Gang members hold positions at ‘highest levels’ of LA Sheriff’s department(rollingstone.com)
rollingstone.com
Gang members hold positions at ‘highest levels’ of LA Sheriff’s department
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/la-sheriff-department-gangs-alex-villanueva-1234691873/
324 コメント
Robert Luna was elected into office for this specific reason, LA County voters also enacted additional measures to deal with rogue LA Sheriffs because there were no legal remedies.
People are doing something and have made sure they can do more things.
https://abc7.com/la-county-sheriff-robert-luna-alex-villanue...
https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County,_Measure_A,_Remov...
yes, you are reading this correctly, that Los Angeles County, starting in 2023 just received the power to do anything to Los Angeles Sheriff department
Villaneuva and the internal gangs were that unconscionable.
People are doing something and have made sure they can do more things.
https://abc7.com/la-county-sheriff-robert-luna-alex-villanue...
https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County,_Measure_A,_Remov...
yes, you are reading this correctly, that Los Angeles County, starting in 2023 just received the power to do anything to Los Angeles Sheriff department
Villaneuva and the internal gangs were that unconscionable.
> everyone knows that the LA Sheriff's Department has been heavily infiltrated by gangs like the Compton Executioners
Would note that this isn’t infiltration by street gangs as much as deputies forming gangs.
> state and county level, people just kind of ignore it
I am from the Bay Area. This is the first I’m hearing about it. I do wish we had a more neutral source than the Rolling Stone.
Would note that this isn’t infiltration by street gangs as much as deputies forming gangs.
> state and county level, people just kind of ignore it
I am from the Bay Area. This is the first I’m hearing about it. I do wish we had a more neutral source than the Rolling Stone.
Define "neutral" and I can find one, because they've been reported on and named publicly for 50 years.
Here's a 50-page summary from Loyola Law School: https://lmu.app.box.com/s/uci2ir4mkpudtvvfp7z8iu4kv1gre1dj
Here's a 50-page summary from Loyola Law School: https://lmu.app.box.com/s/uci2ir4mkpudtvvfp7z8iu4kv1gre1dj
This is a better source. It also shows these cliques are on a spectrum from over-the-top comradery to violent gang behaviour.
Consider the Media Bias Chart https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/
You can see that Rolling Stone skews left and is lower than the peak of reliability.
You can see that Rolling Stone skews left and is lower than the peak of reliability.
There are ex-members of that police department giving video interviews about the Executioners gang threatening and killing innocent people.
I dont understand how you can claim media bias is at the core of this story.
I dont understand how you can claim media bias is at the core of this story.
This is not my claim. I am replying to someone who said above
> Define "neutral" and I can find one
I think I misunderstood their comment to say "I don't understand why you are claiming Rolling Stone is not neutral". Sorry.
> Define "neutral" and I can find one
I think I misunderstood their comment to say "I don't understand why you are claiming Rolling Stone is not neutral". Sorry.
Thanks for the link. That largely matches my perceptions, so it at least passes my smell test.
That said, I find it rather odd the absolute highest quality news achievable is...ABC15 in Arizona. Kinda feel they should leave local stations off altogether.
That said, I find it rather odd the absolute highest quality news achievable is...ABC15 in Arizona. Kinda feel they should leave local stations off altogether.
This chart is garbage. CNN and MSNBC just "skews" left? Seriously? Same for Vox, Vice and WaPo?
Hard to know what "center" is in a country where even the "left" is arguably to the right of the "right" in Europe. The US's "right" is so-far-extreme-right, there's no similar extreme in Europe. All as far as I can tell (not an expert).
> This is the first I’m hearing about it.
The corruption in southland policing departments is absolutely nothing new. Rampart comes easily to mind here, but the list is unfortunately a long one and wikipedia has many documented examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
Rampart, for instance, was such a large media issue that they even made a movie about it. Not a small one either: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640548/
EDIT: Dorner should also ring a lot of bells too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
The corruption in southland policing departments is absolutely nothing new. Rampart comes easily to mind here, but the list is unfortunately a long one and wikipedia has many documented examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
Rampart, for instance, was such a large media issue that they even made a movie about it. Not a small one either: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640548/
EDIT: Dorner should also ring a lot of bells too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_a...
I need to get off the internet. I thought the rampart scandal was about Woody Harrelson's disastrous AMA on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/p9a1v/im_woody_harrel...
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/p9a1v/im_woody_harrel...
They’re related — the AMA was the scandal around the PR for the movie based on the scandal ;)
> I do wish we had a more neutral source than the Rolling Stone.
The wikipedia article on this cites several reputable looking sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
The wikipedia article on this cites several reputable looking sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
LA times has been reporting on the problem deputy gangs for years. The new part in this article is how high up their members are but it’s also captain obvious reporting as the gang members have had decades to make it up there. Still good for it to be explicitly called out.
I haven’t seen any reports in Bay Area papers but it’s been reported on in LA. It’s been local news. Similarly Californian don’t hear about >90% of the scandals in Chicago.
I haven’t seen any reports in Bay Area papers but it’s been reported on in LA. It’s been local news. Similarly Californian don’t hear about >90% of the scandals in Chicago.
You should read the Wikipedia entry[1].
It very much is gangs infiltrating LAPD and SO.
On top of that, they also have their own cliques or gangs that form within.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
It very much is gangs infiltrating LAPD and SO.
On top of that, they also have their own cliques or gangs that form within.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
institutional corruption so transparent that there's a well-sourced wikipedia page
You've probably heard about this before and didn't realize it. Did you watch Training Day? That whole movie was centered around the leader of a cop gang.
Den of Thieves as well. In that movie they're actually doing their job as police but they're clearly a gang within the police force who routinely break the law and abuse their position for personal gain. They even very clearly describe themselves as a gang in one scene.
'the shield' is a TV show about this from the 2000s era. it probably doesn't hold up very well today but at the time it was pretty groundbreaking.
"This is the first I’m hearing about it. I do wish we had a more neutral source than the Rolling Stone."
How about that outstanding episode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources_Against_St...
Well documented and was the base for "GTA San Andreas" and "Training Day". And even though it has been 20 years now, the problem seems far from solved.
How about that outstanding episode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources_Against_St...
Well documented and was the base for "GTA San Andreas" and "Training Day". And even though it has been 20 years now, the problem seems far from solved.
> The report identifies at “least a half dozen” active gangs and cliques — and names them: the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys, and the Reapers.
This list isn't exhaustive but many of these are civilian gangs, so it's probably a case of both.
This list isn't exhaustive but many of these are civilian gangs, so it's probably a case of both.
The law enforcement Banditos are not affiliated with the outlaw-motorcycle-centric gang of the same name. A Sheriff's "Bandito" might earn his ink by shooting a 1% "Bandito".
There are of course corrupt members of law enforcement who collaborate with organized crime for various nefarious purposes, but the in-department gangs are a distinct issue.
There are of course corrupt members of law enforcement who collaborate with organized crime for various nefarious purposes, but the in-department gangs are a distinct issue.
I know what you're saying, but it needs to be stated that police are also civilians.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
It specifically mentions armed services, police, and firefighters are not civilians.
It specifically mentions armed services, police, and firefighters are not civilians.
I’m more surprised that firefighters aren’t civilians, but EMTs are. Its not a blanket definition for all emergency services.
Bizarrely, we Americans treat our EMTs worse than other first responders. They are trained to a lower standard and paid less but still have demanding hours and lots of stress.
That dictionary definition is simply factually and legally wrong. US law is very clear about who is and is not a civilian. Anyone acting as a sheriff's deputy is 100% a civilian. If you're not subject to the UCMJ then you're a civilian. (Some deputies are also military Reserve or National Guard members, but when activated they are no longer acting as civilian peace officers.)
Your definition is correct under international law, but that definition mainly aims to serve policies governing war, so it's not especially apt here.
Civilian in law enforcement jargon means a non-sworn position: https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/civilian-...
To make this more interesting, Posse Comitatus employs the language to signal "non-Federal forces" eg: National Guard activated by a state to operate domestically are referred to as "civilian law enforcement".
In any of the above cases, calling LEOs civilians would be incorrect and would eschew them of many of their responsibilities.
Civilian in law enforcement jargon means a non-sworn position: https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/civilian-...
To make this more interesting, Posse Comitatus employs the language to signal "non-Federal forces" eg: National Guard activated by a state to operate domestically are referred to as "civilian law enforcement".
In any of the above cases, calling LEOs civilians would be incorrect and would eschew them of many of their responsibilities.
I googled civilian and the dictionary response Google presented disagrees with you. I don't have an opinion on the topic just pointing it out.
Just an aside, as I don't live in CA and haven't followed the current scandal, but you should take it as a matter of fact that police departments in all major cities of the US have been formally and informally infiltrated by street gangs. For the past 10-20 years all major orgs have reoriented from physical control towards establishing political and social influence and co-opting powerful antagonistic organizations is a big part of that.
If you're from the Bay Area, you may want to read "The Riders Come out at Night," about a gang within the Oakland Police Department. (and more generally about organized misconduct by the OPD in recent history)
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Riders-Come-Out-a...
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Riders-Come-Out-a...
Here in Australia - I’ve heard of police corruption, but never heard of corrupt police forming a gang. I can’t remember hearing anything about that in the UK or New Zealand or Canada either. Is this another one of those “only in America” things?
Well, I’m sure not only in America-a lot of developing countries I wouldn’t be surprised if such things existed too-but not the countries the US would want to be compared to
Well, I’m sure not only in America-a lot of developing countries I wouldn’t be surprised if such things existed too-but not the countries the US would want to be compared to
> never heard of corrupt police forming a gang. I can’t remember hearing anything about that in the UK or New Zealand or Canada either.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I can certainly speak to that effect as a Canadian aware of at least one similar 'police gang'
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I can certainly speak to that effect as a Canadian aware of at least one similar 'police gang'
> I can certainly speak to that effect as a Canadian aware of at least one similar 'police gang'
What’s it called? Where is it?
What’s it called? Where is it?
York Regional Police, for one.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/02/24/massive-gta-mafi...
https://www.cp24.com/news/two-york-region-cops-charged-in-co...
