“A federal grand jury indictment unsealed Tuesday alleges eight members of a northwest Detroit gang terrorized a neighborhood near Seven Mile and Southfield Freeway and were involved in attempted murders, shootings and drug deals and robbed area gas stations,” detroitnews.com reports. “Members of the Band Crew took over parts of northwest Detroit during an alleged four-year reign of terror starting in 2011, robbing stores and homes, shooting rivals and threatening witnesses, according to the 28-page indictment.” TTAG tipster Pascal is not impressed . . .
Riddle me this . . . According to the news story, that gang ruled a large area of MoTown for over four years. What took the feds so long to bring them down? Nothing that the Feds did at the link above involved any gun control measures. None of the gun laws stopped these guys from doing what they were doing, and it wasn’t gun laws that finally put them in jail either. So what’s the point of gun laws?
Error…error…too much logic. Execute standard operating procedures;
– will nobody think of the children?!
– Common sense measure need to be in place
– Reasonable discussion
/quickly walks away
Let me get this straight. An UNARMED FL dad drives through MD and the local storm trooper scans his plate, learns he’s a FL holder of a CCW, pulls them over and the family is held at gunpoint (patrol rifles trained on them) for 2 hours while the car is torn apart. While this happens the the lead cossack screams at them “WHERE is the gun? TELL me where it is! I KNOW you have a gun!”.
Then it takes FOUR fracking YEARS to bust just 4 career THUGS with guns? WTF!!!!
Don’t let your anger get lessened by the fact that said incident didn’t happen that way.
MD license checks results do not return any information about a driver having a FL permit, that was just the guy’s wrong guess. His passenger stupidly said that he probably had a gun in there.
Here’s a question… Where was DPD? Too many close relatives on the crew, or were they just getting so much cash and coke from the gang that they didn’t want to lose the connection?
Need Fedzilla to clean up some local trash? Huh?
It is called low hanging fruit. For anyone who has ever picked fruit Low hanging fruit is easy to pick and involves NO RISK.
A man with his family on vacation presents no hazard to the “Officers”. Should they find a Technical violation they get credit for a major felony bust and can claim that their laws took a dangerous weapon and newly minted felon off the streets.
A violent street gang on the other hand presents a major risk to the officers. It will be viewed as racial profiling. It takes hard work to get a conviction and in the eyes of managers not cost effective.
Has anyone wondered why the DEA has more firearms prosecutions each year than the BATF? It is simple the BATF finds it is easier to target safe businesses for technical violations than attempting to take out the hard targets. After all they prefer “soft targets” like those in WACO for their publicity photos over hardened criminals like the gangs in the article. When the operation goes south they call in the FBI to do the killing and the FBI takes the blame for the BATF failure.
They were probably making a rap video.
Just wait for kanye west to say that obama doesn’t care about Detroit….
“If I had a son…”
Sons….they be gangsters, like their dad
Pretty disgusting that they left innocent Americans to suffer for 4 years.
Wait a minute I thought the gangs were only interested in drugs. You mean the rob, assault, murder and terrorize independent of the drug trade? If we just get rid of the laws against these activities we won’t have gangs!
A simplistic and ignorant statement, tdiinva. As you know, criminals were here before the War on Drugs, they just had to work harder at it.
The Drug Cartels in Mexico are called Drug Cartels for a reason.
Drug gangs in this country are called drug gangs for a reason.
Because their primary source of easy money, (if you are ruthless and violent predator) is selling drugs. And guess what, along the way, robbing, extortion, murder are just add ons.
Take away the easy money of illegal drug sales, there would be much smaller resources to live off of because it is harder to bribe the police to ignore a violent criminal preying on the general populatiin versus a non-violent drug sale between consenting adults.
Of course, as long as the vice laws against prostitution and gambling continue, the criminals providing a desired service will continue having money avaliable to corrupt the cops and the courts.
But when we have people like yourself that need to try to control the voluntary interactions of people by criminalizing said actions; there will always be a ready source of easy money available to criminals that don’t depend on a direct assault or attack, which is much more fraught with danger to said criminal. They just provide said service at a premium while using bribes to pay off the watchers (police) so they can continue their “illegal” trade.
