Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...According to Union County prosecutor "...authorities weren’t sure they were members of a gang, but believes that two 'factions of organized groups' from Elizabeth were involved in the incident."
Wording will eliminate the incident from appearing on a computer search if someone is checking on gang activity in the area before moving there. Cybercleansing, a new word for our times.
I'm not sure they really thought of that when they said it. But just maybe.
I am sure that there are only certain groups that are "recognized" as be Security Threat Groups aka gangs.
Remember that gangs thrive on publicity and notariety. The police and law enforcement community will not give it to them by any means if it can at all be avoided.
So, either, they are members of an unrecognized gang OR the l.e. community doesn't want to give them the publicity (read power) that they are wanting to get from the act.
Interesting that policy changes in corporations or in socio-media rarely seem to be clearly stated or published. "Geez, I can't say that anymore?"
"How the heck am I supposed to know".
Imagine folks reading the paper and coming across that article. Without the paper publishing a clearly stated policy, that reports of gang activity will be sanitized in an effort to dimishish proliferation of gangs, they lose credibility and open the door for closer public scrutiny. Did the policy originate with the paper or was it imposed by law enforcement on the media? Or is it some puff of smoke some home grown sociologist dreamed up?
If a gang sanitation policy does exist, publishing that policy would be an, 'in your face challenge' and thus more effective in diminishing gang power. That is if there is such a policy and that practice has any degree of effectiveness.
Gangs read papers too. Guess they will have to try harder to get their names published.
Interesting that policy changes in corporations or in socio-media rarely seem to be clearly stated or published. "Geez, I can't say that anymore?" "How the heck am I supposed to know".
In my lifetime of less than half a century, many changes have occurred in our language and dialog.
1) There are some words that have new dominant meanings, often linked to words in which the old meanings are so passe that they're no longer used for such meaning. Example: Gay is no longer used to mean happy.
2) Other words that once were forbidden are now acceptable. Examples: Most four letter slang words including vulgar synonyms for dung and copulation. However, you can't get away with broadcasting these words, which is why many people in the forum use substitutes like what the f...? and effing. (Personally, I still find this unacceptable, but society disagrees with me.)
3) Some previously acceptable words are now forbidden though they can still be written in a forum without getting censored. Examples: Jesus, Merry Christmas, colored, fat (but phat is okay!)
4) Corporate America has come up with numerous ideas to make things seem better than they are. Example: When is the last time you saw a used car for sale? They no longer exist! Now they're all pre-owned.
5) The term Native American is now considered by some to be improper or offensive. So what will we call the people descended from those who were here before the Europeans came? I suggest we call them WHIPs, an acronym for Western Hemisphere Indigenous Peoples.
6) So now we no longer have gang violence. It's now organized groups activity.
Interesting that policy changes in corporations or in socio-media rarely seem to be clearly stated or published. "Geez, I can't say that anymore?"
"How the heck am I supposed to know".
Imagine folks reading the paper and coming across that article. Without the paper publishing a clearly stated policy, that reports of gang activity will be sanitized in an effort to dimishish proliferation of gangs, they lose credibility and open the door for closer public scrutiny. Did the policy originate with the paper or was it imposed by law enforcement on the media? Or is it some puff of smoke some home grown sociologist dreamed up?
If a gang sanitation policy does exist, publishing that policy would be an, 'in your face challenge' and thus more effective in diminishing gang power. That is if there is such a policy and that practice has any degree of effectiveness.
Gangs read papers too. Guess they will have to try harder to get their names published.
It's not a real "policy" just a known idea that they like to see their names in print. It's not something they look to do, it's like a bonus. Whenever possible, they are not referred to by name to not encourage them. It's like you said, they read the papers too and mainly just get disappointed if they are not given credit for their actions.
Publishing the "policy" that's not a policy would not be effective. I think it would be more of a challenge and that's why it's kept quiet. You would be "dissing" them and thus making them make you notice them more would be the outcome. I think it's best kept quiet.
It's been studied that the more they give credit for activities that the gangs are responsible for, by name, the more activity they will have. You will rarely see them referred to by name. It's like an unwritten rule. Not a p.c. move, just like a "we're ignoring you" move. "We'll bust you, but you won't get the press" move.
Am I making sense??
The ideologies behind them are very simple and I'm going to say it, juvenile. Various State Troopers have argued with me on my observation of them, but I stand my ground, they are very juvenile based in terms of how they operate. I've been with the members on a daily basis and talked with them at length over the years, and trust me, there isn't a whole lot of brain power behind the majority of them. Especially the red ones and the blue ones (see, not referring to them by name).
Wording will eliminate the incident from appearing on a computer search if someone is checking on gang activity in the area before moving there. Cybercleansing, a new word for our times.
I have to spread some more [points around but boy you sure nailed that one...
To be classed as a gang wouldn't there need to be a criminal enterprise associated with said group?
Funny, when a bunch of white kids (who are organized, wear the same insignia and start fights wherever they go) kill an Iraq Vet at a punk show in Asbury Park no one mentions anything about "gangs". Do you have to use a gun to be a gang? Brass knuckles don't count?
solibs;6768089]To be classed as a gang wouldn't there need to be a criminal enterprise associated with said group?
Legally, I don't know. If so, maybe we could get the Feds after them using the RICO laws. Anything within the law to protect the law abiding.
Quote:
Funny, when a bunch of white kids (who are organized, wear the same insignia and start fights wherever they go) kill an Iraq Vet at a punk show in Asbury Park no one mentions anything about "gangs".
Ridiculous, isn't it? Then again, I'll admit to having deep prejudicial feelings towards violent predators
Quote:
Do you have to use a gun to be a gang? Brass knuckles don't count?
Choice of weapons is immaterial IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cybercleansing - invisible to a computer search
).
