City Attorney Gets Injunction Against 5th and Hill Gang

The inunction was originally filed last November. I didn’t realize it took this long to be approved.

Although that Graffiti looks like a 5H, I’m not sure if it from the gang. It also looks like SH, which is an old tagging crew. I note this because generally speaking gangs do not tag their neighborhood in that bubble letter style, that is usually graffiti writers. Either you guys misread the graffiti or someone from 5XHill is more a writer than a cholo. Either way, gang injunctions work in the short term but cause much more problems in the long term. The absence of 5H will create a vacuum to be filled by 18th, DTCrips, or one of the other local gangs that operate in the area; this can lead to further crime trouble. Another thing is that injunctions rarely(or even never) actually kill the gang’s existence, it merely incarcerate a generation of its members. This generation gap result usually means younger gang members do not have the elders (I know it sounds like a joke , but it is true) to reign in their craziness, which leads to more crime and much more violence. This cycle has played out in dozens of gangs with injunctions, and I would assume is why we have a much more cyclical violence issue in many barrios nowadays. Drug/violent crime gets out of hand, law enforcement/public responds with sweeps or injunctions, things calm down for a few months, youngsters go buck wild after the heat dies down and increase the brutality of the gang violence, incarcerated homeboys get out and all hell breaks loose. Proactivity seems like the best remedy, but we are still largely reactionary.

The gang injunction is only one of many tools that helps law enforcement disrupt criminal street gang activity. While it is not “the” solution, to say they are ineffective or cause greater problems is wrong. Although a violation of the injunction would not put a gang member in prison it allows law enforcement greater access to monitor or disrupt a gangs criminal conduct.

All gangs, 5th Street Gang included have thrived because most communities turn their backs to the criminal element. Until lately the area covered by this injunction fit that stereotype. Hopefully with the influx of new residents, business investments and heightened sense of community we’ll be more vigilant to such criminal behavior; and demand graffiti such as the one posted (either by a gang or taggers) be quickly removed.

Whereas a gang injunction is not the solution to the problem, community involvement is. Yes, be proactive; start or join an existing neighborhood watch. Call the police and report a crime.

I work in a neighborhood that is plagued with gangs - from bloods and crips to the latino gangs (our location is ironically on 18th St). I’m finally able to put the pieces together around work but am unsure of the gang activity downtown (which is where I am moving). All I’ve heard/read about is 5th&Hill. I’ve seen some 18th St tags and MS13 tags but am unsure about others. Is there a resource any of you would recommend to enlighten a newbie (article, website, anything)?

Tyler: “Welcome to downtown”

Here are some links from LAPD. Although helpful, they do not give specific data on gang crimes or gang activity. Overall (unfortunately) gangs are a problem everywhere but it appears most gang activity downtown is drug (sales) related.

General crime map: http://www.lapdcrimemaps.org/

Gang injunctions: http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/ganginjuncctywd.pdf

Neighborhood watch: http://www.lapdonline.org/getinvolved/contentbasicview/23477#Neighborhood%20Watch

I’m inclined to agree with Art the image is not really a tag. Everytime I’ve seen guys tagging, it seems like the dullest thing to do. There’s no ‘artistic’ flair to the effort. Efficiency and speed are the watchwords. Remember, they are cranking out these tags.

Tag. Walk half a block. Tag again. Repeat endlessly. Very boring work.

A good example of this handiwork is 18 Street’s ‘XV3’. I see this near my place at Broadway & 9th and to the south and west.

It doesn’t matter if the graffiti is done by a tagger or by a gang! GET RID OF IT!

By letting the graffiti remain it signals to society at large and specifically those who are criminally inclined (ie. gang members) in a particular area that the community does not care. In addition to the gang injunction the city needs to do a better job in requiring property owners to remove graffiti within a timely period.