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/02/24/massive-gta-mafi...
https://www.cp24.com/news/two-york-region-cops-charged-in-co...
Neither article mentions a "deputy gang". It just talks about ordinary police misconduct and corruption, which happens anywhere. It never mentions corrupt police forming a gang with an identifiable name, emblem, membership, etc – which is something I've never heard of outside of the US.
I don't think this is the bystander effect at work here.
(Perhaps initially, as it went from mostly clean to compromised, there was bystander effect plus other effects)
An individual would be suicidal to join the LA Sheriff's force and try to solve it from within.
US military force needs to take control of the department, restructure the command, flush the compromised, and monitor as control is transferred back. That is what we would do if the force were compromised by a foreign force, and the same logic applies.
(Perhaps initially, as it went from mostly clean to compromised, there was bystander effect plus other effects)
An individual would be suicidal to join the LA Sheriff's force and try to solve it from within.
US military force needs to take control of the department, restructure the command, flush the compromised, and monitor as control is transferred back. That is what we would do if the force were compromised by a foreign force, and the same logic applies.
> US military force needs to take control of the department
This is martial law. Los Angeles doesn't need martial law. What you're describing is the DoJ's job.
This is martial law. Los Angeles doesn't need martial law. What you're describing is the DoJ's job.
No idea of how it works in US Police, but over here a cop would rarely raise a finger, or testify against another cop, save for exceptional cases, and evidence often isn't enough. That otherwise wonderful thing called esprit de corps went clearly too far, becoming in some circles more akin to Mafia's code of silence.
That's why might be worth leaving out other cops.
That's referred to as the "blue wall of silence" in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
> might be worth leaving out other cops
DoJ aren’t cops. (FBI are cops.)
DoJ aren’t cops. (FBI are cops.)
The OIG, ATF, DEA, Marshal Service, and the FBI all agencies within the DoJ, though the FBI has always had signfiicant levels of autonomy within the DoJ compared to the others
Sure, but when one says DoJ it doesn’t refer to the FBI or DEA. (At least in no lawmaking circles I’ve been party to.)
The status quo is also martial law. Bringing in the Army is an extreme plan and probably a bad idea, but some guys in suits flying in from D.C. to give a powerpoint about police accountability will absolutely not solve this either.
The Posse Comitatus Act bars federal military forces from participating in civilian law enforcement (except in unusual circumstances that don't apply here). And the military doesn't even have the skills to root out police corruption; it's just not their job.
The appropriate response would be for the county or state government to request assistance from the California Highway Patrol and/or Department of Justice.
The appropriate response would be for the county or state government to request assistance from the California Highway Patrol and/or Department of Justice.
The military does have experience in overthrowing existing governments and setting up all-new civilian governments (including police). Perhaps they should try that in LA.
I can’t tell if you’re serious or simply trolling here. The blunt instrument required to overthrow a government is not at all the same tool required to ensure public safety, not to mention the rooting out corruption. Radically different functions, radically different training, and radically different day to day skills required.
You're right about the instruments being different, but I'm just pointing out that the US military has, in the past, set up all-new civilian governments in places after bluntly overthrowing the existing governments. In some cases it ended up working out rather well, certainly better than what was there before. So it is absolutely possible, as proven by experience, to use a military power to conquer a place, and then set up a better, democratic, civilian government. Even better, all the places where the military has done this (except Afghanistan) now have much better governments than LA. (Even Afghanistan was better until its government fell because it couldn't defend itself.)
Only the government can do something about this. Depending on the official/body, either they think the costs are too high (both to their career and to the functioning of the system) or they actively support this.
In short, this is treated as an acceptable trade-off for enforcing the hierarchies of power.
In short, this is treated as an acceptable trade-off for enforcing the hierarchies of power.
Technically anyone can do something about it, but that person would be a vigilante and quickly killed, and people like their life more than they hate corruption
With the notable exception of Christian Dorner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings...
> anyone can do something about it
How? Even a victim suit against department would likely be tossed out due to USSC 'qualified immunity'.
How? Even a victim suit against department would likely be tossed out due to USSC 'qualified immunity'.
> In short, this is treated as an acceptable trade-off for enforcing the hierarchies of power
Why don’t you unpack that statement in the context of LA. The “hierarchies of power” you’re talking about here is the civilian government having control over organized crime.
Why don’t you unpack that statement in the context of LA. The “hierarchies of power” you’re talking about here is the civilian government having control over organized crime.
Considering the amount of influence that police organizations exert on local elections, and their willingness to weaponize that against any politician they see as a threat to their control, one might argue that it's more accurately organized crime having control over the civilian government.
Sorry, the US is a democracy even if you don’t like the results. Police organizations carry tremendous weight in elections because people think the police are good guys, are (correctly) more afraid of criminals than the police, and don’t really care about abuses against criminals and their associates. You can see this playing out right now in cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York City, etc., where mayors have been defeated or come into power because people are outraged by the increase in crime.
I can't speak to the other cities you listed, but living in New York I think the media narrative around Eric Adams's mayoral victory is... a bit overblown.
It's true that he won 67% of the vote in the actual election [0]. But this was effectively a foregone conclusion -- his Republican opponent, Curtis Sliwa, was a man best known for owning 15 cats [1] and faking his own kidnapping [2].
The "real" election was the primary -- notably the first ever election in the city to make use of ranked-choice voting. Wiley and Garcia, the runners-up in the first round, effectively split the "progressive" vote 50/50. Morales was a significant progressive up until a few weeks before the election, at which time her campaign staff walked out citing poor working conditions, effectively ending her campaign.
Looking at the final-round vote tally [3], it was 404,513 for Adams and 397,316 for Garcia -- a difference of just 7,197. He won, but just by the skin of his teeth. The population of NYC in 2021 was 8,468,000, with 4,992,792 registered to vote [4]. That doesn't exactly paint the picture of a resounding victory and a mandate to crack down on ne'er-do-wells that the Post would have you believe. It starts to look a bit more like a perceived centrist barely squeaking through by merit of being the best-known/least-objectionable candidate.
This of course speaks to OP's point: do the public really crave a paternalistic figure who will come and "crack down on crime" (i.e. sign off on more... questionable overtime pay for the NYPD) or is there, for some reason, undue weight given to the narrative that just by happenstance sounds identical to SBA/PBA talking points?
[0] https://www.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-york-city/mayo...
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/an-inside-look-into-curtis-sli...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-25-mn-1060-s...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/22/us/elections/...
[4] https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/vote/2021/county_fe...
It's true that he won 67% of the vote in the actual election [0]. But this was effectively a foregone conclusion -- his Republican opponent, Curtis Sliwa, was a man best known for owning 15 cats [1] and faking his own kidnapping [2].
The "real" election was the primary -- notably the first ever election in the city to make use of ranked-choice voting. Wiley and Garcia, the runners-up in the first round, effectively split the "progressive" vote 50/50. Morales was a significant progressive up until a few weeks before the election, at which time her campaign staff walked out citing poor working conditions, effectively ending her campaign.
Looking at the final-round vote tally [3], it was 404,513 for Adams and 397,316 for Garcia -- a difference of just 7,197. He won, but just by the skin of his teeth. The population of NYC in 2021 was 8,468,000, with 4,992,792 registered to vote [4]. That doesn't exactly paint the picture of a resounding victory and a mandate to crack down on ne'er-do-wells that the Post would have you believe. It starts to look a bit more like a perceived centrist barely squeaking through by merit of being the best-known/least-objectionable candidate.
This of course speaks to OP's point: do the public really crave a paternalistic figure who will come and "crack down on crime" (i.e. sign off on more... questionable overtime pay for the NYPD) or is there, for some reason, undue weight given to the narrative that just by happenstance sounds identical to SBA/PBA talking points?
[0] https://www.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-york-city/mayo...
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/06/23/an-inside-look-into-curtis-sli...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-11-25-mn-1060-s...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/22/us/elections/...
[4] https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/vote/2021/county_fe...
Crime has not risen, we live in the safest time in history
The homicide rate is within historical norms, but 50% higher than in 1950. It’s also 20% higher than in 2005.
Cherry picking makes backing up your biased ideas pretty easy, huh
At least s/he has data, where's yours?
edit: I misspoke, there is no data, but at least there is a claim with numbers that can or cannot be refuted for specific things. Your claim is really vague. How do you define "time in history"? How do you define safety?
edit: I misspoke, there is no data, but at least there is a claim with numbers that can or cannot be refuted for specific things. Your claim is really vague. How do you define "time in history"? How do you define safety?
Really? I haven't seen any citations
I can make up numbers too.
Robbery is down 76% compared with 1928 and assaults are down by 22%! Incredible!
This nonsense is just reactionaries being scared, people love fear
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201...
I can make up numbers too.
Robbery is down 76% compared with 1928 and assaults are down by 22%! Incredible!
This nonsense is just reactionaries being scared, people love fear
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201...
That article is 7 years old, and doesn't really apply to the rise in crime people are talking about of the early 2020's. Sure, maybe taking a look at large swaths of history you could say crime is down. But no one gives a shit about that. People who are alive today remember crime 5 or 10 or 20+ years ago because that is relevant to their lives. Saying 'crime is down if you take a long look at history' is little consolation to someone who is noticing a rise in crime in their neighborhood over the last few years
The article was posted as a response to the contention that crime was up in comparison to large swaths of history. Why would it not be germane to show that crime is actually down in comparison to large swaths of history?
Looking at tiny fluctuations is exactly how the cherry picking happens, there will always be fluctuations because life is dynamic. Add that to the fact that human memory is notoriously fallible and I can just call BS on the claim that crime is rising, it definitely isn't.
We are more connected now than ever and fear porn is streamed into homes 24/7. Perception may have changed due to a new influx of biased information and looking at historical trend is the only rational way to measure progress.
7 years is not a long time.
We are more connected now than ever and fear porn is streamed into homes 24/7. Perception may have changed due to a new influx of biased information and looking at historical trend is the only rational way to measure progress.
7 years is not a long time.