BRAVO! Have a fist bump from a fellow Libertarian.
Sadly, the ‘war on drugs’ has been allowed to grow so far, that there are huge institutions with very well-paid people dependent on it’s perpetuation. Logic is irrelevant, there’s a whole lotta 6 figure Fed cowboys that need that paycheck. (Not to mention more than a few love the access to drugs…)
Addiction rates are the same as 100 years ago when you could get your pharma-clean morphine and cocaine from the corner apothecary. The only reason illegal drugs “ruin” lives more than say, legal alcohol, is that drugs being illegal, are expensive and nobody locks you up for buying a 1.75L of cheap vodka.
I’m not convinced. All these DEA officials can’t possibly be contributing to enough campaigns to buy more than a single congressman.
There are some industries that supply high-tech and low-tech systems/services/supplies to the DEA; however, these industries don’t have the clout of Big-Agra or Big-Pharma and the like.
I’m afraid that the debate over the War-on-Drugs is genuinely at the grass-roots political level. Quite independent of whether the War-on-Drugs is objectively wise-or-not, voters are driven by their sentiments. And, voters often vote irrationally. Voters finally voted-in legislators who ratified alcohol Prohibition – and, these same voters sustained the Volstead Act for 13 years. They would have kept at it if FDR and Congress felt that they could continue to suffer from the loss of excise taxes. Never under-estimate the foolishness of an electorate.
The task before us is to patiently explain how extraordinarily expensive it is to carry-on the War-on-Drugs and urge that society’s resources could doubtlessly be redirected to more useful ends.
Perhaps legalization really WOULD lead a few people to use drugs who are otherwise abstaining because they prefer to be law-abiding. Nevertheless, these few would doubtlessly be outnumbered by those existing-and-future drug users who might be persuaded to eschew drugs to pursue a more productive life drug-free.
Observe the tectonic shift toward Right-to-Carry over the past 25 years. Today, 40+ States respect some R-to-C, mostly via Shall-Issue. A second wave is beginning to form on Constitutional-Carry. I expect a similar shift in sentiment with the leading wave in medical-marijuana followed by recreational-pot.
Imagine an America some day with 40+ States authorizing medical-marijuana and a dozen States tolerating recreational-pot (whether by repeal of laws or neglecting to enforce them.) The Feds will be powerless in the face of such nullification. Domestic cultivation of pot will dry-up the import supply chain for pot.
Now, the DEA will be confined to interdicting heroin and cocaine imports. State and municipal LEOs will concentrate on meth labs. I.e., the portfolio of the War-on-Drugs will narrow. Voters will apprehend whatever shift occurs in pot usage, incarceration and related side-effects. Perhaps they will then be ready to consider the utility of chasing down investment bankers and actresses who enjoy the regular snorting of lines-of-coce. They may become open to opiate maintenance and detoxification programs.
Each step in this direction will reduce the portfolio of DEA and its State counterparts. As concern for drug-abuse atrophies, support for the mammoth budgets of DEA and State/municipal drug enforcement will shrink. The Coast Guard and Customs will still be alert for smuggling; however, supply will continue to meet demand. The Coast Guard and Customers will continue to exist to collect import duties and to swell-the-Federal budget; but, it will cease to be a really important part of the War-on-Drugs.
State/municipal law enforcement may shift to enforcing common-law crimes of larceny, assault and disorderly-conduct without paying much attention to the underlying involvement of drugs.
What I’m arguing for – both with respect to the War-on-Drugs and the War-on-Guns – is a gradual shift away from belligerence on the artifact (drugs or guns) and toward a more libertarian view. Such an approach may be more effective than insisting on an immediate repeal of all laws on the threat that we will collectively hold-our-breath until we turn blue.
Intellectually, I know you are correct. The only way this gets changed is to slowly grind home the insane costs, monetarily and societally – not to mention we have precisely zero ROI from the $1T+ we’ve pissed away over the last 40 years, and killed tens of thousands for no real purpose, other than teh feelz.
