Thread: L.A. city prosecutors file lawsuit aimed at MS-13 gang

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Somebody sounds like a law school student.

We all went to law school at one time. Do you need my California Bar #? I work for LA County.

attorneyatlaw: How broke is the government?

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Somebody sounds like a law school student.

We all went to law school at one time. Do you need my California Bar #? I work for LA County.

I don't know who you are trying to impress with the "attorneyatlaw", but it probably won't work here.
Here, all comments are created equal. Comments that don't contain a link to supporting documents are considered "just some guy's opinion" and are no more believable, or important, than anyone else's opinion.
Is your self image really so low that you need to tell everyone you meet that you are not just a lawyer, but an "attorneyatlaw" ?

You assume because there are less arrests being made (not sure where you get your figures) that means less gang activity is occuring? You do understand we are talking about Los Angeles whereby gang violence occurs on a daily basis.

Most people understand that injuctions alone are not going to reduce gangs, or their criminal enterprise-atleast not for any substantial length of time. Any reduction in criminal activity due to these injuctions will likely be temporary.

It seems as if we have a difference of opinion I suppose. While 287(g) might not "eradicate" gangs entirely ( nobody claimed it would), it would most certainly remove those dangerous gangbangers from this country who are here illegally and continue to use our judical system as a revolving door.

Not to mention that 287(g) would remove other illegal invaders who while not involved in gang activity per se, are committing crimes in addition to being here illegally. Removing those people would also potentially reduce crime. Right counselor?

The evidence is overwhelming regarding the connection between illegal immigration and gang violence. A significant number of gangbangers are either illegal themselves, or the by-product of illegal immigration. That cannot be ignored if one is serious in reducing gang violence!

I do agree with you regarding the execution of gangbangers and the benefit that would have on society![/quote]

I get my figures for the county I work for and there is no manner of measuring gang activity unless there are arrests. I am sure there is criminal activity afoot everywhere, but how can it be measured absent an arrest? When judges issue injunctions against gangs, we arrest/prosecute/respond less to the neighborhoods of those gangs. I don't know how else to measure the effectiveness of the injunction.

I believe it was you who said "eradicate" above.

No injunctions alone do not eliminate gangs. I don't know what you mean by "substantial amount of time." Yes that is the lawyer in me. Any time we can eliminate people becoming victims of gangs, and can use resources for other than gangs, it is substantial.

Again because injunctions do limit the movements and other constitutional rights, they are highly scrutinized by judges and therefore their validity is not absolute.

There are thousands of gangbangers who are illegal and their deportation would benefit everyone.

Right now the "by-product" of illegal immigration is not at issue since the law does not address offspring of illegal immigration. Further if a law were ever passed (I don't see it in the forseeable future) it could not be applied retroactively.

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

attorneyatlaw: How broke is the government?

It is unbelievable isn't it ? The DA's office and the Public Defender have very high turn over rates and it is a shame that we cannot hire more attorneys because of the budget. My colleagues work their butt off for justice and the load they have to carry does impact their ability in the courtroom because they cannot dedicate as much to each case.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Somebody sounds like a law school student.

We all went to law school at one time. Do you need my California Bar #? I work for LA County.

I don't know who you are trying to impress with the "attorneyatlaw", but it probably won't work here.
Here, all comments are created equal. Comments that don't contain a link to supporting documents are considered "just some guy's opinion" and are no more believable, or important, than anyone else's opinion.
Is your self image really so low that you need to tell everyone you meet that you are not just a lawyer, but an "attorneyatlaw" ?

LOL!! Well said JD! In several posts, he has felt the need to let everyone know he's a lawyer, despite the fact his screen name says, "attorneyatlaw." LOL...I guess he doesn't realize we can read!

Lawyers are a dime a dozen in CA. Even our former gang-banging, reconquita, multiple bar-flunkie, mayor managed to earn a law degree from some third-rate law school!

RALLY CRY FROM ALIPAC, PLEASE JOIN IN!


http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-850399.html#850399

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Somebody sounds like a law school student.

We all went to law school at one time. Do you need my California Bar #? I work for LA County.

I don't know who you are trying to impress with the "attorneyatlaw", but it probably won't work here.
Here, all comments are created equal. Comments that don't contain a link to supporting documents are considered "just some guy's opinion" and are no more believable, or important, than anyone else's opinion.
Is your self image really so low that you need to tell everyone you meet that you are not just a lawyer, but an "attorneyatlaw" ?

LOL!! Well said JD! In several posts, he has felt the need to let everyone know he's a lawyer, despite the fact his screen name says, "attorneyatlaw." LOL...I guess he doesn't realize we can read!

Lawyers are a dime a dozen in CA. Even our former gang-banging, reconquita, multiple bar-flunkie, mayor managed to earn a law degree from some third-rate law school!

8) L O L

You assume because there are less arrests being made (not sure where you get your figures) that means less gang activity is occuring? You do understand we are talking about Los Angeles whereby gang violence occurs on a daily basis.

Most people understand that injuctions alone are not going to reduce gangs, or their criminal enterprise-atleast not for any substantial length of time. Any reduction in criminal activity due to these injuctions will likely be temporary.

It seems as if we have a difference of opinion I suppose. While 287(g) might not "eradicate" gangs entirely ( nobody claimed it would), it would most certainly remove those dangerous gangbangers from this country who are here illegally and continue to use our judical system as a revolving door.

Not to mention that 287(g) would remove other illegal invaders who while not involved in gang activity per se, are committing crimes in addition to being here illegally. Removing those people would also potentially reduce crime. Right counselor?

The evidence is overwhelming regarding the connection between illegal immigration and gang violence. A significant number of gangbangers are either illegal themselves, or the by-product of illegal immigration. That cannot be ignored if one is serious in reducing gang violence!

I do agree with you regarding the execution of gangbangers and the benefit that would have on society!

I get my figures for the county I work for and there is no manner of measuring gang activity unless there are arrests. I am sure there is criminal activity afoot everywhere, but how can it be measured absent an arrest? When judges issue injunctions against gangs, we arrest/prosecute/respond less to the neighborhoods of those gangs. I don't know how else to measure the effectiveness of the injunction.

I believe it was you who said "eradicate" above.

No injunctions alone do not eliminate gangs. I don't know what you mean by "substantial amount of time." Yes that is the lawyer in me. Any time we can eliminate people becoming victims of gangs, and can use resources for other than gangs, it is substantial.

Again because injunctions do limit the movements and other constitutional rights, they are highly scrutinized by judges and therefore their validity is not absolute.

There are thousands of gangbangers who are illegal and their deportation would benefit everyone.

Right now the "by-product" of illegal immigration is not at issue since the law does not address offspring of illegal immigration. Further if a law were ever passed (I don't see it in the forseeable future) it could not be applied retroactively.[/quote]

Did you by any chance happen to graduate from the same law school as our gangbanging mayor? YOU are the one who used the word "eradicate" in your original post!

I believe these are the words you used when attempting to provide a definition for for the word "effective."

287g would be wonderful, but would not eradicate gangs.

Nobody was talking about a law being applied "retroactively." That would obviously be asking too much from a sanctuary city such as Los Angeles.

My definition of "substantial amout of time" as it narrowly applies to the issue of gangbangers, is anything less than permanet ( I know...I have lofty expectations) Hope that adds some context for you.

The city of LA is a disgrace when it comes to addressing gang violence and our city leadership is directly reponsible. But of course people like you have vested interest in claiming the city is cracking down on gangbangers. Your opinion isn't exactly unbiased now is it....

The 287g Program and ICE are dancing great together... can you hear the music.....