[deleted]
The _only_ problem is the lack of checks and balances - a founding principle of this country. Are they breaking the law? If so, what is the check? Are they too powerful? If so, what is the balance?
edit: the obvious answer is there are few to none.
edit: the obvious answer is there are few to none.
I imagine the Harvey Weinsteins of the world really appreciate having a corruptable police force at their disposal
No, Harvey Weinstein went big, he had a private offshoot of Mossad at his disposal.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-a...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-a...
A question I intuit but probably has a fallacy of some kind: if you want to enforce the law for dangerous and violent people, doesn’t it seem reasonable you’ll need at least equally if not more dangerous and violent people to do so? And wouldn’t a natural result of that be that those dangerous and violent “enforcers” emulate the same kind of organizational underpinnings as those they are enforcing against?
Imagine there wasn’t a rule of law at all and no police officers. A gang of “baddies” forms. What would be a natural response to the formation of that gang? Wouldn’t it be a gang of “also baddies but baddies whose interests align more closely with ours?”
Imagine there wasn’t a rule of law at all and no police officers. A gang of “baddies” forms. What would be a natural response to the formation of that gang? Wouldn’t it be a gang of “also baddies but baddies whose interests align more closely with ours?”
> if you want to enforce the law for dangerous and violent people, doesn’t it seem reasonable you’ll need at least equally if not more dangerous and violent people to do so?
No. There are other ways.
For example, mobbing with massively superior numbers, resulting in no harm to anyone, and a suspect getting the hospital care they needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY
No. There are other ways.
For example, mobbing with massively superior numbers, resulting in no harm to anyone, and a suspect getting the hospital care they needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY
Ah, but ok now you’ve lead me into my next point. You see how many officers it takes to subdue a single person wielding a close range weapon. Guns are multiplier of violence in and of themselves and so many people in the US have them, especially criminals. So we’re asking for a critical mass of people crazy enough to go toe to toe with people with guns who have nothing to lose. How could they not be similar if not the same as the criminals they’re up against and stand some kind of hope of making it out of the other side?
I’d never be a cop personally because, well, many reasons, frankly, but the biggest one is I have better options. And I’m sure you do too. Almost everyone does.
I’m not saying there doesn’t exist a way to nonviolently deal with the US criminal populace but I’ve yet to see any good examples of it outside of sound socioeconomic policies and a penal system that focuses on rehabilitation. And those are indirect.
I’d never be a cop personally because, well, many reasons, frankly, but the biggest one is I have better options. And I’m sure you do too. Almost everyone does.
I’m not saying there doesn’t exist a way to nonviolently deal with the US criminal populace but I’ve yet to see any good examples of it outside of sound socioeconomic policies and a penal system that focuses on rehabilitation. And those are indirect.
I would hope that with the whole might of the state behind them the cops don't need to rely on being as violent and stupid as their street gang opponents.
They can rely on superior armaments, better funding and numeric advantage.
I suspect your conceptualization of 'dangerous and violent' as a single axis may be the main weakness here. We've struggled with 'dangerous and violent' for a long time (e.g., incorporating 'friendly' Gallic tribes in the late Roman era as a defensive buffer) - but over the long term there's been a clear transition away from the 'friendly barbarian' model towards the modern professional military?
I don't have a clear conclusion here to wrap it up, but the multiple dimensions at play here intuitively reject the assumption that you have to embrace the same characteristics that you are trying to protect against.
I don't have a clear conclusion here to wrap it up, but the multiple dimensions at play here intuitively reject the assumption that you have to embrace the same characteristics that you are trying to protect against.
In what case has that ever been true though? In military conflict, there are possibly varying levels of morality at play, sure, but at the end of the day, people with guns and tanks end up killing people with guns and tanks, right?
Not at all. Modern war isn't some sort of battle royal with guns and tanks, it's more of a strategy and logistics problem. If you're interested in a window into modern military thinking that's accessible to laymen like you and me, I'd recommend checking out this article: https://warontherocks.com/2023/02/the-war-will-grind-on-refl...
It's a strategy and logistics problem for the generals sitting in their safe air conditioned offices.
But it absolutely is about men maiming and killing one another with terrible weapons. The logistics are required to fuel the battle royale and the strategy is required to kill and maim more of the enemy more cheaply than they are maiming and killing your people.
But it absolutely is about men maiming and killing one another with terrible weapons. The logistics are required to fuel the battle royale and the strategy is required to kill and maim more of the enemy more cheaply than they are maiming and killing your people.
“What would be a natural response to the formation of that gang? Wouldn’t it be a gang of “also baddies but baddies whose interests align more closely with ours?”
Yes, and this is so obvious I can’t believe you are being downvoted. If authorities do nothing, vigilantism will become the increasingly common response. This is exactly what happened in the Seattle CHOP zone- no police = adhoc armed groups claiming that authority for themselves.
Yes, and this is so obvious I can’t believe you are being downvoted. If authorities do nothing, vigilantism will become the increasingly common response. This is exactly what happened in the Seattle CHOP zone- no police = adhoc armed groups claiming that authority for themselves.
It's a fair question, but in other contexts this hasn't worked out. At judges' discretion, America funneled some number of criminals into the military pipeline up until the end of Vietnam. The recruits would often have antisocial tendencies and did not follow orders well (surprise...criminals don't obey social constructs like chain of command).
Russia is doing the same through the Wagner group, but they've learned to just use the convicts as first-wave cannon fodder so they're minced before they can get rebellious.
This "band of rogues" stuff makes for fun television but falls short in practice. Hence this article.
Russia is doing the same through the Wagner group, but they've learned to just use the convicts as first-wave cannon fodder so they're minced before they can get rebellious.
This "band of rogues" stuff makes for fun television but falls short in practice. Hence this article.
Good question. The US is full of guns but people stand down when police open carry in their communities, why? police have to earn/maintain that legitimacy or they’re just more bad guys.
I think this closely tracks Hobbes' social contract theory: governments/nations/etc. are themselves gangs to compete for resources with other gangs.
I've thought about this here and there too, with the framing of "how do we break the cycle of violence", or "if we always require a bigger bad to defeat a bad, aren't we doomed to depend on the bad?" My latest thought experiment was the dynamic where electorates sometimes make Faustian bargains with strongman dictators to solve an urgent problem (economic destruction, raids, social change) but then they get stuck with an even worse problem: a brutal dictatorship. A couple of things I think:
- Violence is downstream of trauma. Stop the trauma, stop the violence. Frustratingly this can be relative because status factors in (in 800 AD maybe you got called out for your jank farming tools, now you get called out for your year-old shoes), so there's a cultural component to solve as well. But yeah, generally avoid catastrophes (invest in mitigations like levees, heterogeneous crops, insurance, and a free press) and lean on your culture when you can't (community disaster relief for hurricanes, draft every capable person to kick Putin the fuck out of your country, etc.)
- If you can't nip trauma in the bud, you can mob a big bad with lots of small violent actions. Like it doesn't matter how good Putin is at judo; if 1000 clumsy townspeople show up he's going down.
But like, we know how these things happen, all the way down from dictatorships to street gangs. They're ancient human stories. But they're deeply entwined in our group psychology, so knowing how the dynamic works isn't sufficient to free us from the cycle. We have to collectively rise above. But, that's pretty hard so we haven't been able to do it yet.
I've thought about this here and there too, with the framing of "how do we break the cycle of violence", or "if we always require a bigger bad to defeat a bad, aren't we doomed to depend on the bad?" My latest thought experiment was the dynamic where electorates sometimes make Faustian bargains with strongman dictators to solve an urgent problem (economic destruction, raids, social change) but then they get stuck with an even worse problem: a brutal dictatorship. A couple of things I think:
- Violence is downstream of trauma. Stop the trauma, stop the violence. Frustratingly this can be relative because status factors in (in 800 AD maybe you got called out for your jank farming tools, now you get called out for your year-old shoes), so there's a cultural component to solve as well. But yeah, generally avoid catastrophes (invest in mitigations like levees, heterogeneous crops, insurance, and a free press) and lean on your culture when you can't (community disaster relief for hurricanes, draft every capable person to kick Putin the fuck out of your country, etc.)
- If you can't nip trauma in the bud, you can mob a big bad with lots of small violent actions. Like it doesn't matter how good Putin is at judo; if 1000 clumsy townspeople show up he's going down.
But like, we know how these things happen, all the way down from dictatorships to street gangs. They're ancient human stories. But they're deeply entwined in our group psychology, so knowing how the dynamic works isn't sufficient to free us from the cycle. We have to collectively rise above. But, that's pretty hard so we haven't been able to do it yet.
Excusing violence as a flower of trauma does disservice to all of us who have survived trauma without becoming violent assholes.
There is no excuse for violence. There is always choice.
There is no excuse for violence. There is always choice.
(n.b. I'm sorry for anything you may have gone through).
I think there are so, so many excuses for violence. If someone burst through my door looking to rob and victimize my family I would work pretty hard to do violence to them, and I think that's excusable. One doesn't have to think too hard to come up with other examples.
My theory here is that the people who would try and commit that crime against me are doing it for systemic reasons. Sure there are psychopaths or whatever, but broadly people are products of systems. We know this because people behave differently in different systems--if they didn't matter, we'd see similar aggregate behavior in all societies: crime rates, poverty rates, drug use, education rates, etc. Or to be more concrete: the US has more mass shootings than the EU because of its gun policies and culture, not because more people are randomly choosing to perpetrate mass shootings.
I think there are so, so many excuses for violence. If someone burst through my door looking to rob and victimize my family I would work pretty hard to do violence to them, and I think that's excusable. One doesn't have to think too hard to come up with other examples.
My theory here is that the people who would try and commit that crime against me are doing it for systemic reasons. Sure there are psychopaths or whatever, but broadly people are products of systems. We know this because people behave differently in different systems--if they didn't matter, we'd see similar aggregate behavior in all societies: crime rates, poverty rates, drug use, education rates, etc. Or to be more concrete: the US has more mass shootings than the EU because of its gun policies and culture, not because more people are randomly choosing to perpetrate mass shootings.