Currently LAPD employs the crime suppression model of the “Broken Windows” theory. In that, “minor” crimes such as graffiti leads to social dis-order leads to a rise in crime. More on the theory: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows

The police and neighborhood safety BY GEORGE L. KELLING AND JAMES Q. WILSON Broken Windows http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows

According to my police administration textbook the broken windows policing (also known as “grime” fighting) that theorists Wilson and Kelling formulated in the early 1980s, crime is INDIRECTLY related to social disorder and physical disorder. Residents become less invested, more isolated and disenfranchised from engaging in solving crime.

Bratton’s CompStat (compare statistics) perfected ‘broken windows policing’ by using geographic information systems to review crime occurrence and reallocate resources based upon fluid needs.

Critics will tell you with CompStat comes pressure to reduce crime numbers and that can lead to an environment where a burglary is reduce to petty theft or some other lessor charge because of where it might fall in the weekly CompStat report.

Downtown, the BID security operations are the best source for organized graffiti-abatement, whether it be gangs marking drug dealing territory or larger blights like unwelcome graffiti murals.

tyer - weren’t you going to post some pics?

At least the gang/tagger had the decency in this case not to paint over the 85 year old signage.

Okay, that was totally tongue-in-cheek. Quit typing that reply.

Urban Bruin, my assertions about the failures of gang injunctions are not wrong, I have seen the injunctions create a worse situation in at least a dozen neighborhoods in the long run (examples include 18ST, MS, 83GCrips, BigHazard, R60s, PFlats, etc.). I hate to jump down your throat, but I am so freaken sick of people not on the ground level (or in your ivory tower)with no comprehensive understanding of the dynamics in play making such dogmatic theoretically based assertions that are contrary to reality. Gang injunctions work for a few months, then all the heavy hitters are locked up or left town and the adolescents and borderline chavalos/BGs begin getting harassed for having shaved heads or baggy clothes. This overreactive pressure from law enforcement galvanizes the opposition to authority and aids in many of these troubled kids running to the gangs (like I said, I have seen this firsthand over and over again, Ive work with youth and gangs in working class LA for the past decade and grew up in a family with several generations of gangmembers and a few police officers). Oftentimes, the geographic base for targetting gangs also backfires as homeboys just set up shop outside the perimiter or in another town, which is why a lot of the IE is dealing with gangs that were once exclusively located in central LA (that and real estate/ethnicity migration patterns).

Basing police policies and actions on theoretical hypothesis is not the most efficient way of addressing such a serious issue. I did a big project on Broken Windows theory in Urban planning school at a very pragmatic college where real life application was our study basis (Cal Poly Pomona), and lets just say it is on point but very flawed at the same time.

First of all, if you read the book and journal articles, you realize a naivete by the authors in terms of “hood” dynamics that totally distorts the basis for their wrtitings(I think Kelling describes some black teens doing nothing wrong at a subway station in such negatively assumpting terms that it sounds like a neocon talk show rant). Another problem with Broken Windows theory is that only portions of it are subjectively applied to real law enforcement policy and actions, and they are generally decided by either ignorance or hostility towards the community they are targetting. As important as the “covering graffiti/not allowing public drinking” aspect is the portion discussing the need for community involvement/dialogue/reciprocity as well as the importance of informal policing.

Informal policing requires law enforcement establishing a positive relationship with the community, cultivating community policing, and most importantly engaging in a lot of informal policing themselves. Informal policing means not actually using the law as a way to enforce public responsibility, but using their law enforcement status as a way of “checking” social deviance (“hey stop drinking that beer in the street” instead of a DIP ticket, rolling up on thugs to have converstations instead of frisking them which creates a dialogue and is suprisingly effective, waving for someone to not cross the street instead of giving them a jaywalking ticket, stamping out someone’s joint of reefer on the floor instead of taking them in for possession, giving people warnings instead of tickets, etc, etc.). Basically treating minority/poor people the same way wealthy white folks get treated by law enforcement, which enforces a community trust of officers and is the foundation for reciprocity and communal informal policing. These latter aspects of Borken Windows are noted as being an essential component of the policy, but are totally disregarded by most law enforcement agencies. I have also met many smart cops/suits who use this method and have had tons of success. The primary motivation for gangmembers/etc. doing what they do is the need for status respect and prestige, which are given to them by law enforcement using the informal policing aspect of Broken Windows.

