-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Gang agenda includes home invasions
- Thread starter 2a4all
- Start date
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
If one of the gang's principle sources of revenue is the loot from home invasions, the legality of drugs won't have much of an impact.
At first glance, this choice might seem a bit Darwinian. In a pro-gun state like Virginia, where a great many citizens own guns for protection, it would seem more rational to choose a different, less risky endeavor.
However, Darwin suggests that species adapt to survive. In our culture, the litigation resulting from a failed home invasion can be extremely lucrative.
What is really needed is a better Castle Doctrine, with civil immunity, so that the defending homeowner doesn't end up becoming a cash cow for the gang that (perhaps unsuccessfully) invaded his home.
If one of the gang's principle sources of revenue is the loot from home invasions, the legality of drugs won't have much of an impact.
At first glance, this choice might seem a bit Darwinian. In a pro-gun state like Virginia, where a great many citizens own guns for protection, it would seem more rational to choose a different, less risky endeavor.
However, Darwin suggests that species adapt to survive. In our culture, the litigation resulting from a failed home invasion can be extremely lucrative.
What is really needed is a better Castle Doctrine, with civil immunity, so that the defending homeowner doesn't end up becoming a cash cow for the gang that (perhaps unsuccessfully) invaded his home.
DTag
Regular Member
imported post
+1 for legalizing drugs... BUT if it were to succeed, the laws need to be tightened with regard to personal responsibility. Society needs to tighten up as a whole. It will have to start with the kids because, as I see it, generations upon generations are being raised to understand that consequences don't exist. Teachers accept late school work and send the message that timeliness isn't important. Parents make excuses for their kids time and time again and the kids are taught that "it's not their fault". If a kid hurts another kid they think saying "I'm sorry" is the way out of the mess. I say restitution is called for... the kid can say he's sorry, but then he should DO SOMETHING to make it better. Otherwise he walks away and doesn't learn anything. Late schoolwork should never be accepted or at minimum be accepted with no chance of scoring higher than a D. Parents need to start backing the teachers again.
Of course it's not just the kids that will need to be taught differently, our laws would need to change dramantically. Our laws allow people to be "innocent" because they are insane. Why should insane people get a free pass to commit crimes? At the very least, they should be "guilty" by reason of insanity. All the more reason to lock them up. Sure, give them medical help, but LOCK THEM UP. Our jails are a joke and we need to take lessons from countries like Mexico and tell the bleeding hearts to stop caring so much about the criminals and start doing more for the victims.
When we start holding people accountable for their decisions, I say legalize drugs. I have a feeling, however, that all of what I've written is a pipe dream and will never happen. <sigh>
+1 for legalizing drugs... BUT if it were to succeed, the laws need to be tightened with regard to personal responsibility. Society needs to tighten up as a whole. It will have to start with the kids because, as I see it, generations upon generations are being raised to understand that consequences don't exist. Teachers accept late school work and send the message that timeliness isn't important. Parents make excuses for their kids time and time again and the kids are taught that "it's not their fault". If a kid hurts another kid they think saying "I'm sorry" is the way out of the mess. I say restitution is called for... the kid can say he's sorry, but then he should DO SOMETHING to make it better. Otherwise he walks away and doesn't learn anything. Late schoolwork should never be accepted or at minimum be accepted with no chance of scoring higher than a D. Parents need to start backing the teachers again.
Of course it's not just the kids that will need to be taught differently, our laws would need to change dramantically. Our laws allow people to be "innocent" because they are insane. Why should insane people get a free pass to commit crimes? At the very least, they should be "guilty" by reason of insanity. All the more reason to lock them up. Sure, give them medical help, but LOCK THEM UP. Our jails are a joke and we need to take lessons from countries like Mexico and tell the bleeding hearts to stop caring so much about the criminals and start doing more for the victims.
When we start holding people accountable for their decisions, I say legalize drugs. I have a feeling, however, that all of what I've written is a pipe dream and will never happen. <sigh>
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
rebfan wrote:
No, you'd have the same problems to deal with. But with a much simplified criminal code and justice system. It would still be illegal to rob, rape, murder, drive recklessly, orannoy me (just slipped that one in there
) whether or not a person is high, drunk, or stone cold sober.
The act of doing a bad thing would still be a crime.