> What would be a natural response to the formation of that gang? Wouldn’t it be a gang of “also baddies but baddies whose interests align more closely with ours?”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohortes_urbanae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohortes_urbanae
I’m surprised and frankly disappointed no one has brought up de-escalation.
De-escalation is an important tool in anyone's belt when it comes to handling erratic behavior. However, my question is more looking at how we actually expect these positions to be filled with actual people. Who's going to jump at being a cop? Someone who favors de-escalation, or someone who favors violence?
As always, politics is downstream of culture. If every movie cop for the past 100 years had been a Jimmy Stewart aww shucks goody good, maybe we would be in a different place. Instead we tell ourselves (and therefore the next generation of cops) that policing is a macho violent profession, then recruit ex-soldiers to do it, and finally give them Pentagon-surplus equipment to do it with.
The people most supportive of police don’t think they’ll be harmed by police violence.
All of the money has been consolidated into a privileged few. They've bought and paid for the judges and have all the money to hire the lawyers. They own all the media so 99.9% of reporting is only what they want you to hear.
The people who have all of the money don't give a shit. They have enough money to drown out the plebs rattling our cages.
As long as they crack the right heads, suppress any movement looking to challenge power, and enforce the laws they deem important the police can act with impunity.
The people who have all of the money don't give a shit. They have enough money to drown out the plebs rattling our cages.
As long as they crack the right heads, suppress any movement looking to challenge power, and enforce the laws they deem important the police can act with impunity.
It’s almost as if the police are a gang that society allows to have the ability to legally steal from other gangs in return for enforcing some laws.
For those downvoting me, care to offer any counter? Even if you have no experience in this you should be able to tell from first principles you cannot get rid of gangs but you can have one gang to rule them all.
For those downvoting me, care to offer any counter? Even if you have no experience in this you should be able to tell from first principles you cannot get rid of gangs but you can have one gang to rule them all.
The response is ‘welcome to having a government?’ Monopoly on force is one of the key points of having a government. When it is run well (or at least not to the point of being irredeemably corrupt), this is a positive. When the government becomes irredeemably corrupt, it is functionally indistinguishable from the criminals.
Exactly I was being a bit facetious and it doesn’t translate well
People have been complaining about this for at least 50 years.
They're shouted down for being "pro-crime" and "anti-cop".
I know this may be new to you (Welcome. We have a snacks.), but the least you could do is become a bit informed about this before spouting off.
They're shouted down for being "pro-crime" and "anti-cop".
I know this may be new to you (Welcome. We have a snacks.), but the least you could do is become a bit informed about this before spouting off.
> What is the word for "assuming someone else is going to do something about that, but there is no one"?
It just seems like garden variety indifference/apathy/complacency...
It just seems like garden variety indifference/apathy/complacency...
Pretty much everyone knows
In Southland, maybe. This is the first I'm hearing about it.
It's a big planet with a lot going on, you know.
In Southland, maybe. This is the first I'm hearing about it.
It's a big planet with a lot going on, you know.
Tragedy of the Commons
That would be the tragedy of the commons.
Diffusigating responsibility.
It’s more like the Blue Wall
mschuster91(1)
The federal state has a bigger monopoly on violence. You think the FBI would step in?
Well you have to square it with the very fact that these forms of affiliation are rather compatible with actually existing policing in our world. It's something that seems bad, and is certainly some kind of scandal, but there is nothing about it that is going against the goals we quantify for cops. Whether cops themselves follow any kind of law or have decenency/humanity is like a very minor concern at the end of the day, if not actively disincentivized in some cases. The extremely important thing is enforcing ingroup/outgroup mentality, and so we have stuff like this.
Either way, if its not these more local gangs, its the nationwide fraternities which arguably serve the same kind of function. So there isn't really like a way out either way.
Either way, if its not these more local gangs, its the nationwide fraternities which arguably serve the same kind of function. So there isn't really like a way out either way.
> The extremely important thing is enforcing ingroup/outgroup mentality, and so we have stuff like this.
I would say overcoming that mentality is one of the most important things for which our society could strive.
I would say overcoming that mentality is one of the most important things for which our society could strive.
I don't really think its the "mentality" that's the problem in this particular case though. Insofar as we want the particular kind of policing that we apparently do in the U.S., we need to teach cops they are somewhat outside/above of society. Those in charge aren't dumb, this isnt just simply a greed for power, its all highly research-based and intentional, it maximizes the desired outcomes.
If this is the outcome, it would seem clear that we do not want the particular kind of policing which produces it.
I mean who is "we" here? In this particular case, it has been decades, and its not like this wasn't known or a particularly spacey conspiracy theory... You either gotta believe the democratic process is totally bankrupt, or that there is an implicit/unconscious compromise among voters to choose particular promises of safety even if the cops are sometimes corrupt.
There is the idea of policing, and then there is the reality. They can only coincide so much, but if you talk to any cop or read an literature about this, it really is only "so much."
And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been. You can't blame them for doing their jobs!
There is the idea of policing, and then there is the reality. They can only coincide so much, but if you talk to any cop or read an literature about this, it really is only "so much."
And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been. You can't blame them for doing their jobs!
>And it's not like we have any historical precedence for a police force being different than this either, its just how it always been
Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state.
In the 18th and 19th century there were far, far fewer professional local/county "police", many of the duties were performed by other offices/officials and when needed they got their muscle from community volunteers or the state (usually from the national guard or army in the US). Consequently they didn't spend much time enforcing petty civil laws and enforcing social norms because the manpower simply wasn't there and you couldn't afford to piss off the fraction of people such enforcement pisses off.
(Obviously this all varies by country and year so I'm speaking generally)
Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state.
In the 18th and 19th century there were far, far fewer professional local/county "police", many of the duties were performed by other offices/officials and when needed they got their muscle from community volunteers or the state (usually from the national guard or army in the US). Consequently they didn't spend much time enforcing petty civil laws and enforcing social norms because the manpower simply wasn't there and you couldn't afford to piss off the fraction of people such enforcement pisses off.
(Obviously this all varies by country and year so I'm speaking generally)
> Policing like we do it today in the West with state employees going looking for violations of law didn't exist before the surpluses of the industrial revolution enabled the high touch administrative state.
It often used to be up to the victim to pursue justice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker
There are obvious problems with this approach.
It often used to be up to the victim to pursue justice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker
There are obvious problems with this approach.
The Department of Justice is too busy enacting selective enforcement against SpaceX for a hiring practice that is prevalent throughout the defense industry[1]. They don't have time to prosecute gangs.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-justice-department...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-justice-department...
I'm sure the DoJ can find the same reference as I could: "An employer may restrict hiring to U.S. citizen only if a law, regulation, executive order, or government contract requires the employer to do so." I doubt that they failed to consider this prior to bringing enforcement action.
I'm a bit surprised that SpaceX wouldn't be subject to ITAR. This article [0] from 2016 seems to say they are.
[0]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a23080/spacex...
[0]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a23080/spacex...
So you're saying that both should be investigated and this is really a funding issue? Or you just don't like the whole civil rights thing?
The whole thing reads like a far-fetched plot for a completely unrealistic action movie, but it's all too real:
> The report identifies at “least a half dozen” active gangs and cliques — and names them: the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys, and the Reapers.
Gangs proudly calling themselves "the Executioners" or "the Gladiators" likely have antisocial and violent tendencies. Think for a moment about the kind of person such names will attract. After reading about the horrifying things these gangs do, I'm left speechless. Reality truly can be stranger -- and more shocking -- than fiction.
> The report identifies at “least a half dozen” active gangs and cliques — and names them: the Executioners, the Banditos, the Regulators, the Spartans, the Gladiators, the Cowboys, and the Reapers.
Gangs proudly calling themselves "the Executioners" or "the Gladiators" likely have antisocial and violent tendencies. Think for a moment about the kind of person such names will attract. After reading about the horrifying things these gangs do, I'm left speechless. Reality truly can be stranger -- and more shocking -- than fiction.
Haha, this stuff is perfectly depicted in the film 'Den of Thieves' [0]. In the motel scene 'Big Nick' (LASD) makes it clear 'they' are part of a gang.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lD9D5PjOco
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lD9D5PjOco
The Shield, based in part off of the LA Rampart scandals, also addresses a lot of the culture around this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
The Shield! of course, my favourite show. I've probably watched this about 10 times already.
>Gangs proudly calling themselves "the Executioners" or "the Gladiators" likely have antisocial and violent tendencies
...its a gang. Of course it has antisocial and violent tendencies. That's part and parcel of it being a gang. If it wasn't violent and antisocial it would just be a club or organization.
...its a gang. Of course it has antisocial and violent tendencies. That's part and parcel of it being a gang. If it wasn't violent and antisocial it would just be a club or organization.
To someone who's accepted that gangs and violent people in them are a normal part of life, sure, that makes sense.
But what's the internal monologue of someone who styles themselves a deputy and an Executioner really like?
Do they genuinely believe themselves to be doing smart or good things? Do they hate themselves, do they hate the flawed world they're in? Is this an unfortunate but temporary state of affairs, ends justifying the means until they can fully replace the flawed system? Are they stuck in their position, wishing they had said no when/if they had the chance, but now unsure how to safely exit?
Could you or I, with a few different life choices, have been not a software dev but a law enforcement deputy who's also a member of a violent, antisocial gang? I'd like to think I could not, but I have no clue what actually goes on inside the mind of someone in that situation.
But what's the internal monologue of someone who styles themselves a deputy and an Executioner really like?
Do they genuinely believe themselves to be doing smart or good things? Do they hate themselves, do they hate the flawed world they're in? Is this an unfortunate but temporary state of affairs, ends justifying the means until they can fully replace the flawed system? Are they stuck in their position, wishing they had said no when/if they had the chance, but now unsure how to safely exit?
Could you or I, with a few different life choices, have been not a software dev but a law enforcement deputy who's also a member of a violent, antisocial gang? I'd like to think I could not, but I have no clue what actually goes on inside the mind of someone in that situation.
“The love of money is the root of all evil”
“The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” - 1 Timothy 6:10
The root of all evil is pride when you really analyze it.