People are stubborn and rabidly so, until they finally hear the reality enough times for it to sink in. Sort of like gay marriage – as long as nobody forces you to perform one or participate against your will, why would anyone care? Want the opportunity to buy a house for someone you hate? The more the merrier, come see what you think you’ve been ‘missing’. (I know, it’s the legal benes that matter, but still…) Most people finally go to the point where they understand the legalities part, so even if they don’t like it (and don’t have to) they can tolerate it.
Colorado will be an interesting experiment – especially if we get a new Pres who gets he neo-con mojo worked up and starts on the ‘evils of drugs’ nonsense attempting to start enforcing the Fed laws again.
Sadly, here’s why I know re-legalization of everything is inevitable – profits and distractions. There’s 6B people more on this planet than it could ever sustain for even the next 100 years, assuming we make it that long without nukes, or some biologic event (deliberate or accidental). Managing the masses will become more and more troublesome as more folks come to this realization. Being able to chemically happy yourself when you’re working for Chinese-level wages will become more and more necessary. Cities with populations of 10MM+ are powder-kegs and you better keep that powder damp if you wish to stay in power – or even maintain the illusion of a ‘society’.
Being able to get high, have some sex (porn or IRL), and be entertained by the lighted box is enough to placate most people. All the while promising some illusory “opportunity” to better your lot in life.
How f-ing stupid are you. I was being sarcastic since there is an element who thinks if you legalize drugs then problem goes away.
Organized crimes existed before and after prohibition. It exists when “victimless crimes” are legal or illegal. The principle cause of gang activity is the social breakdown in the inner city. Boulder Colorado is not a model for Detroit.
I forgot you are guy who insists on rewriting history to say that organized crime didn’t exist before or after prohibition.
•”How f-king stupid are you”? Oh now tdiinva, you also know as well as I do that once you resort to adhominems, you’ve lost the debate.
But I must ask, why do you have the twisted statist need to control the voluntary activity between consenting adults ?
Is it because you are employed in the persecution of those individuals in their activities? Do you directly benefit in the incarceration of said individuals?
A fed perhaps? Yeah, I would bet you would lose your pension and you would have to get a real job that doesn’t have as good of retirement benefits if the War on Drugs was ended.
tdiinva, No one is suggesting organized crime did not exist before prohibition. But the only reason it has gotten big, powerful, and really dangerous is 100% directly attributable to Prohibition in the USA. That’s where the money train started, that’s when they got harder to stop and added layers of employees – profit margins.
There’s nowhere near the money in gambling (now that gambling’s pretty much legal close by everywhere, how much of that still even happens?) there’s not much in prostitution, extortion, cigarette running.
Take away the selling a $.10 per gram product for $100 and organized crime shrinks by 2/3rds.
What took so long? Um, it wasn’t aryan brotherhood connect gang. Just poor misunderstood youths.
Yoots. The proper term is yoots.
…What is a “yoot?”
You have never heard a talking head newsie refer to “the yoots of America?” Or “we need to ban guns to save the yoots of our inner cities?” Apparently, a yoot is some kind of waterfowl, similar to a coot.
It’s not everyday I get to quote “My Cousin Vinney”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNZ1O2KTOOg
“… So what’s the point of gun laws?”
To make us feel good, of course!
Here – LOOK AT THIS BABY!
“According to the news story, that gang ruled a large area of MoTown for over four years. What took the feds so long to bring them down?”
Because Black Lives Matter to Obama and his “Justice” Department ONLY when they can get some political advantage by hyping the deaths of specific black people. Murders of honest black folks by the gangs are not politically helpful to the Democrats, so they don’t really care about them.
It wasn’t the DPD?
They were too busy towing illegally parked cars.
After a brief, taxpayer-funded symposeum on Advanced Techniques in Aberrant Behavior, they’ll all be back on the street being forced to terrorize innocent people by the easy availability of guns.
Why did the feds take so long to bring them down? The feds were otherwise occupied investigating George Zimmerman and Officer Darren Wilson, that’s why.
Of course gun laws didn’t stop these criminals. Gun laws are only intended to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens so crazed hoplophobes can “feel safe” without worrying that one of their neighbors might safely and legally posses a firearm.