Thinking about a crime or engaging in behavior that may or may not make you more likely to commit a crime in the future should not be a crime.
rebfan wrote:
No, you'd have the same problems to deal with. But with a much simplified criminal code and justice system. It would still be illegal to rob, rape, murder, drive recklessly, orannoy me (just slipped that one in there
) whether or not a person is high, drunk, or stone cold sober.The act of doing a bad thing would still be a crime.
Thinking about a crime or engaging in behavior that may or may not make you more likely to commit a crime in the future should not be a crime.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
DTag, I am a firm believer that A: people cannot exercise responsibility if they do not have responsibility, and B: if you give people responsibility, they will exercise it. This is one of the lessons my own life and experiences have taught me.
The problem isn't that society needs to "tighten up laws" to engender personal responsibility. The laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc. are quite sufficient. The problem is that personal responsibility has been taken away from the people.
I agree, if drugs are to be legalized, it will be important to encourage personal responsibility. But laws and government are not the solution. As it stands, forced schooling encourages parents to abdicate their responsibility for the day-to-day duties of raising their children and developing in them responsible adults. Case in point: most parents don't talk to their kids about drugs or sex, and the schools often tell egregious lies in a "well-meaning" attempt to "have the most effect." What's the result? Kids with no inhibitions about drugs or sex. I've witnessed this with my own eyes.
Experience tells us that if you want the parents to once again exercise responsibility over their children, the first step is to return that responsibility to them.
As to the OP's last post: I have to laugh at the idea that a principal source of income is for these kids is home invasions. Free beer and pocket cash, maybe. :lol: I've known of a few people like this in my own experience, and it's clear to me they make their money from selling drugs -- it's really as simple as that. The violence is more to build "street cred" (or whatever they call it) with other gangs -- this helps them control more "territory," which they use to sell more drugs. But, the point is, it all comes down to the drugs. Take away the prohibition, and you take away the reason for these gangs' existence.
Neplusultra is right: after Prohibition ended, bootlegging and associated gangsterism stopped. Gangsterism really didn't rear its ugly head again until the so-called War on Drugs was started in earnest. If you end the prohibition of drugs, these gangs will go away.
As a little aside, I agree with Neplusultra that these gangs will likely not disappear as instantaneously as the Prohibition-era gangs did. But, remember, Prohibition lasted all of 13 years. It was an easy way to make cash; when it stopped, the cash dried up, so the gangsters went back to their old vocations. The War on Drugs has lasted decades, giving the drug gangs times to develop a cultural counterpart to the monetary aspect. That culture won't die immediately, but, starved of its lifeblood, it will wither surely as that of Native Americans confined to a reservation.
DTag, I am a firm believer that A: people cannot exercise responsibility if they do not have responsibility, and B: if you give people responsibility, they will exercise it. This is one of the lessons my own life and experiences have taught me.
The problem isn't that society needs to "tighten up laws" to engender personal responsibility. The laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc. are quite sufficient. The problem is that personal responsibility has been taken away from the people.
I agree, if drugs are to be legalized, it will be important to encourage personal responsibility. But laws and government are not the solution. As it stands, forced schooling encourages parents to abdicate their responsibility for the day-to-day duties of raising their children and developing in them responsible adults. Case in point: most parents don't talk to their kids about drugs or sex, and the schools often tell egregious lies in a "well-meaning" attempt to "have the most effect." What's the result? Kids with no inhibitions about drugs or sex. I've witnessed this with my own eyes.
Experience tells us that if you want the parents to once again exercise responsibility over their children, the first step is to return that responsibility to them.
As to the OP's last post: I have to laugh at the idea that a principal source of income is for these kids is home invasions. Free beer and pocket cash, maybe. :lol: I've known of a few people like this in my own experience, and it's clear to me they make their money from selling drugs -- it's really as simple as that. The violence is more to build "street cred" (or whatever they call it) with other gangs -- this helps them control more "territory," which they use to sell more drugs. But, the point is, it all comes down to the drugs. Take away the prohibition, and you take away the reason for these gangs' existence.
Neplusultra is right: after Prohibition ended, bootlegging and associated gangsterism stopped. Gangsterism really didn't rear its ugly head again until the so-called War on Drugs was started in earnest. If you end the prohibition of drugs, these gangs will go away.
