why the Mafia dose'nt have injuctions against them?
I've been interrogated by the ATF and FBI, both told me about the RICO act in which they wish they could place on street gangs. Street Gangs are most notable for being policed by sheriff and police departments. The MAFIA is ORGANIZED crime, so the FEDS (FBI) are assigned to them.

Well nowadays some sets like the Rollin 60's and 83Gangsters have joint policing FBI/77LAPD. The reason why the use the FBI is to get permission for wire taps and extra survelliance resources. They already have all the resources for the MAFIA and they take their time so they can learn more and build stronger cases because the RICO act carries LIFE SENTENCES.

Besides all that........i'd say they kick back when attacking the MAFIA because they get paid off by the MAFIA, and at times fear the MAFIA. Plus the MAFIA is far more advanced and more hidden (Low Profile) than the out of control, always in the street- STREET GANGS.

Loeki
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 39
Joined: October 30th, 2004, 6:08 am

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Loeki » February 20th, 2005, 3:57 am

I've read a few topics about that injuction thing.
People can scream 'unjust, unjust' for gangbangers all they want to. But at a certain point folks gotta ask themselves the reason for these injuctions in the first place? Innocent non-gang affiliated people didn't asked to be terrorized by some of these dumb azz gangbangers, did they?

Gangs gotta realize they brought it on theirselves, if they don't than they are not realistic.

1111§
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 378
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:41 am

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by 1111§ » February 20th, 2005, 6:04 am

Loeki wrote:I've read a few topics about that injuction thing.
People can scream 'unjust, unjust' for gangbangers all they want to. But at a certain point folks gotta ask themselves the reason for these injuctions in the first place? Innocent non-gang affiliated people didn't asked to be terrorized by some of these dumb azz gangbangers, did they?

Gangs gotta realize they brought it on theirselves, if they don't than they are not realistic.
That's right too, but there are always two sides to almost everything.

User avatar
Psilly
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 102
Joined: January 19th, 2005, 4:03 pm

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Psilly » February 20th, 2005, 9:40 am

Maybe two sides but one certainly out weights the other here. Biker gangs don't have this problem, the H.A.'s fought successfully with the A.C.L.U. on their side. Bikers only bang when they have cause, rarely kill, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, or otherwise mess with the general public for no reason. In fact they don't. Street gangs do, they grabbed headlines for dumbshit for years. Turned the public against them, something bikers are very careful of. When you have no respect & it shows, you have to expect the reaction streetgangs generally enjoy. What really killed streetgangs, imo, was making the papers sooo many times for killing the innocent, especially kids. Biker gangs don't make the news for shooting up playgrounds.

Loeki
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 39
Joined: October 30th, 2004, 6:08 am

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Loeki » March 2nd, 2005, 4:09 pm

The only ones who can scream unjust for the way police act against them is the once who are treated like a criminal/gangbanger only because they happen to be walkin in this or that area & the cops saw them but..
Psilly wrote:Maybe two sides but one certainly out weights the other here. Biker gangs don't have this problem, the H.A.'s fought successfully with the A.C.L.U. on their side. Bikers only bang when they have cause, rarely kill, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, or otherwise mess with the general public for no reason. In fact they don't. Street gangs do, they grabbed headlines for dumbshit for years. Turned the public against them, something bikers are very careful of. When you have no respect & it shows, you have to expect the reaction streetgangs generally enjoy. What really killed streetgangs, imo, was making the papers sooo many times for killing the innocent, especially kids. Biker gangs don't make the news for shooting up playgrounds.

exact my point. Same thing with otha criminal groups like the Mafia. Innocent people who don't fuck with the mob, ain't gonna get no trouble. Compare that shit with gangs, I might not live in USA or LA, but I've seen a lot of documentaries on TV here in Holland about LA gangs, etc & I've heard a lot of stories in those documentaries about folks whoms son/daughter who didn't even gangbanged had caught a bullet which ended his/her life. Just like the sis of the Williams sister.

Simply cause of the fact that there are a lot of gangbangers drinkin, gettin hign and whateva and be like 'hey let's go take a hoo ride to this and that neighbourhood to see if we can catch one of the enemies'. And when they can't find their enemies in their turf, while still in their triggy happy mindstate and they happen to see SOMEONE walkin in that neighbourhood who ain't a gangbanger or whateva they blast that person, but simply cause he's young and black/brown or whateva. Result: anotha innocent non gang affiliated persoon dead. And this goes on and on.

gangbangers can scream unjust all they want to, but as long as the killins won't cease on innocent non affialates, the popo's/government's ears are put on mute to that 'unjust, unjust' shit.