That gang has a lot of CEOs. I would have thought they’d have one COO and maybe a MFCEO.
I think it has some MOFOs, too.
With all that evil they must have a few HR directors.
“What took the feds so long to bring them down?”
Maybe it was the fact that it’s not supposed to be the Federal government’s job. I’m looking at my trust pocket Constitution here, and I don’t see “busting gas-station stickup punks” in any of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.
This was a job for local and state cops. They’re the ones who should be ashamed.
“So what’s the point of gun laws?”
I’d think that would be obvious, if you had any feelings at all! Without the marvelous and well-thought-out gun prohibitions, er, safety plans, those 4 fine young specimens would have been shot dead 4 years ago, at no cost to the taxpayer. So, clearly, those gun laws you speak of are (get ready) “for the children”! As well as in the interest of full employment.
My remarks here won’t go over well with some PotG; nevertheless, I think they warrant a discussion.
How did these gang members enjoy freedom-of-movement bearing arms without CPLs? I surmise that there is no “stop & frisk” in Detroit.
NYC had an aggressive S&F program that has been scaled back out of concern for the use of the practice in a discriminating manner. Apparently, NYC has less of a problem with gun violence than other large cities. Admittedly, NYPD found very few guns; yet, that can just as well be interpreted as a sign of success. By denying freedom-to-carry there was less carry; so, fewer guns found.
For the sake of focus, let’s ASSUME that S&F does NOT reduce gun homicide; not by a single casualty. Assume gang members will kill one-another in their apartments or while carrying on-a-mission.
The objection that occurs to us is the constitutionality of S&F. Before everyone gets his boxers-in-a-bunch, let’s look at the 4A text: “. . . to be secure in their persons, . . . , against UNREASONABLE searches . . . ” Observe the derivative of the root-term “reasonable”; what does this mean?
I’m frustrated by my failure to find a comparable term elsewhere among the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The 1A reads “no law”; the 2A reads “shall not be infringed” and so forth. If words are intended to “mean something” then we must presume that some subtle-to-great distinction is to be found among “no law” vs. “shall not be infringed” vs. “unreasonable”. Arguably, we PotG might conceded that “unreasonable” admits of greater leeway for the courts than does “shall not be infringed”. Would such a concession be better or worse for the defense of the 2A?
If “reasonability” does admit to some leeway, what are the dimensions that inform permissible “reasonable” searches?
Is the public safety threatened more (less) by unlawful bearing of arms vs. possession of a joint?
Is the public safety threatened more (less) by a youthful-appearing individual approaching a 7-11 around 10:45 PM vs. an OFWG in a mall?
Is the apprehension of a basis to suspect bearing of arms sufficient if a youthful appearing customer triggers a metal detector upon passing through the doorway of a shop?
Is there a States’-rights dimension at play here? E.g., might the legislatures of NY and MD make a different decision than those of AZ or NM as to the reasonableness of S&F?
Making no claim to constitutional scholarship, I refrain from ANSWERING such questions; nevertheless, I exercise my 1A right to POSE these questions as worthy of consideration.
Let’s turn to a political analysis. Assuming the possibility of a States’-rights dimension, a S&F policy/law might be received differently in NY, MD, etc. vs. AZ, NM, etc. What might be the mood of voters in, say, Harlem or Baltimore?
“Reasonable” or not is determined, at least preliminarily, by the judge who is asked to sign the WARRANT!!! He may be overruled later. The high-school dropout with the badge does not get to decide what is reasonable (“but he’s BLACK!”) or not (“He’s my homie!). Other applications of “reasonable” would be following an arrest, as per you may legally search the guy you arrested while he was robbing a bank, you don’t have to wait until you get a search warrant.
Eagerness to toss 4A into the crapper does not form a good basis for defense of 2A.
Read the text of the 4A. Then, study the case law. Explain to me how it is that a cop must have a warrant before he can arrest a “suspect” whom he has observed violating a law.
Just as soon as you can point out a SCOTUS case that says that there can be NO search or seizure whatsoever without a warrant, then I’ll take your argument seriously.
Until then, for better or for worse, the “Terry stop” is the governing law. Am I happy with the Terry ruling? Not particularly; but, it’s the relevant case law so far as I’m aware.
