Drummond: Activists ought to be concerned about welfare of law-abiding citizens

Oakland Tribune ^ | 12/15/10 | Tammerlin Drummond

[SmithL]

Activists opposed to gang injunctions have been holding loud protests in Oakland. Thirty people showed up at a demonstration at Fruitvale BART. There was "Bike for Justice." They planned to be at it again at the Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee meeting Tuesday night to protest a city lawsuit against alleged members of a Fruitvale gang.

Here's what I'd like to know:

Where was all this great hue and cry when suspected North Oakland gang members shot and killed Carolyn Howard, 29, while she and friends were standing on a sidewalk about to go dancing?

She was the umpteenth innocent victim of gang violence in this city.

Yet when City Attorney John Russo went to court to get an injunction to help break up the criminal enterprises of these menaces to society, all of the "activists" came out of the woodwork. They fought the injunction against a North Oakland gang, which was granted in June. Now they're fighting to block Russo's request for a similar injunction against a Fruitvale gang. That hearing has been postponed until early next year.

I fail to see how strictly curtailing the activities of often self-professed gang members in areas where they have been terrorizing neighborhoods criminalizes all black and Latino youths.

How can you criminalize someone who already has a lengthy rap sheet?

Attorney Michael Siegel, who is representing some of the individuals named in the city Advertisement lawsuit against the Fruitvale gang, has said it "demonizes young people" and implies that "all Latino people in the Fruitvale are gangsters."

Horse manure.

The injunction doesn't say all Latino people in the Fruitvale are gangsters. It says these 40 are, and here is the evidence. Also, all of those named are adults.

Gang injunctions are but one tool to help fight the violence that is ravaging Oakland. City officials and law enforcement must tread carefully so as not to trample people's civil rights. But these are desperate times. If you don't get that, you don't live in the communities affected by gang violence nor do you apparently follow news reports of the almost daily bloodshed.

So what about the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to do something as simple as stand on the sidewalk without fear of getting shot?

These injunctions apply only to specific individuals who have been identified by law enforcement as gang members. The city attorney must present convincing evidence to a judge to support his claims. Individuals also have an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Russo removed two men's names when they persuaded the attorneys they should not be on the list.

I do agree with Siegel on one point: The court should waive the $1,000 court fee for individuals named in the injunction. They should not have to pay $1,000 merely for the privilege of showing up and defending themselves.

The injunctions restrict gang members from carrying guns, menacing or assaulting witnesses, recruiting young people, selling drugs, vandalism, associating with each other in public and being on the street from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. There are exceptions for work, school, religious activities and emergencies.

If the police catch the individuals loitering in the so-called "safe areas" from which they have been banned -- their criminal stomping grounds -- the officers can fine and arrest them.

Eric Tullis was one of the 15 names on the injunction granted June 5.

But by Oct. 15, Tullis still had not been served.

So there he was out on the street in his alleged gang's turf after 10 p.m. -- a magnet for the bullets that wounded him, killed Howard and another man.

Would Howard still be alive if Tullis had been served and the injunction against him had been in effect?

Had he been observing the order -- under threat of fine and imprisonment -- he wouldn't have been standing near Howard to get shot at. Tullis was later arrested in Hayward, police say, in possession of an illegal firearm and stolen property.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It is tempting to waffle on the ethics of warning gangs away from places where they might meet deadly rivals.

It also sounds odd that an allegedly misnamed party has to appeal to a PROSECUTOR rather than to a JUDGE.

[dsc]

Injunction? How about putting a bounty on them?

[Lurker]

How about putting a bounty on them?

With no bag limit.

[webheart]

Activists don’t care about right and wrong. They only care that white people are oppressing the minorities, and secondarily that there are too many people in the world. Empowering gangs to kill reduces the strain on Mother Earth, and allowing gangs to run free helps keep them from being oppressed by society, which is basically the white establishment.