The root of all evil is pride when you really analyze it.
Makes me wonder about the real meaning of all those Punisher patches that some of them wear. We tend to think of gangs as coherent forces, but identity is not always that clear-cut.
I had this exact same thought. They’re sometimes placed in a way that makes one think it might be a secret hand shake or a dog whistle.
I thought that was more of a white nationalist thing. We've got plenty of neo-nazis running amok in our police forces.
It's really funny, because as fans of the comic have said, Frank Castle would likely kill every single cop who wears that image.
Just once can we please have a self-effacing police gang? I want the "Smooth Criminals" or something. Stop trying to be the most badass and have some fun with it!
At least for me, “The Regulators” sounds like a bunch of guys in dark suits with stacks of records and regulations. “Pursuant to 17 USC § 501, we’re going to break your kneecaps”
The coolest possible use of a regulator is maybe scuba diving?
The coolest possible use of a regulator is maybe scuba diving?
For me, 'regulators' sounds like a bunch of guys who regulate any stealing of his property. They're damn good too. Can't be any geek off the streets.
I suspect this is a different group.
I suspect this is a different group.
No, they're just another group of incompetents.
https://knock-la.com/lasd-gang-regulators-shooting-zabala/
> Jason Zabala, an inked Regulator, is responsible for the deaths of at least two people and cost the County $4 million.
...
> In October 2011, an on-duty Zabala ran a red light and was involved in a collision. Sonya Benton, 49, was inside the other car. The impact gravely injured her spine, causing long-term damage and prompting a fusion surgery. At the beginning of the case, the County’s counsel asserted that Benton’s injuries weren’t serious and the surgery wasn’t necessary. The case settled for $80,000 before trial. Taxpayers picked up the bill for her award and everyone’s attorney fees. Zabala remained a deputy.
...
> The deputies later claimed Laffitte had a gun. However, Zabala said in his deposition that he never saw a weapon on Laffitte. A handgun was recovered from the scene, but it tested negative for Laffitte’s DNA, according to court documents. The testing did conclude, however, that at least two other individuals handled the gun. Shortly after the incident, Cotton said in a press conference, “I want revenge for my brother’s death. There will be no justice in Los Angeles until my brother’s murderers go to prison… I want them jailed for killing my brother and brutalizing my family.”
> That didn’t happen. Laffitte’s family settled the case for $1,500,000 before it went to trial. Taxpayers, of course, footed the bill. But the deputies who killed Terry Laffitte were never charged, and it does not appear they were disciplined. It appears as if Barrios was still a member of the department as recently as 2019. Horrifyingly, Zabala went on to kill another man in front of his family.
A sibling comment mentions the 2018 film Den of Thieves - that's the Regulators. Their tattoo's even on screen.
https://knock-la.com/lasd-gang-regulators-shooting-zabala/
> Jason Zabala, an inked Regulator, is responsible for the deaths of at least two people and cost the County $4 million.
...
> In October 2011, an on-duty Zabala ran a red light and was involved in a collision. Sonya Benton, 49, was inside the other car. The impact gravely injured her spine, causing long-term damage and prompting a fusion surgery. At the beginning of the case, the County’s counsel asserted that Benton’s injuries weren’t serious and the surgery wasn’t necessary. The case settled for $80,000 before trial. Taxpayers picked up the bill for her award and everyone’s attorney fees. Zabala remained a deputy.
...
> The deputies later claimed Laffitte had a gun. However, Zabala said in his deposition that he never saw a weapon on Laffitte. A handgun was recovered from the scene, but it tested negative for Laffitte’s DNA, according to court documents. The testing did conclude, however, that at least two other individuals handled the gun. Shortly after the incident, Cotton said in a press conference, “I want revenge for my brother’s death. There will be no justice in Los Angeles until my brother’s murderers go to prison… I want them jailed for killing my brother and brutalizing my family.”
> That didn’t happen. Laffitte’s family settled the case for $1,500,000 before it went to trial. Taxpayers, of course, footed the bill. But the deputies who killed Terry Laffitte were never charged, and it does not appear they were disciplined. It appears as if Barrios was still a member of the department as recently as 2019. Horrifyingly, Zabala went on to kill another man in front of his family.
A sibling comment mentions the 2018 film Den of Thieves - that's the Regulators. Their tattoo's even on screen.
> At least for me, “The Regulators” sounds like a bunch of guys in dark suits with stacks of records and regulations.
Probably named after a previous gang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
Probably named after a previous gang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
It's a reference to https://genius.com/Warren-g-regulate-lyrics
Or perhaps a reference to William Bonner "Billy the Kid" and the deputized gang/posse he was associated with?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
Classic song:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY
I came here to post this!
"Oh shit, it's OSHA, run!"
* turns, runs, stumbles on trip hazard *
It has hip-hop roots, although it's not clear if they intended to reference these regulators.
They’re both referencing Billy the Kid and the Lincoln County Regulators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_Regulators
Sadly, these sorts don't seem to have names like "The Good Fathers" come to mind first
The Good Fellas?
[deleted]
Fiction dialed it in somewhat well - there was one TV show about one of those smart not-really-a-detective people who had a score to settle with a well known criminal ended up belonging to a gang of police officers (who had matching tattoos. Then again, the FBI came to clean things up in that show after it was ousted, so I guess you're right...
Where is Harry Bosch when you need him?
You didn’t read about all of the police corruption that became public after the OJ Trial in the 90s?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
Yes, I think OJ was “framed”. But I also believe he was guilty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
Yes, I think OJ was “framed”. But I also believe he was guilty.
It’s very possible his son did it. His son was extremely violent, the glove fit him
The glove also fit OJ just fine when he was not taking actions advised by his lawyers to actively make his hand swell
Dude the son was super duper violent and attacked the dude that was murdered constantly
100% the son. Did you see the documentary on that?
I do hope that this article inspires more HN folks to appreciate the stance adopted by Black Lives Matter.
It's a lot harder to sneer when you see what the movement is up against.
It's a lot harder to sneer when you see what the movement is up against.
Many movies come to mind , like Training Day, that are based on unbelievable but surprisingly true stories... Its sad but its all too real!
If their names are the worst thing about them, I'm not losing any sleep.
> The recent-former Sheriff Alex Villanueva won office in 2018 after campaigning as a reformer. But if Villanueva paid lip service to ending LASD’s gang culture, his hiring practices told a much different story. “Sheriff Villanueva promoted Timothy Murakami, a tattooed Caveman, to Undersheriff and Lawrence Del Mese, a tattooed Grim Reaper, to Chief of Staff,” the investigation reports. (The report states that both Villanueva and Murakami refused to participate in the investigation, while Del Mese testified he’d had his tattoos removed when joining the Villanueva regime, because they were a “liability” and “a bad look.”)
Listening to the LA sheriff debate was interesting:
https://youtu.be/C0BHOA1mMco
They both have connections to gangs? And one is denying they exist.
It makes you wonder if hiring for these top positions would be nearly impossible if you had to exclude gang-connected (directly or indirectly) because almost all of the seniority probably had some connection to it in order to get where they are.
Some organizations are so deeply rotted it's nearly impossible to do an internal clean up without getting rid of the bulk of the staff.
And I'm sure the difficulty of hiring new police officers since 2020 is a big excuse for keeping them, because who is going to replace them? You almost have to a) choose the less bad ones or b) spend a lot of time/money to import senior police from other states or counties.
Listening to the LA sheriff debate was interesting:
https://youtu.be/C0BHOA1mMco
They both have connections to gangs? And one is denying they exist.
It makes you wonder if hiring for these top positions would be nearly impossible if you had to exclude gang-connected (directly or indirectly) because almost all of the seniority probably had some connection to it in order to get where they are.
Some organizations are so deeply rotted it's nearly impossible to do an internal clean up without getting rid of the bulk of the staff.
And I'm sure the difficulty of hiring new police officers since 2020 is a big excuse for keeping them, because who is going to replace them? You almost have to a) choose the less bad ones or b) spend a lot of time/money to import senior police from other states or counties.
The solution is to bring in huge amounts of military police from other parts of the state or country, and arm the citizens. Street gangs and police gangs are analogous to having armed battalions of enemy soldiers in your city, that calls for a military response.
1. If you think gangs in police are bad, wait until you find out about gangs in the military
2. You probably almost certainly do not want martial law.
3. The military is not an intelligence organization.
2. You probably almost certainly do not want martial law.
3. The military is not an intelligence organization.
You can have military police without martial law. You can split investigative units from the enforcing/order keeping battalions, the military does not need to be involved in investigative work. Most lawyers could be suited for investigative police work.
Gangs would have a hard time forming in battalions mixed by people from all over the country.
Gangs would have a hard time forming in battalions mixed by people from all over the country.
Most military gangs form on aircraft carriers. Lots of people + difficult day to day + natural divisions (everything is shift work, work is isolated to different areas). In any kind of deployment you will tend to see the same issues.
MPs have jurisdictional limits. Their jurisdiction can only be expanded to broad civilians under martial law conditions (there are some weird exceptions here like posse comitatus but those remain exceptional).
Nor do you want MPs broadly enforcing the law. Handcuffing someone to a radiator for a half day because they mouthed off is not aligned with a civilian led culture.
MPs have jurisdictional limits. Their jurisdiction can only be expanded to broad civilians under martial law conditions (there are some weird exceptions here like posse comitatus but those remain exceptional).
Nor do you want MPs broadly enforcing the law. Handcuffing someone to a radiator for a half day because they mouthed off is not aligned with a civilian led culture.
In the past this has been successfully dealt with the FBI investigating and imprisoning local cops to clean up police departments. Not the military and militias roaming the streets(?)
If you are willing and have the time, I would appreciate any specific instance/cases of this you could point me towards. My current understanding is that the FBI often investigates such situations, but I am not familiar with any such cases that I would consider "successfully dealt with" -- rather, a few specific folks are hung out to dry, but it appears to me that the institutional issues always remain.
Part of me wonder if issue may be (at least partially) a result of the fact that the FBI themselves are "cops", and it can be unsettling to prosecute illegal conduct in which you and your fellow officers also engage.
