Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Olympia protects livestock owners while gangs rule the streets

Post by Brian O'Neill on March 2, 2011 at 8:19 pm with 14 Comments »
March 3, 2011 9:03 pm

Sometimes I just don’t understand politics at our State Capitol.

For those of us who have closely followed this legislative session, it has been a bizarre mix of disappointment and confusion. While the struggle over the state budget is understandably tense and complex, there was legislation that was both simple and timely. Yet so far, it has languished in committee.

I am referring to HB 1126, the gang injunction bill so named because of its most controversial measure.  In effect, this bill would have allowed law enforcement officers to place restrictions on confirmed gang members with the intent of disrupting their criminal activity. Our state, which has the regrettable distinction of placing fourth in a nationwide survey of gang violence, is in desperate need of such measures.

This measure was the unfortunate brunt of many well-meaning but misplaced efforts of the ACLU, who whipped up a last minute frenzy of community activists. ACLU representatives complained that enforcing an injunction would necessarily be racially prejudicial and detrimental to the gang members themselves. I find that a disparaging remark to the professional law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges who would be responsible for enforcing and enacting an injunction.

I am also less concerned for gang members, who have proven their intent to wreak havoc, and far more concerned with the safety and well-being of innocent victims caught by a stray bullet, as well as the youths gang members target for recruitment.

While HB 1126 languishes in committee, our legislature has had the wherewithal to approve a law making the unauthorized killing of livestock a crime punishable by up to a year in jail. It is unfortunate that our state leaders have placed a higher priority on the value of someone else’s cow or chicken than on its citizens who live in blighted communities in the shadow of criminal street gangs.

Leave a comment Comments → 14
  1. Yea it’s a shame the legislature actually stopped a bill that would racially profile teenagers. Where are you from: Alabama?

  2. eflester says:

    We are so eager to trade away our Constitutional rights in the face of fear. No one is concerned about the welfare of criminals — we are concerned about the increasing power of the police state in what was once a free country. I am grateful for the thankless efforts of the ACLU to preserve what we have left.

    Citizens should demand performance from their government, not cede more power to it when it complains that it can’t do its job. Police and prosecutors may need more personnel and resources, but they do not need changes to the best legal system on the planet.

  3. Read the proposed gang legislation. It does not provide any opportunity for profiling. The bill would only law enforcement, by use of the courts, to prohibit known gang members in a very limited category from engaging in gang activity, wearing gang colors, associating with other gang members, congregating at known gang places, etcetera. It in no way would allow law enforcement to stop or engage a person because of how they are dressed, what color their skin is, where they are walking, and so forth. The courts would be the only entity permitted to restrict the liberties of KNOWN and ACTIVE gang members. Read it.

  4. Brian O'Neill says:

    You can wave the racial profiling card all you want, but it doesn’t apply. A gang injunction requires police and prosecutors to demonstrate, in court, that a subject is a) a gang member, and b) that the community needs specific protection from that subject due to past criminal behavior. The age of the subject is a factor for the courts, not the community that these teenagers (and adults) use as their private shooting gallery.

    Read the bill or give up the attempt to be clever at the expense of facts.

  5. I have never understood the logic of anyone who works for the ACLU. This country isn’t run by congress or the senate or even our President its run by the ACLU. Our government needs to stop bowing down to the ACLU. The country doesn’t protect the Victims it protects the criminals.
    How would the new law result in racial profiling if you watch Gangland on the history channel it show that there are gangs of all races, unless they are considering all gang members are a race of its own.

  6. dustdevil11 says:

    Writer “Gen’s” comment is emblamatic of what’s gone wrong with America. Everything the Left dislikes is slandered, libeled or labled– racist, homophobic, xenophobia etc. Having done so, they have no arguments left with which to debate.

    “Gen”, if law enforcement picks out individuals regardless of physical appearance whom they observe acting in a manner which violates some law, it’s the individual’s behavior, not their skin color, that makes them subject to arrest. The Left has systematically destroyed America by claiming that victims are the ones arrested, not the ones being terrorized. The Left’s values are upside down.

  7. omega629 says:

    hmmmm weird how gangs are automatically associated with race. We all know what color they are. Truth is not racist.

  8. lovethemountains says:

    When did you last run afoul of the law Mudbone?

  9. UnbiasedReporter says:

    If anything, you can thank the Seattle Police Department for the opposition to this bill.

    “You can wave the racial profiling card all you want, but it doesn’t apply.”

    It applies enough that the DOJ is investigating the largest city police force in the state. With the headlines of needless police beatings and shootings coming from Seattle on a weekly basis …

  10. Funny but I seem to remember signs posted at the entrance to Salishan warning that restraining orders were in effect prohibiting specific people from entering and that it would be considered a trespass. Sort of like what stores do after they catch a shoplifter.

    So what stops this bill from being enacted on a local basis?

  11. treetrucker says:

    Isn’t the aclu a gang??? different tactics still the same. And yes I do think that more should be done to keep gangs from getting to much control.

  12. omega629 says:

    Gang members are worse than shoplifters…. i am all for profiling these dirt bags right off the streets.

  13. BlaineCGarver says:

    Wow, you can tell who are the shooters and wannabees are……Screw Gang Member’s rights, and if you go into the War Zone dressed like the enemy, expect to get fired on.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0