So NO, to say that broken windows is all about graffiti removal and harassing gangmembers is incorrect, and to then somehow use this theory as a rebuttal to comments noting the problems with gang injunctions from firsthand in-group experience is even more ignorant. I resent folks coming down from their ivroy towers and saying what should work or that “the community has to stop turning it’s back on criminal activity”, in reality this community degredation was started by civic neglect of the community to being with (and then the community begins embodying that neglect on many levels).

The best way to show people change is by being a model of the change yourself. In the case of civic institutions doing this for dysfunctional communities, the model should be community invetment and creating a reciprocal relationship as well as a TON of informal policing. The primary difference between police and citizens is the uniform and ability to arrest and ticket people, when police engage in informal policing they relate themselves to the community at a human level as well as establish a precedent and role model that encourages locals without a badge to do the same if someone is tagging or performing other social deviance.

I do small tours of South and East LA from an insider’s view of the geopolitical sociocultural perspective for those interested, we might be doin this as a mobile workshop at the American planning Association’s Los Angeles conference in the next year. It has gained some notoriety, and my hope, as a planner, is to bridge the gap between the policy makers and institutions and those most ostracized from these policies and the communities of neglect where the relevanc eof planning is oftentimes not understood. If you are interested in checking it out our website is www.elacamp.org (we do murals and art education, my email contact is agonzalez@elacamp.org)

I’d like to see more bruins and trojans on the tour

Art,

My impressions of Gang Injunctions are not formed from the comforts of an “Ivory Tower” but based upon years of experience within the criminal justice system. That said, your points about how gangs move beyond the initial injunction area have merit; although that brings me back to my original point that Gang injunctions by itself is not “the” solution but one of many tools law enforcement can use to combat crime.

An injunction partnered with community involvement can and has in many communities broken the hold that a gang has over it. As I posted before, in downtown what we need is for the residents, business owners, BID and other stakeholders to become more involved in “community” policing; walk the streets, call the police to report a crime (and being a witness), and removing graffiti. All of these activities are what causes criminals to move on to other areas.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with your idea that the police need to give more warnings and tickets or arrests less people. Why would anyone, more specifically criminals bother to obey the law if there were no consequences? Would people suddenly drive slower if the police pulled people over and gave those drivers warnings rather than a ticket? Would vandals stop destroying other people’s property in the middle of the night because police take away their spray bottles and wag their fingers? No. It’s been said that without order there can be no justice, and without justice there can be no peace.

Zero tolerance will be the only way to reverse a lifetime of under-enforcement Downtown in years, not decades.

It starts with the individual encounter – letting aggressive panhandlers know that you know aggressive panhandling (continuing to be asked after saying “no”) is illegal. Stop, make the call, stick around for the police report and show for the court appearance.

What ills Downtown are people who know the system better than the people who object to their behavior. Downtowners of all walks have to want to take the proactive steps to reject that they find offensive. The BID security teams are very responsive. So are the police.

This is not easy. It is hard to be on a dark street corner and tell a passing police car you think the four people lurking in the shadows by the bus stop are dealing. But there’s little risk in calling the police from home or learning who your senior lead officer is and e-mailing them your observations from the neighborhood.

Criminals will go to communities that do not offer organized resistance or open rejection. It’s much harder to operate a criminal enterprise in an area intent on being responsive to basic quality of life issues like litter, graffiti and the cliche – broken windows.

In short, there was a day last year where there was zero crime reported in Downtown Los Angeles. A first in the history of such records. But does anyone really think no crime occurred that day or that no one reported crime that day?

The choice is ours to make, act or accept…

What a shock, the last 2 “in the box” kind of notions come from people who work for civic institutions. That’s why the MTA still sucks (as a lifetime rider, which is almost unheard of in terms of MTA employees) and the idea of equity has no relevance to our criminal courts system whatsoever.