Part of me wonder if issue may be (at least partially) a result of the fact that the FBI themselves are "cops", and it can be unsettling to prosecute illegal conduct in which you and your fellow officers also engage.
LA country sheriffs are one of the largest police organizations in the country. Where would you ever find enough military police? Are they even trained for normal policing?
They can hardly be larger than the army. Who else except the regular military could have the means to combat a militarized police force and militarized street gangs?
As the story notes, none of these are revelations. They've been around since the 1970s; two of these gangs have Wikipedia pages, and there's a list page compiling reports going back to 1970: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs.
The only news is that an official report is directly calling them "gangs". Previous official reports had merely called them "cliques", like this one in 2012 from the LA County's Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence: https://ccjv.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CCJV-Re...
The Executioners are the Compton station and known white supremacists; the county paid out $7M over a fatal shooting tied to the gang in 2019: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-20/lasd-gan..., https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/los-angeles-county-compto...
The Banditos are the East LA station: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fbi-investigating-...
The only news is that an official report is directly calling them "gangs". Previous official reports had merely called them "cliques", like this one in 2012 from the LA County's Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence: https://ccjv.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CCJV-Re...
The Executioners are the Compton station and known white supremacists; the county paid out $7M over a fatal shooting tied to the gang in 2019: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-20/lasd-gan..., https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/los-angeles-county-compto...
The Banditos are the East LA station: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fbi-investigating-...
Isn't "clique" just a term for a sub-unit of a gang?
Interesting language in this article. They're trying their hardest to make it seem like members of LA street gangs are running the LAPD, but, really, it's just cops being cops. This type of stuff happens even in PD's where there are no deputy gangs to join:
Deputies eager to join a gang are notorious for “chasing ink” — or engaging in violence toward county residents... This has led to a rash of “excessive force or other forms of unconstitutional policing,” the report says.
I'm more worried about white supremacists gang members in law enforcement: https://whyy.org/articles/oath-keeperes-membership-data-poli...
Deputies eager to join a gang are notorious for “chasing ink” — or engaging in violence toward county residents... This has led to a rash of “excessive force or other forms of unconstitutional policing,” the report says.
I'm more worried about white supremacists gang members in law enforcement: https://whyy.org/articles/oath-keeperes-membership-data-poli...
Everyone gets to have their own favorite fear of law enforcement, but corruption in law enforcement is bad--everywhere.
Cops killing cops and their families in gang initiations and power struggles makes for nice FX shows, but it is bad for communities, no matter what race the cops are.
Cops killing cops and their families in gang initiations and power struggles makes for nice FX shows, but it is bad for communities, no matter what race the cops are.
IMO, it's among the worst forms of crime and should be punished accordingly. The damage goes far beyond the immediate action, since it undermines the public's trust in the system as a whole. It should be punished accordingly.
Did you actually read the article?
The LASD is not the LAPD.
These are police gangs that are not directly under street gangs in terms of culture or leadership structure. These aren't former or current street gang members who became cops.
There are white supremacist LASD gangs. Google "Lynwood Vikings".
The LASD is not the LAPD.
These are police gangs that are not directly under street gangs in terms of culture or leadership structure. These aren't former or current street gang members who became cops.
There are white supremacist LASD gangs. Google "Lynwood Vikings".
Just a nit, this is talking about the LA County Sheriff and not the LA police department.
The language might be a bit confusing to outsiders but the gang problem in the sheriff's department is well known to angelenos and isn't confused with street gangs. It's been going on for years.
The language might be a bit confusing to outsiders but the gang problem in the sheriff's department is well known to angelenos and isn't confused with street gangs. It's been going on for years.
I’m not sure I understand. They pretty reliably referred to them as deputy gangs and no where did I see anything that made me think they were referring to street gangs. They also discussed they’re racially segregated and biased, to your race gang point of concern. I didn’t see anything that seemed ok or normal, either. I think some semblance of this happens in a lot of police departments in some subcritical state, but this sounds organized, structured, and operating with impunity - which is not normal.
I noticed that too. I think it’s an attempt to change the narrative in order to make the story new again and hopefully shock people out of complacency. Thing is, I think most people just don’t care, and they won’t until they have a violent run in with an officer.
[deleted]
> I'm more worried about white supremacists gang
Why? Does it feel nicer to be beaten or murdered by cop depending on their political affiliation?
Why? Does it feel nicer to be beaten or murdered by cop depending on their political affiliation?
[deleted]
I didn't know that "white supremacist" was a political affiliation?
How could you not know that?
Why should I have known that? Which political party on the US is centered on the white supremacy ideology?
White supremacy is a political ideology and a political movement. You can search Google if you're interested in specific parties.
ddevault(1)
This is my worry too.
ipaddr(3)
>it's just cops being cops
Tell me you need police reform without saying it.
Tell me you need police reform without saying it.
There's an extensive investigation of this at https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history.... There's even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs. This has been clear for quite some time.
I suspect the LASD will very successfully resist reform efforts.
I suspect the LASD will very successfully resist reform efforts.
Maybe known corrupt locales should be subject to a similar interstate traveling circuit system as the one that judges followed (what the "circuit" in "circuit court" originally referred to—albeit for different reasons).
If the issue is police and sheriff's departments having roots in the crime world of LA, then perhaps the appropriate mitigation strategy is for those departments to be wholesale swapped out with ones that were previously operating in, say, Idaho. The idea is that what these regions need are law enforcement, and any PD or sheriff's department educated on local laws should do. All of the reasonable arguments against this that I can anticipate are ones that involve so-called problems that either have trivial solutions, or are actually just a collection of tremendous upsides only dressed up to seem bad.
Change my view.
If the issue is police and sheriff's departments having roots in the crime world of LA, then perhaps the appropriate mitigation strategy is for those departments to be wholesale swapped out with ones that were previously operating in, say, Idaho. The idea is that what these regions need are law enforcement, and any PD or sheriff's department educated on local laws should do. All of the reasonable arguments against this that I can anticipate are ones that involve so-called problems that either have trivial solutions, or are actually just a collection of tremendous upsides only dressed up to seem bad.
Change my view.
What citizens would trade their own police force for one known to be corrupt to the core? That’s asking to import violence into their previously peaceful towns. You are basically asking to spread the disease everywhere; this is not a cure.
> You are basically asking to spread the disease everywhere
Only if you're not paying attention.
Corrupt departments getting swapped out for others limits their impact in the affected region. The same principle is at play at the next location.
Additionally: corruption thrives (e.g. in the first location) because it has the necessary preconditions to tolerate it; courts and the local folks at the next location are not going to take up a passive posture if the new guys show up and their town is plunged into corruption.
Both factors should lead to the corrupt departments being discouraged to the point that they recognize the futility.
Alternatively, you could limit it to only swapping out the LA units for the ones that were in Idaho, sending the LA ones nowhere—they're just gone. The problem, after all, is the inability to get rid of all law enforcement headcount in an entire region, even if it is by and large thoroughly corrupt. The Idahoans coming in make that a non-issue.
Only if you're not paying attention.
Corrupt departments getting swapped out for others limits their impact in the affected region. The same principle is at play at the next location.
Additionally: corruption thrives (e.g. in the first location) because it has the necessary preconditions to tolerate it; courts and the local folks at the next location are not going to take up a passive posture if the new guys show up and their town is plunged into corruption.
Both factors should lead to the corrupt departments being discouraged to the point that they recognize the futility.
Alternatively, you could limit it to only swapping out the LA units for the ones that were in Idaho, sending the LA ones nowhere—they're just gone. The problem, after all, is the inability to get rid of all law enforcement headcount in an entire region, even if it is by and large thoroughly corrupt. The Idahoans coming in make that a non-issue.
Nobody's safe when the Potato Crew comes to town.
> The report insists that the gangs operate “much like the Mafia” and that only “made” members are entitled to the tattoo
I’m shocked that people with tattoos are even allowed to serve in the sheriff’s department. It’s like an open invitation to gang members, skinheads, etc. These taboos exist for a reason. Tattoos have always been used to express this sort of group. loyalty and solidarity. Controlling tattoos allows society to control a key signaling mechanism these groups use.
I’m shocked that people with tattoos are even allowed to serve in the sheriff’s department. It’s like an open invitation to gang members, skinheads, etc. These taboos exist for a reason. Tattoos have always been used to express this sort of group. loyalty and solidarity. Controlling tattoos allows society to control a key signaling mechanism these groups use.
That may have been true in 1970, but in 2023 almost a third of US adults have tattoos.
And that percentage is higher amongst veterans an explicit hiring pool for law enforcement.
I don’t see any problem keeping those people from serving in law enforcement. At best they’re indifferent to the unsavory association and that’s part of the problem. Society needs to be able to clearly identify and shun the those elements.
There may have been an unsavory association in the 1970s (that, and an association with the US Navy). But today, almost a third of US adults have tattoos; the association now is "part of American culture".
Go get a tattoo. They're fun! You can get one of Ronald Coase.
Go get a tattoo. They're fun! You can get one of Ronald Coase.
Certainly not in my slice of America, even in the 1990s or early 2000s. I don’t think I saw one in person until after college.
They're more common in your slice of America than they are in mine. Tattoo prevalence is higher in rural and red areas.
Tattoos are not common either in the Reagan suburb where I grew up nor the Romney/Biden suburb where I live. But you’re certainly correct that liberals’ war in American culture has had casualties all across the country, not just in blue areas.
I'm right about what now?
You’re correct that tattoos are more common in MTG’s district than in Oak Park. But whose fault is that? Rural and less educated folks are just as much a product of the 1960s war on culture and authority as anyone else. You’re just observing that the negative consequences of that social change (including as you have observed in other contexts, higher rates of divorce and childbearing out of wedlock) have fallen more on rural and less educated people. Of course. Shit rolls downhill.
The negative consequences of what? People like tattoos. Artists make money inking them. I'm glad people in rural areas can get them.
You're talking about something the country is actually united about. I'm really not sure what your concern is.
I will pay for your Ronald Coase sleeve. Just tell me where to show up with a check.
You're talking about something the country is actually united about. I'm really not sure what your concern is.