As a little aside, I agree with Neplusultra that these gangs will likely not disappear as instantaneously as the Prohibition-era gangs did. But, remember, Prohibition lasted all of 13 years. It was an easy way to make cash; when it stopped, the cash dried up, so the gangsters went back to their old vocations. The War on Drugs has lasted decades, giving the drug gangs times to develop a cultural counterpart to the monetary aspect. That culture won't die immediately, but, starved of its lifeblood, it will wither surely as that of Native Americans confined to a reservation.
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Their principle source of income won't be from the loot, it'll be from the damages awarded when you get sued for killing or maiming one of them when you attempt (hopefully successfully) to stop them from invading your home (More lucrative than revenge. If you're dead, you can't pay). It won't be too hard for the gang to persuade a family member to become a plaintiff in a wrongful death action.
But maybe things won't get that violent. Maybe you'll just run them off, and as they "flee", one of them will trip and fall in your yard, and sue you for damages.
The gang will of course get the lion's share of any award. Their collections methods for debts owed are pretty effective.
And if drugs are legalized, they'll have plenty of capital to open up head shops, and a reputation to scare off the competition. Would you be one of their customers?
Gangs this well organized are smart, and know how to manipulate the legal system.
The Blood's chief rival, the Crips, actually incorporated itself as a business. It's said that the Hell's Angels have tradmarked their logos, and effectively deal with forgers.
A species must adapt to survive, and the above organizations are flourishing.
marshaul wrote:
I think this has the potential for a bit more than "free beer and pocket cash".
Their principle source of income won't be from the loot, it'll be from the damages awarded when you get sued for killing or maiming one of them when you attempt (hopefully successfully) to stop them from invading your home (More lucrative than revenge. If you're dead, you can't pay). It won't be too hard for the gang to persuade a family member to become a plaintiff in a wrongful death action.
But maybe things won't get that violent. Maybe you'll just run them off, and as they "flee", one of them will trip and fall in your yard, and sue you for damages.
The gang will of course get the lion's share of any award. Their collections methods for debts owed are pretty effective.
And if drugs are legalized, they'll have plenty of capital to open up head shops, and a reputation to scare off the competition. Would you be one of their customers?
Gangs this well organized are smart, and know how to manipulate the legal system.
The Blood's chief rival, the Crips, actually incorporated itself as a business. It's said that the Hell's Angels have tradmarked their logos, and effectively deal with forgers.
A species must adapt to survive, and the above organizations are flourishing.
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
"Their principle source of income won't be from the loot, it'll be from the damages awarded when you get sued for killing or maiming one of them when you attempt (hopefully successfully) to stop them from invading your home"
We haven't quite caught the British yet. Self defense and home defense against felons is legal.
"Their principle source of income won't be from the loot, it'll be from the damages awarded when you get sued for killing or maiming one of them when you attempt (hopefully successfully) to stop them from invading your home"
We haven't quite caught the British yet. Self defense and home defense against felons is legal.
Nozoki
Regular Member
imported post
Andwas anyone elsereminded of theMonty Python sketch?
Bounder: Anyway, you're interested in one of our adventure holidays, eh?
Tourist: Yes. I saw your advert in the bolour supplement.
Bounder: The what?
Tourist: The bolour supplement.
Bounder: The colour supplement?
Tourist: Yes. I'm sorry I can't say the letter 'B'.
Bounder: 'C'?
Tourist: Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I
was a spoolboy. I was attacked by a bat.
Bounder: A cat?
Tourist: No a bat.
Bounder: Can you say the letter 'K'?
Tourist: Oh yes. Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford.
Bounder: Why don't you use the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'?
Tourist: What you mean ... spell bolour with a 'K'?
Bounder: Yes.
Tourist: Kolour. Oh, that's very good, I never thought of that. What a silly bunt.
Shouldn't that be Boleman Plabe?
Andwas anyone elsereminded of theMonty Python sketch?
Bounder: Anyway, you're interested in one of our adventure holidays, eh?
Tourist: Yes. I saw your advert in the bolour supplement.
Bounder: The what?
Tourist: The bolour supplement.
Bounder: The colour supplement?
Tourist: Yes. I'm sorry I can't say the letter 'B'.
Bounder: 'C'?
Tourist: Yes, that's right. It's all due to a trauma I suffered when I
was a spoolboy. I was attacked by a bat.
Bounder: A cat?
Tourist: No a bat.
Bounder: Can you say the letter 'K'?
Tourist: Oh yes. Khaki, king, kettle, Kuwait, Keble Bollege Oxford.
