Parents anger misdirected -- should be upset with themselves

A recent headline -- Parents angry after finding children's names on police 'gang lists' contains the epitome of parental denial of a problem.

Are there really parents in today's world who believe their kids are innocent just because the kid says they are?

Back in the day, women who attended Mom School learned to tell their kids that who you are is affected by with whom you associate. This advice was more likely passed on with comments like, "Don't hang around them boys -- they are trouble."

Men had a school, too, but many of us failed to graduate, so all we were able to say in support was "You heard your mother, boy, don't make her tell you again."

Apparently Mom and Dad school have lower attendance numbers or, maybe, this isn't taught any more. Nonetheless, it's a timeless principle -- except when you fail to accept responsibility for the children you bring into this world.

Here's a few clips from the story, in an attempt to put (what I see as) the reality into perspective . . .

Neither boy had ever been arrested and, (the mother) said, (and) neither was involved with gangs.

Well, the mother may be an authority on whether her son had ever been arrested, though the police would know better. She is not an authority on whether her son is in a gang, unless, of course, she is with him around the clock. What this response means is either 1) my son told me he is not in a gang and those drawings on his school papers and suspicious friends he hangs with don't convince me otherwise, or 2) I have more important things to do than keep track of my son's whereabouts and have taught him that denying reality makes it go away.

. . . more than 50 people, all but a few of them black, showed up . . . heard eight representatives of law enforcement agencies, all but two of them white, tell them why they keep these lists and how they use them.

Anytime the media, or observers for that matter, make a point to note the races of those involved without also showing why that was important, it's not. More police officers are white and more street gang members are black. That's not something that affects the facts of the case. I am pretty sure it doesn't change readership.

JR got on the list, according to Largo police records, because police found 11 pictures of him online displaying 119 Boys hand signals, and because a police officer saw him once with other gang associates, and because he once ran away from a sheriff's deputy while accompanied by another gang member. "It's hurtful," said JRs mother, about her son's inclusion.

Those facts, for people who are not the boy's parents, serve as a clear indication that he at a minimum has an interest in local gags and more likely is an associate or member. These are also an indication that the boy's parents haven't seen the indicators or have ignored them and denied they are indicators. They are not an indication that the police intended anything to be "hurtful" as that's not in their job description.

. . . prosecutors use the lists to get higher bail amounts and longer prison sentences. Prosecutors need to prove gang membership to a judge before a harsher sentence can be imposed. Public Defender Bob Dillinger doesn't like how the lists are used to set higher bail."You have no way of knowing it (gang member status) is accurate," Dillinger said. "If the police say it, that's it."

No, Mr. Dillinger, you actually have a way to know whether the list is accurate -- beyond the police simply "saying it" -- it's the part above where it says "Prosecutors need to prove gang membership to a judge." That's how (and why) our justice system works.

If you saw this as a rant, then it's over. Something had to be said. If you are a parent and want to know what indicators to look for -- check out the warning signs.

What do you think?

Laws against gang recruiting: Worth the time and effort?

The FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) keeps us updated on their "conservative" estimate of the number of gang members in the United States. At last count there were 1.4 million. 

That figure represented an increase of 400,000 over the conservatively estimated 1,000,000 as of September 2008.  The 2009 NGIC estimate represented 212,000 more gang members (26% higher) than the 2007 report.  The estimate was 215,000 (28%) higher than the number of gang members reported by the National Youth Gang Center in 2006 (NYGC).  The estimate was also 200,000 (25%) higher than the 800,000 gang members reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Deputy Director Pistole (2008) in March of 2008. 

Meanwhile, the National Youth Gang Center reports gang membership is now pretty close to where it was 15 or so years ago (1996-2010). Following a yearly (limited) decline from 1996 to a low in 2003, annual estimates steadily increased through 2010 (NYGC).

And how are those increases in membership numbers achieved? 

Recruiting. In some places it's called "cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in."

Many local jurisdictions have started targeting recruiting for gangs -- making it a violation of the law. And some states have shown an interest in doing the same (specifically AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OK, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY) (that was 34 states plus the District of Columbia). Some states, for example Pennsylvania, Florida and Georgia, have gone beyond that and said gang recruiters can't require a prospect to commit a crime. MN has laws that don't appear to prohibit recruiting (prohibiting simply one who solicits or conspires with a minor to commit a crime or delinquent act) , but do address other forms of threat and intimidation.

Is this a strategy based on reality? 

Do we really think that by telling leaders of criminal groups that recruiting new members is wrong they will stop doing so? Perhaps we should also tell them that about threatening or knowingly causing injury or death; receiving money or anything of value from the commission of an aggravated burglary; or from the illegal sale, delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance or firearm, or any of the racketeering offenses we examined in Gang Laws and their inability to be useful against real criminals!