I will pay for your Ronald Coase sleeve. Just tell me where to show up with a check.
For the record this is one of my favorite "discussions" on HN ever. When either of you write something, I always read it carefully. This discussion has taken some strange turns that I never would have expected from either of you.
Sometimes people just go off the rails
I don't think tattoos are the selector or indicator that certainly I used to think. Way to common these days.
[deleted]
I used to think so, but I was rather astonished to see tattoos on young lawyers at an ediscovery firm who. This apparently is quite common.
While alarming I was also bothered by how short this article was on details.
Lots of “widespread” and similar quotes such but no solid numbers. Not much but lots of weighted / non specific language…
Lots of “widespread” and similar quotes such but no solid numbers. Not much but lots of weighted / non specific language…
Investigations by the LASD have, for some strange reason, failed to turn up exact counts of membership for these gangs.
Weird huh, I wonder what "blue wall of silence" means?
Yeah, I could easily see one person reading this and thinking that organized crime has infiltrated the police, while another would see this as a hit piece on cop buddies who give each other cutesy nicknames and get the same tattoos
I can't honestly say that I know what to do about this, but there have been various police departments placed on "probation" be the US Justice Department via consent decree. The L.A. Police Department is currently under one [0].
According to my half-assed googling: "Consent decrees are intended to promote police integrity within the Department and prevent conduct that deprives individuals of their rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution of the United States." Probably the best way to start addressing Sheriff's gangs is to start complaining to the L.A. District Attorney [1], the CA Attorney General [2] and the US Justice Department [3].
[0] https://www.lapdonline.org/consent-decree-overview/
[1] George Gascón, https://da.lacounty.gov/contact/email
[2] Rob Bonta, https://oag.ca.gov/donotcall/complaint
[3] https://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/submit-complaint
According to my half-assed googling: "Consent decrees are intended to promote police integrity within the Department and prevent conduct that deprives individuals of their rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution of the United States." Probably the best way to start addressing Sheriff's gangs is to start complaining to the L.A. District Attorney [1], the CA Attorney General [2] and the US Justice Department [3].
[0] https://www.lapdonline.org/consent-decree-overview/
[1] George Gascón, https://da.lacounty.gov/contact/email
[2] Rob Bonta, https://oag.ca.gov/donotcall/complaint
[3] https://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/submit-complaint
In addition to this it is well known that the cartels are actively involved in politics in many states along the southern border. Imagine how the cartels would then want to influence politics. It has always struck my as incredibly naive that we in America believe that organized crime just can't be running and involved in the government because that would be a "conspiracy" when they are so actively involved in so many other countries governments.
Plus foreign entities - like China - actively buying influence. It is literaly a free-for-all.
The group of Memphis police officers who were responsible for the murder of Tyre Nichols operated as a gang.
I'm just speculating at this point, but naming your specialized unit the "Scorpion Unit" probably also resulted in these guys working as a internal cell, with their own unwritten rules and definitely a propensity to not talk about or work collaboratively with other's outside the unit. Essentially the definition of a gang.
I'm just speculating at this point, but naming your specialized unit the "Scorpion Unit" probably also resulted in these guys working as a internal cell, with their own unwritten rules and definitely a propensity to not talk about or work collaboratively with other's outside the unit. Essentially the definition of a gang.
It's not a problem with naming, that's absurd. There's a systemic problem with policing in the US, why do you think there are protests every few years? Do protests only happen when a named group does something?
The naming of your group is a symptom of the overall problem. No one names their gang the "community outreach response unit" which is what these units should be.
People name their gangs the "Outlaws" or "Vipers" or "Scorpions" etc because they are intending to send a message of fear or strength. It's Gang 101 activity.
People name their gangs the "Outlaws" or "Vipers" or "Scorpions" etc because they are intending to send a message of fear or strength. It's Gang 101 activity.
A similar report from the DOJ on the LMPD (Louisville, KY) came out yesterday[0]. Maybe bringing these departments into the light will effect change.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/louisville-pattern-a...
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/louisville-pattern-a...
About 20 years ago, I got a fortune cookie with a LA Sheriff's Dept recruitment message during my first tech job in north OC. Co-workers and I were joking about it being a sign to ditch our then low/average paying job to go collect our "mob" money "fortune"
Disappointing that this is still a thing (as well as my attitude towards it at the time)
Disappointing that this is still a thing (as well as my attitude towards it at the time)
It's a great way to get FAANG levels of total compensation without having to subject yourself to the lame technical interview gauntlet
Yea, all you have to do is terrorize minority neighborhoods
[deleted]
While I was living in San Diego in 2000, I got talking to some policemen in La Jolla. They told me that having a criminal record is considered a plus when applying for the job, as it shows you understand the criminal mind.
They were probably pulling my leg (or so I thought at the time), but now I wonder...
They were probably pulling my leg (or so I thought at the time), but now I wonder...
not LA but HBO has a nice series about the same thing that happened in Baltimore - "We own this City" . made by the creators of the best show to ever grace TV - The Wire.
Police acting unruly. robbing and terrorizing citizens.
This article has a sensational title and lacks on actual numbers. The number "least a half dozen" seems very approximate. What about the incidence of ex-gang members? Out of how many LA Sheriffs are we referring to?
Difficult to count, in part because Villanueva or his leadership allegedly discouraged investigations into them: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-...
> Last week, at a public hearing, the Civilian Oversight Commission presented new evidence to suggest that the investigators’ diminishing focus on the Banditos was directed from above. (Villanueva denies giving any orders that discouraged investigation.) Throughout the inquiry, the lead investigator kept a detailed log of his work. While votes in the election for sheriff were still being counted, in early November, he wrote that he was told to ask witnesses “additional questions about subcultures at East LA.” In a deposition for the case of the eight deputies, parts of which were read into evidence at the hearing, the investigator said that, after Villanueva’s victory, his supervisor had mentioned needing to “check with the sheriff” about the Banditos inquiry. Ten days later, the investigator noted a new instruction from his supervisor: “I do not need to ask about subculture groups at ELA Station.” He explained in his deposition, “We’re a paramilitary organization. He gives me an order; I follow through.”
The financial cost is more well known:
> Since 1990, according to the Office of the Inspector General, settlements involving deputies with gang affiliations have cost taxpayers at least $54 million.
That New Yorker story also describes several ex-deputies with gang connections, including the Paul Tanaka trial (Vikings) and Villaneuva reinstating "Creepy" Carl Mandoyan (Grim Reapers).
> Last week, at a public hearing, the Civilian Oversight Commission presented new evidence to suggest that the investigators’ diminishing focus on the Banditos was directed from above. (Villanueva denies giving any orders that discouraged investigation.) Throughout the inquiry, the lead investigator kept a detailed log of his work. While votes in the election for sheriff were still being counted, in early November, he wrote that he was told to ask witnesses “additional questions about subcultures at East LA.” In a deposition for the case of the eight deputies, parts of which were read into evidence at the hearing, the investigator said that, after Villanueva’s victory, his supervisor had mentioned needing to “check with the sheriff” about the Banditos inquiry. Ten days later, the investigator noted a new instruction from his supervisor: “I do not need to ask about subculture groups at ELA Station.” He explained in his deposition, “We’re a paramilitary organization. He gives me an order; I follow through.”
The financial cost is more well known:
> Since 1990, according to the Office of the Inspector General, settlements involving deputies with gang affiliations have cost taxpayers at least $54 million.
That New Yorker story also describes several ex-deputies with gang connections, including the Paul Tanaka trial (Vikings) and Villaneuva reinstating "Creepy" Carl Mandoyan (Grim Reapers).
Here is a convenient database for your reading. There are also numerous reports on this website of the details of past LASD gang activity
https://lasdgangs.knock-la.com/
https://lasdgangs.knock-la.com/
where is dirty harry when you need him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_Force
The problem is a lot of these guys probably think they are Dirty Harry or the Punisher or some other vigilante they idolize.
For non-Americans, what's the difference between a "Sheriff's Department" and a regular "Police Department"?
The sheriff is typically elected, and the sheriff's department has specific jurisdiction over the area's courts and jails. As part of that, they're usually the ones who serve summonses from the courts, and as such they often play a role in evictions.
Depending on the state, they may be limited to almost exclusively those roles, or they might be equivalent to a full police department that also happens to have those roles. In LA, it's closer to the latter.
Depending on the state, they may be limited to almost exclusively those roles, or they might be equivalent to a full police department that also happens to have those roles. In LA, it's closer to the latter.
From an outsider's perspective, at a glance, LA's case sounds very redundant when they also have an LAPD?
I mean, it makes sense having the distinction between the FBI and municipal police forces and state police forces when the state forces primarily police non-municipal areas like expressways and can provide some more mobile backup when there's a local crisis that exceeds a local force's ability to manage.
But I don't understand the logic of having so many overlapping police service organizations beyond that.
I mean, it makes sense having the distinction between the FBI and municipal police forces and state police forces when the state forces primarily police non-municipal areas like expressways and can provide some more mobile backup when there's a local crisis that exceeds a local force's ability to manage.
But I don't understand the logic of having so many overlapping police service organizations beyond that.
Oh, you haven't seen anything yet. Richmond, Virginia has a city police department, a sheriff's department, a capitol police department, and a campus police department, and is of course within the jurisdiction of the state police department. Most of the city is within the jurisdiction of at least four of these five.
It seems that each entity starts out performing a specific function, but policing is important and we don't want them to just not enforce the law because it's "not their jurisdiction", so we'll just give them more jurisdiction... and the funding to match... and eventually you have 3-5 departments doing basically the same thing in basically the same area.
It's terrible. It leads to budget bloat and overpolicing, complicates oversight, and makes it harder for locals to manage police interactions because they're dealing with discordant department policies and ethos. (edit: It may be important to note that the police departments themselves seem to consider all of these things a feature, not a bug.)
It seems that each entity starts out performing a specific function, but policing is important and we don't want them to just not enforce the law because it's "not their jurisdiction", so we'll just give them more jurisdiction... and the funding to match... and eventually you have 3-5 departments doing basically the same thing in basically the same area.