Urban Bruin, working within the insulated criminal justice system is nowhere close to understanding the effects of public policy on poorer/dysfunctional communities unless you do street patrols or other kind of work that involves you personally interacting with the community within the community. Personally, I have a lot of disdain for gang members and their illicit activities and ignorant behavior, but because the work I do requires long periods of time spent at the street level of these communities it became important for me to understand the dynamics of and personally understand/do outreach with gang members and people who engage in social devaince as well as the community members affected by it. Putting yourself in that position gives you an understanding of dynamics that cannot be found in any classroom or courthouse, and you are basically forced to understand how destructive an enforcement only legal policy is to these communities and demographics.

Also, you bring up the Broken Windows theory into this conversation and then dismiss an important HALF of the concept, which is formal policing, did you even read or analyze this text or merely hear (or read a synopsis) about it in a class? I am not (and in the book they clearly note several times) that the informal policing portion of the theory is by no means a call to stop arresting people in general. It is a call to stop using the law as the only way to enforce minor offenses that cause no harm to others, and to instead use and cultivate social enforcement. In wealthier/white areas, police and residents engage in this behavior all the time, so what is wrong with trying it out in poor/minority communitiies? Numerous studies about criminal justice note the much higher rates of arrest and convictions of minority/poor citizens (where there is little informal policing) for minor offenses than wealthier and white counterparts (where there is plenty of informal policing), which creates severe inequity in our legal system. In terms of realisitic application of law enforcement theories, why do you feel there needs to be a double standard? Do you not see how forcing legal intervention on minor infractions that can be handled with informal policing can undermine a community’s personal confidence as well as lead to much higher rates of incarceration? First of all people are engaged in the criminal system (when they shouldnt have to be) at an earlier age and in a more frequent manner which leads to more serious punishments for minor offenses, and oftentimes the experience of being a number in a very robotic system can lead to further apathy and hostility towards authority (which is the reality in places such as Compton or Pomona).

Secondly, the use of policing techniques that do not use legal action have proven to be successfull over and over again. I have read numerous studies noting how successful placing apolice cruiser near areas of frequent speeding reduces auto speeds, how police dialogue and informal policing have worked wonders in communities and amongst gang members when nothing of the “enforcement only” type has done much beyond incriminating a generation of local men leaving kids no guidance. Half of the reason gangs are so violent now is because their predecessors experienced their wholesale incarceration in the 70s and 80s, leading to younger gangmembers raising the bar in terms of ignorance and violence over and over again. In fact, this cycle has become so engrained in poor communities that it is now common knowledge that things get a lot worse every time the cycle dumps out the last wave of parolees.

Maybe you come from a different background as myself, one that did not infuse the empathy or personal analyzation of ‘hood dynamics’ that one has to experience firsthand to truly comprehend, which has led you to dismiss proven methods that are only looked at pessimistically because they undermine the stereotypes and personal beliefs of the majority of ignorant America. But I did, and I knew WAY too many charismatic intelligent people pushed into jaildom for minor offenses that would be considered a stern warning of they were blonde or from calabassas. On the flip side I have also lost many friends and family to the ignorance of the street, and have been victim of violent cholose numerous times; because of seeing both sides of the coin I have the ability to objectively view the situation, which may be hard for someone not from the community in the confines of the other sid eof the courts system.

BTW, Urban Bruin what do you do? What is your experience in the criminal justice system? I do not mean to be attackful and do appreciate your insight, but I have to disagree. Inside the box thinking has gotten Watts nowhere. The short term gains that injunctions or enforcement only policies create (relative peace for a few months) are small in comparison to the long term problems they create (generations of jailbirds, unguided youth).

It’s interesting Art’s timeline for the rise in violent gangs runs about the same as when most people agree positive role models in urban core communities diminished, including a significant rise in fatherless homes, leaving male youth largely disenfranchised and looking at what they could obtain with little hard work or discipline – not realizing the achievements their parents had made came from going to work every day.

