Oakland City Councilmembers push for Curfews, more Gang Injunctions (Orinda: high crime, home)

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Those already involved in gangs would take little interest in this. If they did, it likely wouldn't be for anything positive.
Oakland has a cop shortage so this likely wouldn't be very feasible.
No, the kids in Rockridge would not be policed as much as those in gang areas.

Your ideas aren't bad but they would fit more AFTER the bad elements were eliminated and would be a proactive solution to prevent a repeat of the situation.

LoL please dude San Diego is f***ing disney land compared to a lot of Oakland. You guys aren't squat out there, in terms of hood. Trying to compare to Oaklands gang issues to SD is pointless. Different cities, different political ideals, different history, different demographics.

And yea folks, kids in Rockridge will not be policed, because kids from Rockridge do not act a fool in public.

[jade408]

Make Oakland Better Now has a post up to encourage Oaklanders to send a letter to their councilman in support.

Oakland Needs You Now: A Wakeup Call For Oaklanders | OakTalk

We know most people don’t have time to get involved. We know most Oaklanders have never sent a letter or an e-mail to anyone in City government before. Understandably, many Oaklanders find this all too depressing and would rather not think about it.

But we ask you this: if not now, when? We are on a pace to have 120 murders in Oakland this year. We need to tell the Mayor and the City Council this is intolerable.

We urge you to write your City Council representative, Mayor Quan, and Council Member At Large Kaplan and tell them you agree with Chief Batts and Council Members Reid and de la Fuente: No more excuses. The City must fight crime with gang injunctions, curfews, the police helicopter, and every other lawful, Constitutional force multiplier at its disposal.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

LoL please dude San Diego is f***ing disney land compared to a lot of Oakland. You guys aren't squat out there, in terms of hood. Trying to compare to Oaklands gang issues to SD is pointless. Different cities, different political ideals, different history, different demographics.

And yea folks, kids in Rockridge will not be policed, because kids from Rockridge do not act a fool in public.

haha you make me laugh.

My point was that such things can work. I cannot find a good example in Oakland because Oakland hasn't done it yet LOL. SD and Oakland were at one time almost equal. The only thing that saved my ass was that my cousin was in a gang that was "friends" with the one in my neighborhood. Otherwise I would have gotten really f u c k e d up or worse. How's that for Disneyland?

Today however you are right, the two cities do not at all compare. That was my point in making that comparison. I hope you're not the only one who couldn't see that.

[Malloric]

Because the three year old was killed by a large group of juveniles out after dark. Not. Gang injunctions and curfews won't do a damn thing. There aren't enough boots on the streets to enforce the laws there are now. There aren't enough courts to prosecute criminals. That's your problem. The judicial system is swamped by non-violent offenders on lengthy minimum sentences. And that's how you get guys like the shooter, a felony arrested two times for possession of a firearm and attempted homicide who are walking the street out on plea deals that amount to a slap on the wrist.

[SirHandsome]

There will always be extreme situations and extreme tragedies and extreme people, more crackdown and control and power to police is not the solution to the "problem", you guys are just asking for a false sense of security

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

That's what Im banking on.

I dont believe that kids should have a right to wander the streets at night just because they want to. All too often, they get mixed up in bad things.

Really? Personally I think they have the "right" to be outside because they were born, why should a 16 or 17 year old have less of a right to be outside than you do just because they've been here for less time?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by SirHandsome

Why should a 16 or 17 year old have less of a right to be outside than you do just because they've been here for less time?

Because they are minors, not adults and many of them are out contributing to Oakland's outrageous crime rate. We have enough irresponsible and reckless adults wandering freely...don't need to have a bunch of hormonal teeny-bopper criminals adding to the madness.

Most kids are not doing that, but enough rotten apples ruin it for the entire barrel imo and so they can all just stay home and watch tv unless they are out with a parent or guardian.

[dculross]

i would never support any gang injunction. it's racially motivated and probably unconstitutional.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...128002613.html

[SirHandsome]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Because they are minors, not adults and many of them are out contributing to Oakland's outrageous crime rate. We have enough irresponsible and reckless adults wandering freely...don't need to have a bunch of hormonal teeny-bopper criminals adding to the madness.

Most kids are not doing that, but enough rotten apples ruin it for the entire barrel imo and so they can all just stay home and watch tv unless they are out with a parent or guardian.

Thanks for the reply, I'm interested in what you have to say -- but I think that this is a very slippery slope

[jade408]

Originally Posted by SirHandsome

Really? Personally I think they have the "right" to be outside because they were born, why should a 16 or 17 year old have less of a right to be outside than you do just because they've been here for less time?

Honestly, I only believe adults should be able to stay out late. Most parents cover that with a household curfew. I am in full support. Most kids staying out late find lots of trouble to get into. Drinking, drugs, toilet papering houses, bad decisions..... it is better for everyone to get home early until they are mature enough to handle it. The right amount of adult supervision is required to raise successful kids, and staying out till 2a isn't conducive to this outcome.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by dculross

i would never support any gang injunction. it's racially motivated and probably unconstitutional.

Family of Slain Toddler Says No to Oakland Curfew, Gang Injunction | NBC Bay Area

Racially motivated? Perhaps. Most gang member tend to belong to specific races and to a certain stereotype of those races so those types will be targeted. Same as certain types of whites are targeted when white supremacy groups are targeted. Guess what, it works. I don't recall any Black or Hispanic person crying racism other than those who were the target. The rest of society goes on about their business albeit in a safer city. No where in the constitution is a person's right to cause mayhem protected.