Yes,I spent a total of about two weeks in NZ...mostly touring your lovely countryside (and visiting Rotorua...oh,the smell!) so I didn't pay much attention to whatever gang problem the country might have.I must say that I am surprised to hear you,a Guardian Angel,say that you have little problem with their sometimes violent ways...even if that violence is only among themselves.My understanding is that the Guardian Angels were originally formed in New York City to counter the violence in the subway.I've always assumed that the Angels' Charter would come out strongly against any kind of wanton violence or theft.But I could be wrong...
As for "privacy" and "peaceful enjoyment"...the circles in which *I* travel are not made up of criminals.I know of *no* member of my family or group of friends who have ever been charged with...let alone convicted of...anything more serious than a minor traffic violation.So,given that,I'd say we have a reasonable expectation of not being subjected to any kind of extraordinary police surveillance/monitoring.OTOH,I think that members of the Mafia,for example,can have no such expectation.Yes,it's true that gypsy clans aren't typically as bad as the Mafia,but.....
> I must say that I am surprised to hear you,a Guardian Angel,say that you have little problem with their sometimes violent ways...even if that violence is only among themselves.
OK, I had better make this quite clear, then.
The Guardian Angels organization is opposed to violence. Though I am a proud member of the Guardian Angels, when I post on the FRee Republic I am doing so in the capacity of a private individual. That said, as much as is practical, I try to live my life in full compliance with the goals and ideals of the Guardian Angels. Ideally there should be no gaps between official policy and my actions and beliefs, but if there is it is because I am articulating my own beliefs, as an individual and a good (conservative) citizen.
But I am not representing the organization in this forum.
In practical terms, there is little that I can do about inter-gang violence: I would be a fool to try. Naturally, if inter-gang violence happened in front of me and if it were in my power to put a stop to it, I would. Otherwise I would do whatever the situation allowed at the time — which may well be nothing.
It is not practical or necessary to be “anti-gang”, so I am not. There are good pragmatic reasons for that: I am always unarmed and I do not wish to dodge bullets, and (so far) it isn’t illegal for people to be members of a gang. They do have the right and freedom to associate. And I can achieve all of the aims and objectives of the organization to which I belong without opposing gangs.
> My understanding is that the Guardian Angels were originally formed in New York City to counter the violence in the subway.
Violence and other crime in the Bronx, initially, and then in the subway later. The brief is now much wider, and has grown to also encompass being positive role models for youth and to promote public safety in a much wider sense.
> I’ve always assumed that the Angels’ Charter would come out strongly against any kind of wanton violence or theft.
The Guardian Angels are opposed to all crime, particularly violent crime. That said, our objective is to deter crime and, if necessary, put a stop to it. We do not investigate it, and we do not enforce the law.
And as a private individual, these are also my objectives as a good citizen.
> As for “privacy” and “peaceful enjoyment”...the circles in which *I* travel are not made up of criminals.
I hope not. But how would you know for sure?
> I know of *no* member of my family or group of friends who have ever been charged with...let alone convicted of...anything more serious than a minor traffic violation.
Has anyone you know ever cheated on their taxes? How would you know?
> So,given that,I’d say we have a reasonable expectation of not being subjected to any kind of extraordinary police surveillance/monitoring.
Yet a goodly number of your fellow citizens voted in Obama, and many of the things he has been mooting are jolly scary. Is your reasonable expectation indeed reasonable, given the possibility that things in America could change radically and for the worse within Obama’s presidency?
> OTOH,I think that members of the Mafia,for example,can have no such expectation. Yes,it’s true that gypsy clans aren’t typically as bad as the Mafia,but.....
The beauty and majesty of the law is that it (should) applies equally to all, and it (should) falls no more heavy on one group or individual than another.
Anything less than that is Tyranny.