It’s a shame Art that you make public service sound like a conspiracy to do nothing when it really is overwhelmingly filled with people trying to do more with less, including a non-supportive constituency often unwilling to take any part in helping itself.

Personally, I see way too many charismatic, intelligent youth counting their rolls in teh shadows of the corners of Downtown to believe they are not active participants in their fates.

You are right about the role model concept metro, and it happens to coincide with the massive incarceration of urban men by “enforcement only” policies such as injunctions.

BTW, metro, I myself have worked in numerous public agencies, including your own. There is no conspiracy theory in the fact that agencies (like your own) reward people for doing what they are told rather than what is the most efficient. I believe that is what creates the level of mediocrity in our civic entities, and why agencies like the MTA cannot get beyond crappy service and a few brown folks driving out of the taj mahal parking lot in their newly leased jettas.

And I agree that the fate of these men is in their own hands, for I was once one of these men and made the cognitive choice to not follow that path. But that is irrelevant to this subject topic, and almost seems like you are trying to throw anything at me to discredit what I am saying. Counterproductive policies like this injunction, or being pathetic enough to wait for police to ticket a panhandler, are what furthers the gap between the haves and have nots, instigating further animosity and problems. See, that’s the problem with folks like you who pass judgement from an insulated perspective, once the cards come out on the table you resort to childish personal attacks and hyperbole rather than addressing the facts (because you have never had to experience the “hand to mouth” lifestyle and reality of much of our city). I find the whole “but they need to be personally accountable” overdramatic refuge to be just that, and attempt to escape the debate at hand without addressing the issue. I never have said urban criminals should not be accountable for their actions, I just wish our law enforcement agencies would enact an informal policing policy in minority/poor areas in the same manner as they do with others. You just inserted the conspiracy/race card stuff for an easy out.

Again, the continued “int he box” thinking gets you nowhere. Except at the MTA at least.

“I just wish our law enforcement agencies would enact an informal policing policy in minority/poor areas in the same manner as they do with others.”

The problem with the ‘can’t we all just get along approach’ to community policing is that it really only works when hard crime is low, if not absent, and the area’s baseline enforcement is well established. You can only get there from here after you have set a standard of expectation in the community of enforcement. So yes, holding aggressive panhandlers accountable rather than avoiding them or the attractions of Downtown is one suggestion for how to turn the tide.

Community policing is the end of a long process for areas where open lawlessness exists. It’s amazing that people like you Art fault the Safer Cities Initiative simply because they can’t remember the last time police walked a beat and they think that is over-bearing. Get real and rather than debate the policing models why not join the process by rejecting the behavior we don’t want to accept in our society – wherever we encounter it.

Every single LAPD Division has a Community Police Advisory Board, they are open to the public and public comment is welcome. In short, community policing is not an unilateral endeavor by the LAPD, it takes the community wanting to participate in the mechanism that already exist as well.

p.s. Art, It is your presumption Metro Local has affiliation with MTA when there is none.

Dude, your name links to the MTA website, what else am i supposed to think?

And please show me the evidence that community policing doesnt work in poorer areas with crime problems, and how it is something that is only efficient in low crime areas, I have not seen this evidence yet. Last time I checked the Panorama city area seriously reduced their violence by community policing (where an injunction had previously faltered), last time I checked the only time the projects along Imperial had a serious crime drop was when the gang internally policed themselves, etc., etc.

And I dont understand this circular argument style, my notion of informal policing is dependant on police walking the beat and interacting with locals. My problem is with police staying in their cruisers not interacting with the community and merely ticketing every offender they can find, this seems like you’d prefer to put overly radical words in mouth rather than address my comments straight forward. How exactly does my comment about injunctions equal my thinking police walking a beat (BTW, i lived in harlem for a while and saw plenty of that not too long ago) is overbearing?