Just like how the government treat them prisoners on Guantanamo Bay, u wanna play the bad azz terrorist this and that, ? We don't give a fuck about your rights. And that's what happenin with these injunctions, they made it too easy for the government/police to take such measures

Anonymous20

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Anonymous20 » March 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm

Gang injunctions are not motiviated by trying to reduce gang members of terrorizing their communities. All that crap is already illegal, every single act fo terrorism that one can do in the community is already illegal. It is also illegal to say, "I will kill you"...thats called a terrorist act. Thats not why these politicians, prosecutors and judges approve injunctions. Come on, ...can some else break down an injunction for what it realy is?

FILA
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 56
Joined: September 18th, 2004, 7:40 pm
Location: ohio
Contact:

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by FILA » March 22nd, 2005, 3:08 pm

I bet these injuctions are just a way some politican is gettin reelected, so when the media ask's him what hes done to "curtail gangs" hes got an answer.

User avatar
W@n|<sTa
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: August 18th, 2005, 10:10 am

Unread post by W@n|<sTa » August 18th, 2005, 10:16 am

aY CABRON!! QUE DICE EL PUBLICOOOO!!! sup homes!! i agree with the injuction ese...they keep me off the street ese.. :?

User avatar
W@n|<sTa
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: August 18th, 2005, 10:10 am

junctions

Unread post by W@n|<sTa » August 18th, 2005, 10:17 am

aye ghuey. pura raza! na i don agry with the junction foo. me ase enojar ese. they triyin to stop me from doin wat i lov! makes me feel lik my rites have ben takin away. :evil:

User avatar
W@n|<sTa
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: August 18th, 2005, 10:10 am

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by W@n|<sTa » August 18th, 2005, 10:22 am

Anonymous wrote:no doubt homie. I think injuctions juss make msot things worse because if a homie wanna go kill anotha guy, he will spend mo time thinkin it out n how to not get caught and so on. then the police will neva find him. Its tru it keeps sum homies off the corner but I think most likely most of us will juss get pissed and do sumtin mo serious then usual.
your an idiot!

Midnight
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 137
Joined: March 22nd, 2006, 6:37 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by Midnight » April 22nd, 2006, 8:30 pm

[quote="W@n|<sTa"]
Anonymous wrote:no doubt homie. I think injuctions juss make msot things worse because if a homie wanna go kill anotha guy, he will spend mo time thinkin it out n how to not get caught and so on. then the police will neva find him. Its tru it keeps sum homies off the corner but I think most likely most of us will juss get pissed and do sumtin mo serious then usual.
your an idiot![/quote]

Yes he is an idiot. he sound like one of those stupid nazis trying to trick people to think he is one of these gang bangers

moses
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 33
Joined: August 14th, 2005, 9:39 pm
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Injustions: Constitutional or Unjust?

Unread post by moses » April 23rd, 2006, 11:07 am

alonso wrote:Gang injunctions are not motiviated by trying to reduce gang members of terrorizing their communities. All that crap is already illegal, every single act fo terrorism that one can do in the community is already illegal. It is also illegal to say, "I will kill you"...thats called a terrorist act. Thats not why these politicians, prosecutors and judges approve injunctions. Come on, ...can some else break down an injunction for what it realy is?
I feel you bruh. After experiencing LAPD in Watts utilizing the gang injunctions, i've researched more into this subject. The concept itself is great. The Gang Injunctions itself is not unjust, it's the people who utilize these Injunctions who are unjust. Injunctions are for KNOWN Gangmembers. The injustice comes from - (1) The Police dept labeling someone a gangmember who may not be (2) How the Police define a gangmember with rags, colors, and/or tatoos. (3) The Police making arrests based on injunction rules except the known gangmember rule.

I've witnessed the police handcuff our black youths just because he was standing outside of his apt with friends. None of them wore rags, none of them were doing anything but standing together in a group of three watching us film. One of the rules for KNOWN gangmembers in these injunctions is not to be with a group of three or more people.

The LAPD abuse the Gang Injunction and use it for KNOWN blacks and mexicans. A Gang Injunction concept might have helped the 2002 LA Summer jam. But Gang Injunctions are for certain areas (mostly where Blacks and Mexicans live). Now what happens when these areas are having positive sports games. Because there are times Grape St Crips play football or basketball against East Coast Crips or Bounty Hunter Bloods. This is one of the positive things these kids from the hood do but now they're open to be arrested for playing a game. What if a bunch of folks wanted to go to Laker game and as fans dressed the same. Again the concept of Injunction i understand. The injustice comes from who makes the rules for defining a gang and gangmember. The injustice comes from the LAPD...and it's sad to say it ain't just white cops.

we touched Gang Injunction with some footage on our DVD
http://shazzloc.com

Post Reply

Return to “Open Section for Other Random Topics & Controverisal issues”