Bounder: Why don't you use the letter 'K' instead of the letter 'C'?
Tourist: What you mean ... spell bolour with a 'K'?
Bounder: Yes.
Tourist: Kolour. Oh, that's very good, I never thought of that. What a silly bunt.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
da7f2q8 wrote:
I'm sorry to say, but you don't understand the function of prohibition. Do you remember when the mafia moved out to Nevada? They tried to corner the legal gambling and prostitution markets. They figured, that was what they knew, and in a new market they could completely clean up using their standard techinques (threats and violence), with no competition. Fast-forward to today, and gambling in Nevada is coprorate, and really doesn't resemble the mafia any more.
Why? Because the casinos found out that when what you do is legal, lawyers can exert a lot more pressure than violence.
Granted, casino proprietors are still as bullying as ever. But, since they use the law to do it, they really aren't "gangs" in any meaningful sense.
If, say, marijuana were legalized, gangs wouldn't simply "open up headshops" and go on as normal. Instead, Philip Morris would get into the game, and if their two-bit competitors tried to get violent, they would be sued into the ground. One thing you can say for corporations is that they don't tend to be impressed by street-thug violence.
da7f2q8 wrote:
Your suggestion that gangs make lots of money from getting shot during home invasions and suing is ludicrous. Do I really even need to explain the multiple reasons why this is the case? :quirky
I'm sorry to say, but you don't understand the function of prohibition. Do you remember when the mafia moved out to Nevada? They tried to corner the legal gambling and prostitution markets. They figured, that was what they knew, and in a new market they could completely clean up using their standard techinques (threats and violence), with no competition. Fast-forward to today, and gambling in Nevada is coprorate, and really doesn't resemble the mafia any more.
Why? Because the casinos found out that when what you do is legal, lawyers can exert a lot more pressure than violence.
Granted, casino proprietors are still as bullying as ever. But, since they use the law to do it, they really aren't "gangs" in any meaningful sense.
If, say, marijuana were legalized, gangs wouldn't simply "open up headshops" and go on as normal. Instead, Philip Morris would get into the game, and if their two-bit competitors tried to get violent, they would be sued into the ground. One thing you can say for corporations is that they don't tend to be impressed by street-thug violence.
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
While we wait, think about what you'll do when a group of kids (who belong to a gang) ride their bikes through your and your neighbors' (front) yards and one takes a spill and claims injury because he hit a hole or an uneven walk or got tripped up by a lawn sprinkler. Or maybe one of them will just ride a bike into your car as you (or a member of your household) pulls out to go to work.
There are lots of ways to tap the wealth of home ownership....
You're right that LV gambling went corporate. The mob saw that as the way to go. The Donald didn't invent the concept.
Phillip Morris (Altria?) in the MJ business? Could be some competition from (possibly gang-backed) big $$ rappers here.
Organized gangs are like icebergs. What you see on the street is only the tip. And their "corporate clout" can be considerable.
If the numbers given in court (400+) active members in Norfolk is even close to accurate, they outnumber the cops. If only 1/2 of them (say 50 groups of 4 each) were to simultaneously engage in the same activity (home invasion) around town, who'd stop them? There'd be more than one homeowner at legal and civil risk.
Thus the need for a more homeowner-friendly and robust Castle Doctrine.
marshaul wrote:
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
While we wait, think about what you'll do when a group of kids (who belong to a gang) ride their bikes through your and your neighbors' (front) yards and one takes a spill and claims injury because he hit a hole or an uneven walk or got tripped up by a lawn sprinkler. Or maybe one of them will just ride a bike into your car as you (or a member of your household) pulls out to go to work.
There are lots of ways to tap the wealth of home ownership....
You're right that LV gambling went corporate. The mob saw that as the way to go. The Donald didn't invent the concept.
Phillip Morris (Altria?) in the MJ business? Could be some competition from (possibly gang-backed) big $$ rappers here.
Organized gangs are like icebergs. What you see on the street is only the tip. And their "corporate clout" can be considerable.
If the numbers given in court (400+) active members in Norfolk is even close to accurate, they outnumber the cops. If only 1/2 of them (say 50 groups of 4 each) were to simultaneously engage in the same activity (home invasion) around town, who'd stop them? There'd be more than one homeowner at legal and civil risk.
Thus the need for a more homeowner-friendly and robust Castle Doctrine.