I’m not eager at all to toss the 4A into the crapper. I happen to think that it needs every bit as much support as does the 2A. Is the Terry decision the most egregious in the 4A space? I don’t think so. No-Knock warrants are far more egregious in my opinion.
In any case, I’m not here to quarrel with the Terry decision; nor do I think that quarreling with the Terry decision is a high priority on most lists of readers of this forum.
I believe that we remain at liberty to take one case-law as we find it and reason from that case as we find it. The Terry case does support S&F. Terry might be wise or foolish; but for the time being, it is the law as SCOTUS rules it to be. So long as S&F is presumed to be Constitutional – and those who have used it have concluded that it is useful – then let’s follow these facts – as we find them – to their logical conclusion.
I’m merely advocating that we open a dialogue with our sisters in the inner-city whose sons are subjected to the indignities of S&F and suggest a less egregious strategy. Should we find that they are hostile to S&F under any circumstances we might see fit to redirect our efforts and try to overcome the Terry ruling. Conversely, should they discover that they might see value in Shall-Issue in the ghetto, they might join forces with us in defense of the 2A.
Apparently, you are gravely concerned about the risk of such a dialogue threatening the fragile 4A. I am more optimistic about the possibility that a coalition with inner-city minorities might be useful in advancing the 2A.
Detoilet.
My remarks here won’t go over well with some PotG; nevertheless, I think they warrant a discussion.
How did these gang members enjoy freedom-of-movement bearing arms without CPLs? I surmise that there is NO “Stop & Frisk” in Detroit.
NYC developed an aggressive S&F program that has been scaled back out of concern for the use of the practice in a discriminating manner. Apparently, NYC has less of a problem with gun violence than other large cities. Admittedly, NYPD found very few guns; yet, that can just as well be interpreted as a sign of success. By denying freedom-to-carry there was less carry; so, few guns found.
For the sake of focus, let’s ASSUME that S&F does NOT reduce gun homicide; not by a single casualty. Assume gang members will kill one-another in their apartments or while carrying on-a-mission. I prescind entirely from any utilitarian balancing of public benefits vs. evils. I want to concentrate on the Constitutional and political questions in play.
The objection that occurs to us is the constitutionality of S&F. Before everyone gets his boxers-in-a-bunch, let’s look at the 4A text: “. . . to be secure in their persons, . . . , against UNREASONABLE searches . . . ” Observe the derivative of the root-term “reasonable”; what does this mean?
I’m frustrated by my failure to find a comparable term elsewhere among the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The 1A reads “no law”; the 2A reads “shall not be infringed” and so forth. If words are intended to “mean something” then we must presume that some subtle-to-great distinction is to be found among “no law” vs. “shall not be infringed” vs. “unreasonable”. Arguably, we PotG might conceded that “unreasonable” admits of greater leeway for legislators and judges than does “shall not be infringed”. Would such a concession be better or worse for the defense of the 2A?
If “reasonability” does admit to some leeway, what are the dimensions that inform permissible “reasonable” searches?
Is the public safety threatened more (less) by unlawful bearing of arms vs. possession of a joint?
Is the public safety threatened more (less) by a youthful-appearing individual approaching a 7-11 around 10:45 PM vs. an OFWG in a mall?
Is the apprehension of a basis to suspect bearing of arms sufficient if a youthful appearing customer triggers a metal detector upon passing through the doorway of a shop?
Is there a States’-rights dimension at play here? E.g., might the legislatures of NY and MD make a different decision than those of AZ or NM as to the reasonableness of S&F?
Making no claim to constitutional scholarship, I refrain from ANSWERING such questions; nevertheless, I exercise my 1A right to POSE these questions as worthy of consideration.
Let’s turn to a political analysis. Assuming the possibility of a States’-rights dimension, a S&F policy/law might be received differently in NY, MD, etc. vs. AZ, NM, etc. What might be the mood of voters in, say, Harlem or Baltimore?