Finally, look up my nonprofit’s website and tell me again that I do not reject socially deviant behavior. I work with gangmembers all the time, as well as social deviants, so much that I have a whole lesson plan and pitch that I use to convince these people about the error of their ways, so much that I cofounded and run an organization that goes into central LA and teaches kids art lessons andart education as a way to escape the endless cycle of ignorance that social devaince is a part of. I find it funny that you assume I accept that kind of behavior when I have repeatedly stated that personal responsibility must be cultivated in these communities thru informal policing, which basically relies on personal responsibility being the best solution to crime. I grew up in a family of cholos, lived in the projects for half of my life, have numerous childhood friends still engaged in that behavior whom I had to dissascoaite with, and have a degree in urban planning. I have worked with numerous law enforcement agencies and policy makers to address crime for several years and have numerous awards and commendations from public officials for my work with working class communities and people that folks like yourself would rather dismiss and lock up than address.

I have never said that the process to crime reduction in poor neighborhoods is a one sided issue, you assumed that. You also assumed plenty of other things rather than address my actual words, please do so. I personally work to create that bridge between the community and police, and have done so with a lot of success, what have you done?

Art, let me wade in here. I hate to break it to you, but you’ve got a real chip on your shoulder and it is leading you to attack people who your natural allies.

Based upon what you’ve said about yourself, you are an impressive person. You’ve chosen to rise above your circumstances. You’ve made something of yourself in this life through perservance and self-improvement. You are to be commended. No doubt your efforts have been very hard and not without emotional pain and sacrifice. You’ve set a good example for your friends and family. You should be very proud of yourself. Most people can’t do what you’ve done.

However, clearly your struggles have left emotional scars. You need to understand that people like Bruin and Metro are your allies in the collective effort to make our city a better place. Their disagreements with you are not personal, but simply intellectual. That they disagree with you doesn’t mean they are belittling you. They simply disagree with some important details of your ideas about proper policing policy in Los Angeles.

There are two details which I sense are important to this discussion here. One, because of the circumstances of your upbringing, you’ve personally experienced the sharp-end of policing. Given the brutal history of the LAPD, I’m sure it is emotionally difficult. Over the past couple of decades I’ve interacted with the LAPD probably a couple dozen times. Nothing serious beyond routine traffic stops and parking, speeding and jaywalking tickets. As a tax-payer and a law-abiding citizen, the heavy-handed nature of the LAPD has always struck me as incredibly stupid and counter-productive. I can only imagine how dealing with the police must feel under more serious circumstances. That you’ve been able to rise above this is a testament to your character.

But, it is only recently as I’ve read reports of how the LAPD has handled the implementation of the Safer Cities Initiative in Skid Row that I’ve thought to myself, “Hmm, they seem to being smart about this.” As a taxpayer and a local resident, this is extremely encouraging.

The second detail which I point out is that your perspective doesn’t take into account local history. When I first moved to L.A. twenty years ago, the break-down of public order was accepted in large swathes of the city. Life-threatening crime was a terrifying reality for Angelenos. Sensible people simply didn’t dare go into many parts of the city. I knew many victims of deadly crime. This is no longer the case. I feel perfectly free to travel thoughout L.A. County without threat of random crime.

There are many reasons for this dramatic change – gentrification, demography, the three-strikes law. Also, believe it or not, policing policy has changed for the better over the past generation. Chief Bratton embodies this kind of change. All is not perfect. But, as a culture, we’re doing much better than we were a generation ago.

One of the key details which you don’t seem to be aware of is that Broken Windows as policing theory challenged the dominant social orthodoxy which said crime stems from the poor and minorities being victims of the prevailing social order. Crime resulted from the alienation of these communities. If the state were to target these communities with various social policies, crime could be reduced. Unfortunately, the consequences of this very wrong idea was to result in the tsunami of crime which was unleashed in our country in the 60s. Yes, the situation was much more complicated than I’m making it out to be. Sadly, the consequences for the poor and minorities in this country was to be the primary victims of this crime way(!). I suspect you and your family know this first-hand. The key point is that this core idea was completely wrong and led to disasterous results and many indexes of social health beyond crime statistics. Family breakdown being the most devastating impact on poor and minority communities.

