I can't stand gangbangers!!!

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Do you not attack a cancer as soon as it is found, or do you wait until it kills you; before you determine that is bad for you?

So... What is your body count today so far? Tell us about all of the scum you have eliminated....:lol:

Lurchiron wrote:

That would be , in the rear with the gear...infants, elderly, and infirm.

All I see in you is someone who has never left the watering hole in their life but likes to make noise as if they would be the first to act....

You appear to have a DD214 deficiency disorder....:lol:

Aww, does someone need a hug???

I could use a hug...know any Hotties ??

I'll have to take the fifth on that; never know if the wife is monitoring!!!:what:

:lol:

 

[Carcharodon]

imported post

Brendon .45 wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

<snip>
-NO SHIRT

-NO SHOES

-NO SERVICE

<snip>

I always wanted to show up to one of these places with no pants on and see what happens. I would however wear the gun belt (see, there's some open carry content)...

Now back to our regularly scheduled fascism.

That would be something! Ha ha

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Carcharodon wrote:

Brendon .45 wrote:

Landose_theghost wrote:

<snip>
-NO SHIRT

-NO SHOES

-NO SERVICE

<snip>

I always wanted to show up to one of these places with no pants on and see what happens. I would however wear the gun belt (see, there's some open carry content)...

Now back to our regularly scheduled fascism.

That would be something! Ha ha

actually it's not fascism, it's intolerance...

 

[McX]

imported post

actually gang bangers do provide some measure of amusement; proof that the neanderthals did have sex with the bufallo, they can't run fast with their britches around their ankles, their descriptions are always easy, their lavish jewelry can also be found in the fishing lure variants at kabellas, and what do they get for their birthday? your wallet.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

:lol: true. i could never understand that , they live in gov assisted housing, section 8 & or the projects... yet have $ 10,000 necklaces & $ 20,000 gold - diamond teeth ? & drive H2's & Navigators plus own $5000.00 Bulova Watches, Now.. the only people i know of that can afford those things are drug dealers & Multi Million Dollar professional football players..and Football players don't live in the projects.:? So, narrows the sources of their vast income down a bit. Yet, I always see their kids in the gas station's buying candy with their Parent's welfare cards.:X

 

[jwayne972]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Aww, does someone need a hug???

You are making me blush..........:lol:

Perhaps you would elaborate to us, the difference between the baggy-pants and their orginizations(gangs); and how the government can arrest and convict the Mafia under the RICO laws.

By that I mean, assuming that both parties have members that may not have actually commited crimes, but are none the less involved in the day to day operations. Would that not make them guilty by association?

Read your own post, they were not arrested for dressing alike. They were arrested for their actions within the known criminal organization. Besides, why would you make that comparison as your argument, you've renounced your belief in the right of due process throughout this whole thread.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

jwayne972 wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

Lurchiron wrote:

Aww, does someone need a hug???

You are making me blush..........:lol:

Perhaps you would elaborate to us, the difference between the baggy-pants and their orginizations(gangs); and how the government can arrest and convict the Mafia under the RICO laws.

By that I mean, assuming that both parties have members that may not have actually commited crimes, but are none the less involved in the day to day operations. Would that not make them guilty by association?

Read your own post, they were not arrested for dressing alike. They were arrested for their actions within the known criminal organization. Besides, why would you make that comparison as your argument, you've renounced your belief in the right of due process throughout this whole thread.

Anyone here have any "Deep Woods Off" that I can borrow a bit of???

John Wayne; I don't think so, Jane maybe.

 

[jwayne972]

imported post

Seriously? Is that all you could come up with? Or are you just stalling, waiting for reinforcements? Please defend your position, or retreat.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

jwayne972 wrote:

Seriously? Is that all you could come up with? Or are you just stalling, waiting for reinforcements? Please defend your position, or retreat.

How can I answer a question that I asked someone, to do so would mean that I knew the answer to the very question I was asking...no?

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

As for your due process remark, I'm a FIRM believer in the time tested; if it walks like a duck...blah, blah. Maybe that answers your question; don't know.

 

[jwayne972]

imported post

I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question, and you were using the comparison to justify your proposed shoot on sight treatment of people who choose to dress alike. I just found it ironic that you would reference a court proceeding to support your belief in a lack thereof in determining guilt.

Being an open forum I believe I am allowed to address your question.So from what little I read, yes they could be prosecuted, if it's proven that they have profited from the actions of the criminal organization. As far as I can tell, personal attire was not a consideration.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

jwayne972 wrote:

I was under the impression it was a rhetorical question, and you were using the comparison to justify your proposed shoot on sight treatment of people who choose to dress alike. I just found it ironic that you would reference a court proceeding to support your belief in a lack thereof in determining guilt.

Being an open forum I believe I am allowed to address your question.So from what little I read, yes they could be prosecuted, if it's proven that they have profited from the actions of the criminal organization. As far as I can tell, personal attire was not a consideration.

My original point & post was, why are we not prosecuting more of these gangbangers under RICO statutes. Funny how things get blown off course...no?

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

I Appreciate the emergency defribulation Lurchiron, but I do believe this thread is gone. Time of Death-11:44am.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post


Apparently, RICO is used to go after gangs. The problem with a RICO prosecution is that it is expensive and labor intensive. Not all departments or even multi-departmantal organizations are equipped to do so....

The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in United States v. Juvenile Male that the RICO act could be used for the illegal gang activity of juveniles. Trials of juveniles as adults was deemed appropriate as crimes of violence were involved. The RICO charge also contained an allegation of a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robberies. The Hobbs Act is directed at economic activities affecting commerce, and in this case the prosecution argued that the robbery was commited for money to buy guns, an act also affecting interstate commerce.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

I Appreciate the emergency defribulation Lurchiron, but I do believe this thread is gone. Time of Death-11:44am.

Works for me...

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Rest in peace, thread.