It's terrible. It leads to budget bloat and overpolicing, complicates oversight, and makes it harder for locals to manage police interactions because they're dealing with discordant department policies and ethos. (edit: It may be important to note that the police departments themselves seem to consider all of these things a feature, not a bug.)
Is anyone actually surprised by this? When you have qualified immunity, you use it. Absolute protection corrupts absolutely.
Edit (to the downvoters):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...
Edit (to the downvoters):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unarmed_African_Americ...
lots of people from orange county (grew up there) knew about this like 20 years ago.
also i have to add that this isnt just LA, its definitely also san diego and orange county.
just think of the money
just think of the money
why are you limiting this to california cities? yes, you're right, it's not just LA, but pretty much any policing agency of significant size. location doesn't matter. i will gladly accept i'm painting with an overly large brush if someone can show counter evidence of a decent sized police force where similar is NOT occurring.
While i completely agree with you, we should remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There’s a reason that songs like “fuck the police” came out of the LA area.
Decades later, and it’s only worse. This is where the “abolition” language comes from. How do you fix this? Unclear. Wholesale replacement seems tempting in the face of any direct path to reform.
LA police organizations are rotten from fruit to root. Incrementalism won’t work.
Decades later, and it’s only worse. This is where the “abolition” language comes from. How do you fix this? Unclear. Wholesale replacement seems tempting in the face of any direct path to reform.
LA police organizations are rotten from fruit to root. Incrementalism won’t work.
YeahNO(2)
l_theanine(1)
fortran77(1)
showdeddd(8)
maybe gang members make great cops, you don't know.
This is probably common in any counties that are hotbeds of crime, this doesn't sound entirely unlike Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona either, where he was just the head racist in charge of Sheriff Deputies' "us and them's" for almost a quarter of a century.
That ended with him being voted out finally and pardoned of ongoing lawsuits for years of racial profiling by the supreme racist in charge Donald Trump himself, but wonder who will bail Villaneuva and the cronies out now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
That ended with him being voted out finally and pardoned of ongoing lawsuits for years of racial profiling by the supreme racist in charge Donald Trump himself, but wonder who will bail Villaneuva and the cronies out now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Important to remember Rolling Stone has a history of publishing false or exaggerated stories.
"Consider the source" is always smart. How do you feel about the LA Times?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-02/la-me-de... https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-03/civilian...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-02/la-me-de... https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-03/civilian...
Having lived in LA county when I was younger (and poor, nearly homeless, etc.), I've seen plenty of gang-like behavior from the police: I doubt this article is exaggerated at all.
The UVA rape story was blatantly obviously false to any male who read it (no man is going to intentionally put his junk near a bed of broken glass, frat-bro gang rapist or no) but this particular article is simply about the details of a report created by the LA County Civilian Oversight Commission, so I'm not sure what attacks on Rolling Stone's (admittedly poor) credibility have to do with that.
The actual report is found here (and linked to by the Rolling Stone article): https://www.scribd.com/document/629758526/ladeptygang
The actual report is found here (and linked to by the Rolling Stone article): https://www.scribd.com/document/629758526/ladeptygang
> The UVA rape story was blatantly obviously false to any male who read it
That feels like 20/20 hindsight. There were certainly plenty of males who did believe it. I'll fess up, I was one of them. I believed it for 2 main reasons:
1. The story was outlandish, but I thought "you'd have to be insane to lie about this, with this much detail". Well, yeah, in retrospect, insane people exist.
2. Since there was so much detail, I thought there was plenty of stuff that could have been easily vetted, and given Rolling Stone's reputation, thought "for sure they have researched this." I honestly didn't realize at the time about the story being "too good to vet" phenomenon.
Yes, I learned a valuable lesson about consuming information with a more critical eye, and mea culpa. But I know I definitely wasn't the only male who originally believed the story.
That feels like 20/20 hindsight. There were certainly plenty of males who did believe it. I'll fess up, I was one of them. I believed it for 2 main reasons:
1. The story was outlandish, but I thought "you'd have to be insane to lie about this, with this much detail". Well, yeah, in retrospect, insane people exist.
2. Since there was so much detail, I thought there was plenty of stuff that could have been easily vetted, and given Rolling Stone's reputation, thought "for sure they have researched this." I honestly didn't realize at the time about the story being "too good to vet" phenomenon.
Yes, I learned a valuable lesson about consuming information with a more critical eye, and mea culpa. But I know I definitely wasn't the only male who originally believed the story.
At least for me, I immediately doubted the story and any of my friends that I discussed it with (most of whom hadn't actually read the article) did as well the moment I pointed out the broken glass. So probably a bit of bias on my part to assume everyone else felt the same way, sorry that you got taken in by their lies.
> this particular article is simply about the details of a report created by the LA County Civilian Oversight Commission, so I'm not sure what attacks on Rolling Stone's (admittedly poor) credibility have to do with that
This article dances around these “gangs” being deputy cliques with allegedly violent tendencies, not actual infiltration by LA street gangs. That smudging makes the lack of evidence for those violent tendencies or refusal to provide back-up easier to digest.
This article dances around these “gangs” being deputy cliques with allegedly violent tendencies, not actual infiltration by LA street gangs. That smudging makes the lack of evidence for those violent tendencies or refusal to provide back-up easier to digest.
One doesn't have to be an "LA street gang" to be a gang. I thought the article was clear about that.
> the article was clear about that
It never explicitly makes that point nor backs it up, which is typical Rolling Stone. It’s a fun read. But a better source is warranted.
It never explicitly makes that point nor backs it up, which is typical Rolling Stone. It’s a fun read. But a better source is warranted.
New Yorker, June 2022: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/06/the-la-county-...
NPR, March 2022: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1088905429/lasd-gangs-investi...
Reuters, March 2022: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/la-is-investigating...
NBC Los Angeles, June 2019: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/los-angeles-county-compto...
BuzzFeed, August 2018: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/la-co...
Fox News, 18 hours ago: https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-los-angeles-sheriff-alex-villa...
Fox 11, 3 days ago: https://www.foxla.com/video/1189078
NBC News, 5 days ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deputy-gangs-cancer-los...
Fox 11, Feb. 20: https://www.foxla.com/news/banditos-la-county-seeks-dismissa...
LA Times, Feb. 10: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-08/new-depu...
Loyola Law School, 2022: https://www.lls.edu/academics/centers/centerforjuvenilelawpo...
NPR, March 2022: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1088905429/lasd-gangs-investi...
Reuters, March 2022: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/la-is-investigating...
NBC Los Angeles, June 2019: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/los-angeles-county-compto...
BuzzFeed, August 2018: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/la-co...
Fox News, 18 hours ago: https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-los-angeles-sheriff-alex-villa...
Fox 11, 3 days ago: https://www.foxla.com/video/1189078
NBC News, 5 days ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deputy-gangs-cancer-los...
Fox 11, Feb. 20: https://www.foxla.com/news/banditos-la-county-seeks-dismissa...
LA Times, Feb. 10: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-08/new-depu...
Loyola Law School, 2022: https://www.lls.edu/academics/centers/centerforjuvenilelawpo...
[deleted]
Is there any publication that has never published a false story? You need to accept stories from all media outlets on the merits of the story itself. There is clearly a lot of corroborating evidence with regard to gangs in the LASD.
Do you have more information about that?
"A Rape on Campus" was a widely reported one and a huge scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
It’s a problem that’ll get a lot worse as being a police officer was already a shit job that has gotten much worse in recent years. For a gangster the fringe benefit of being a police officer makes a lot of sense. I agree with Bernie Sanders on the point that cops need better pay to go along with higher quality controls.
Governments are way too comfortable with gangsters/mobsters, many of whom are regular donors to politicians. These gangsters are famous and everyone know who they are and what they do yet they only rarely get arrested let alone charged with anything. And in the rare cases they do get charged they walk. The way I see it the gangsters are paying govt for the privilege to rob the people unmolested which is another way that govt vicariously robs the people. I consider it a more violent arrangement and that govt has with big companies where big companies rip off people and get away with paying fines.
Governments are way too comfortable with gangsters/mobsters, many of whom are regular donors to politicians. These gangsters are famous and everyone know who they are and what they do yet they only rarely get arrested let alone charged with anything. And in the rare cases they do get charged they walk. The way I see it the gangsters are paying govt for the privilege to rob the people unmolested which is another way that govt vicariously robs the people. I consider it a more violent arrangement and that govt has with big companies where big companies rip off people and get away with paying fines.
Newsflash: gang members hold positions at the highest levels of government too! They also own all the banks!
It seems like it should be possible to reduce this by changing hiring practices. You want people who are willing to use force to enforce the law, but not people who are eager to do so. Not sure how you screen for that, seems like it's all about ones motivation for wanting the job which may be hard to determine.
I know we have to hold law enforcement to very high standards but maybe the problem is that we are asking them to do an impossible task. How do you convince a group of highly ethical, moral people to police communities with no ethics or morals?
Communities have to police themselves first.
Communities have to police themselves first.
this isn't some elevated response to criminal activity. it's police themselves acting criminally against the entire population.
Came back five days later to say this:
I understand that the problem is these cops being criminals. That's unacceptable. Full stop.
My larger point was that apparently people without morals or ethics are being attracted to the police force for some reason. And that could be because there's no way to attract moral/ethical people to do that job.
My larger point was that apparently people without morals or ethics are being attracted to the police force for some reason. And that could be because there's no way to attract moral/ethical people to do that job.
Pretty much everyone knows that the LA Sheriff's Department has been heavily infiltrated by gangs like the Compton Executioners. The phenomenon is extensively well-documented in the press and it even has a Wikipedia entry.
But … no one cares?
The federal government's Department of Justice just ignores it? ( https://raskin.house.gov/2022/2/chairman-raskin-rep-gomez-ur... )
At the state and county level, people just kind of ignore it?
And individuals can't do much about it, since after all the state has a monopoly on violence?
I mentioned the deputy gangs to a family member a while back and they were baffled that nobody is doing anything about it. But who would?
What is the word for "assuming someone else is going to do something about that, but there is no one"?