A lot of your ideas of policing appear to be rooted in this very dangerous idea that the poor and minorities are victims of social oppression. Well, this idea and its various implications were tried for a generation and they were found to be empirical failures with terrible consequences for the poor and minorities in this country. I suspect this is where Bruin and Metro are coming from.

Their personal histories don’t really seem to be decisive here. However, for you, your perceptions of their personal histories seem to conjure all kinds of personal demons. Frankly, my sense over the years is they are level-headed guys who seek to build a better city. We often quarrel. But, it is nothing personal. They disagree with you because your ideas are dangerous to the well-being of innocent people.

Art, it sounds like you’ve had a tough time in life. Well, don’t assume their life has been a piece of cake either. Frankly, none of this is important. You really need to ease up here. Just because people disagree with you, even profoundly, doesn’t make them ‘bad’ people. So chill out a little. I think some reflection on your part is in order.

“I agree to disagree”

So, When I come with facts (based on a study mentioned by someone else) and want to discuss what I see occurring at a ground level, I have a chip on my shoulder. When others make assumptions on issues they see “from the outside” and basically dodge the debate on the study they initially noted, they are “concerned locals who want a better city”? As I far as I see Bruin has made several assumptions about me (which are incorrect and the only reason why I said anything about my personal history beyond my community work) and dodged answering my questions while I have addressed each of his, how again is this a chip on my shoulder?

David, I think you are making assumptions about me based on what demographic I come from, rather than placing your judgement on my actual comments. I have been victim to gangmembers and lawless situations (which have created far bigger emotional scars) WAY MORE than any overreactive police officer, today I choose to interact with my family members involved in law enforcement rather than those still engaged in the street mentality. I may not present my comments nicely, but I think that is more of a reciprocal issue than me attacking someone supposedly “working with me”.

I see the results of these kinds of policies from a firsthand perspective, and how the whole “lock them up” theology has been destructive and made my job harder. I have seen the effects of injunctions of local neighborhoods firsthand, and understand the effects a enforcement only policy creates (and is also noted by the Borken Windows Theory, but still not commented on by any of you). And for the record, I NEVER have said police should not do their job or enforce laws, you guys chose to put those words in my mouth (it seems in an attempt to disregard my comments as radical rather than address them rationally). Persoanlly speaking, I believe informal policing and the normal duties of police can go hand in hand, which is why I made my initial comments. I feel many officers dismiss the informal method because it is unconventional, but it works and has worked for departments and officers willing to use it. My argument is that police should employ as many methods of enforcement as possible(inculding informal), and that formal enforcement only has its limits in effectiveness and that there is a lot of value to informal policies. My notions lie in people creating and maintaining personal responsibility within these communities, and others confuse that with me dismissing any personal responsibility in the matter.

I honestly think this is a situation where you guys (who are outsiders in this issue) are being overly assumptive and “black or white” on an issue that has a lot of gray. And beyond that I take offense to the stereotype that because I come from less than perfect upbringing that somehow it is me with a chip on my shoulder, especially when I have laid everything out in a very factual and rational manner. My reasons for believing Bruin and whoever else are being overly assumptive are because: they have assumed I am dismissing personal responsibility when that is exactly what I am touting as crucial, they have assumed I do nothing to change this cycle of ignorance in these communities, they assumed that by noting the negatives of injunctions (not more police or the safer cities initiative) I am against police enforcing laws, that by noting a need for more informal policing that I am basing my notions solely on historical oppression(which I never mentioned) and not on methods that have actually worked,that because I come from a humble background that I automatically have a chip on my shoudler, etc.

Of course I appreciate anyone concerned about crime reduction, my point was to correct assumptions I see as incorrect. Nowhere in my comments have I noted that crime is about oppression, or even that it is a major part of why crime is abundant in certain LA communities.