Posted on 03/16/2018 5:14:14 AM PDT by ptsal
Full title**Calif. judge bars LA from enforcing gang restrictions that authorities credited with reducing crime
The city of Los Angeles has been barred from enforcing the vast majority of its gang injunctions, which applied restrictions on gang associations that authorities have long credited with reducing crime.
The ruling Thursday by U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the injunctions were likely to be unconstitutionally broad, and affect people who did not have adequate opportunity to challenge them in court.
The gang injunctions are civil court orders that have applied to nearly 9,000 people and 79 gang sets since 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
WHAT IS MS-13, THE VIOLENT GANG TRUMP PROMISES TO TARGET?
The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of the injunctions because the city could obtain them against gangs, rather than individuals.
Judge Virginia Phillips obviously
prefers 187 by MS-13 — before the fact.
WHEN WILL THERE BE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE
RAPES, MURDERS, SLAVERY, AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE
AND WITNESSES BY THE RULING CLASS?
I need to see the specifics here - the article is too vague to make an informed opinion.
Although tossing out the law on the basis of “they can’t defend themselves” is specious.
Impeachment time.
Good, LA should be the showcase of liberalism.
Funny — I have a feeling this same judge doesn’t find restrictions on firearms “unconstitutionally broad.” Especially since she’s in California, where the restrictions are even more severe. I’m sure she’s fine with those restrictions on freedom.
Impeachment would be good ... but AG Sessions
does not even care when DO”J” scum
lie, destroy Evidence, dare to attack Plaintiffs
in cases with actionable cases — while ignoring
the ongoing crimes and treason. Does not care.
I agree. The article provides no detail as to what exactly might parts of the law in question either are, or may be, unconstitutional
I heartily support any constitutionally correct law which help fight criminal gang activity, but our legislators and law enforcement do not exactly have a great record of finding the “sweet spot” in law and policy where constitutional rights are protected, but law enforcement are given tools to fight against these a$$hats.
As much as we might want to simply unleash the cops to “take care of them”, no one wants to be on the wrong end of a law that can’t pass 4th Amendment muster.
Issues like this are one of the challenges of living in and maintaining a free society.
Nothing but nuts in Kalifornia! Save our beloved Freepers!
They can always try the Five Points method - use eminent domain to condemn the whole area and turn it into gov buildings.
California - Showing America how to not do things for 50 years
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11judge.html
I’m all for cracking down on criminal gangs.
But if the judge threw out a law that says people wearing red shirts can be arrested for being a suspected gang member - I think that’s a correct judgement.
OTOH if she’s claiming that MS-13 is just a peaceful group of DACAs being harassed by the PoPos she’s an idiot.
Sue her personally for anyone who loses a family member.
Phew....
Shirts, hats, tattoos.... Standing around on the wrong street corner, those all good enough markers for me to say, “Round’em up.”
It’s like digging up weeds in the flower bed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.