I suggest that minority voters in such precincts are fiercely opposed to:
– S&F resulting in the conspicuous abusive treatment of their sons;
– S&F resulting in the arrest and conviction of their sons on pot possession;
– S&F resulting in the arrest and conviction of their sons on knife possession;
– their sons carrying concealed guns illegally.
Whether rightly or wrongly, this constituency is torn. Observe, they might LIKE a S&F policy/law that focused on guns and maybe knives, to the EXCLUSION of DRUGS and conspicuous ABUSIVE treatment. Imagine asking one of these voters:
“Madam, what would you think of a S&F program confined to guns/knives. If your son is stopped on a weapons pretext he could end the search by showing a Concealed Weapons Permit. Permitted teens would be at liberty to carry their “pen knives”; adults their guns. Naturally, only individuals with clean records – such as you and your sons – would be eligible for CWPs. Your son could obtain a CWP even though – as an avowed pacifist – he has no intention of bearing arms. He simply wants to avoid a search.
Those who are stopped who do not have a CWP would be subject to a metal-detector wanding, which would reveal a gun or a knife or comparable metal object. That would lead to a more intrusive frisking. A non-permitted weapon found would lead to arrest; however, there would be NO arrest for any NON-weapon suspicious discovery.”
I can’t presume to speak for the minority community voter. Do they really want S&F to get weapons off their streets? Or, to get drugs off their streets? Or, possibly, they are even more adamant than we PotG about protecting their sons’ 4A rights? Are they adamant about keeping all weapons off their streets? Or, only weapons carried by criminals?
Would it make sense for the PotG to open a dialogue with the inner-city minority community along these lines? We can’t possibly know what response we might get until we ask; and, this community ponders the questions we pose.
It seems reasonable to anticipate that at least some voters in this community would accept:
– Shall-Issue as a tolerable compromise of Right-to-Carry;
– Denying freedom-of-movement by armed criminals;
– Reduction of the offensiveness of S&F as it had been practiced by NYPD.
Would it benefit Right-to-Carry in NYC, Baltimore, DC, etc. if we opened a fissure in these communities on Shall-Issue?
I’m going to go out on a limb and play Devil’s Advocate.
Why did it take the Feds so long? Do you honestly think that cases like this are solved in 1 hour like on Law and Order? Of course not. it takes a lot to find out the names of each of those gang members. Warrants, informants, undercover work, and so forth.
What’s more atrocious is all of the restrictive gun laws ordinary people have to suffer under which gives the gangbangers nearly full reign over the streets. All while the Feds are doing all of the investigative work, the gangbangers are literally slipping through the cracks continuing to terrorize decent people.
Yeah, like 4 years ago it would have taken 15 minutes to ask a victim, “who did it?” When nobody cares, it is very obvious to those who don’t have their head in the sand in order to further a slanted viewpoint.
my wife used to live in this area about 15 yrs ago before we began dating and moved in together (well, she moved in with me) in the ‘burbs. The area has gone downhill fast. it is a dump. I don’t even go around that neighborhood anymore after dusk and only in the day with my primary carry +2 spare mags and a BUG. And I make sure if I have to go there, there is a damn good reason. Just so you know the geography, right near there is a hospital where both my kids were born as well as another neighborhood where I bought my first house. It is right on the Detroit border and used to be a strong, blue collar, middle class neighborhood. Drugs have destroyed it. Very sad.
Now, the question is why did it take the feds so long. . . . I know the US Attorney there very well, and my theory is workload. Given all of the public corruption and several more well publicized drug task force efforts, I really believe they didn’t have the manpower to make things happen. Hate to say it, but Barry Soetoro has not made urban areas his priority.
“. . . my theory is workload . . .”
So, isn’t the answer obvious? Let’s have the US Assistant Attorneys pursue OFWGs who lend guns to their friends or give their family members guns as gifts. THIS – and ONLY THIS – will keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.
Drugs don’t ruin neighborhoods or lives, their prohibited status does that.
Were drugs themselves to have any negative effects on lives or property, one could buy a sweet mansion in Beverly Hills for $20K – still waiting for that to happen in the land of kilos in a punch bowl.
Anti-Gun laws did nothing. Let the people CHOOSE to do what they have to do. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS. Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word.
mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.