Ultimately, I don't think prohibiting recruiting will work, as intended, if the intent was to get the gang members to swear off recruiting. In fact, it reminds me of the signs my dog is inclined to ignore on our walks (until she experiences human intervention).

image from http://media.al.com/al/photo/10407701-large.jpg

But it might give the kids they recruit something to think about and may give the police another strategy for stopping the gang activity that plagues our nation.

What do you think?

Public disclaimer: I am a founding board member of the Tennessee Gang Investigator's Association, headquartered in Hixson, so I might have a propensity to think gang cops don't get enough support.

Like the TNGIA on Facebook!

A Duck is a duck is a duck: Can another person identify a gang member?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Stuff gang bangers in the military can't do with DoD Instruction 1325.6 in place

We looked at this a bit in Further attempts to give teeth to DoD Instruction 1325.6, with 
Change 1, February 22, 2012 to DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1325.6. 


The guidance includes:

PREVENTIVE ACTIVITIES


a. Commanders should remain alert for signs of future prohibited activities. They should intervene early, primarily through counseling, when observing such signs even though the signs may not rise to active advocacy or active participation or may not threaten good order and discipline, but only suggest such potential. The goal of early intervention is to minimize the risk of future prohibited activities.


- these are all feel good guidelines. The reality is that Commanders (and other unit leaders) remain alert for signs of bad morale and things that affect the mission. They usually don't see "what someone does off duty" as something that falls into those categories. What they don't get is that these gang members are 1) smart enough to conceal their affiliation, 2) learning trades they can use to help the gang, and 3) using their military experience and exposure to access the logistics pipeline to help drug and weapons trafficking endeavors, etc. 


- The military is not and is not designed to be engaged in anything resembling early intervention or minimizing the risk of future prohibited activities. Those are activities for communities where there are youth gangs who can be deterred from crime. All military members are adults, and those who are gang members and military service members are far from intervention time.


b. Examples of such signs, which, in the absence of the active advocacy or active participation addressed in paragraphs 8.a and 8.b are not prohibited, could include mere membership in criminal gangs and other organizations covered under paragraph 8.b. 

• mostly explained by active participation in prohibited groups by fundraising; demonstrating or rallying; recruiting, training, organizing, or leading members; distributing material; knowingly wearing gang colors or clothing; having tattoos or body markings associated with such gangs or organizations; or otherwise engaging in activities in furtherance of the objective of such organizations that are detrimental to good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment or are incompatible with military service

These do not appropriately represent the breadth of gang crimes that should be included in “criminal gang offense.” They appear more like some of the indicators used by Departments of Correction and a few police departments to confirm gang membership. From Tennessee:

1. Self Admission

2.  Tattoos

3. Hand Signs/Symbols/Logos

4. Wearing of Gang/STG colors, gang clothing, gang paraphernalia.

5. Possession of Gang/STG documents  

6. Possession of commercial Gang/STG publications.

7. Participation in commercial Gang/STG publications.

8. Consistently in contact with Gang/STG members

9. Contact with Gang/STG members.

10. Participating in a photo with Gang/STG members. 

11. Outside jurisdiction documents. 

12. Correspondence with Gang/STG members.  

13. Named a Gang/STG member in correspondence.

14. Confirmation through outside agency gang unit or database.

15. Engaged in Gang/STG Crime or activity.

In fact, they are a carryover from the wrongly positioned history of this DoD Instruction. As addressed in DoDs New Rules for Gangs in the Military (not a good idea), 

At the time the directive was initially published in 1969, the DoD was concerned with the infiltration of anti-war and anti-military organizations. The directive focused on dissident and protest activities within the military, and especially on activities such as underground newspapers, on-post demonstrations, and serviceman organizations.

In 1986, the Secretary of Defense updated the directive. The directive's language prohibited "active" participation in "extremist organizations." This comes from language in Executive Order (EO) 11,785 issued in 1953, during the height of the Cold War, when the government feared Communist infiltration. It was later changed to forbid designating any groups as "totalitarian, fascist, Communist, or subversive" and forbade any circulation or publication of a list of such groups.

* * *

We had problems linking the directive to gangs because of it's history (originally launched from an Executive Order (EO 10,450: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html) prohibiting communist groups from infiltrating, then war protesters, now extremists. 

It's pretty clear what actions they wanted to prohibit: 

         * * *

sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefore, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting, another to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition

         * * *

Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States

So when the explanation for the new Instruction explains that:

Signs could also include possession of literature associated with such gangs or organizations, or with related ideology, doctrine, or causes. While mere membership or possession of literature normally is not prohibited, it may merit further investigation and possibly counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to the Department’s values and to ensure that the Service member understands what activities are prohibited.

I am tempted to ask what they are talking about when it comes to literature. Are they talking about Gang/STG documents: rosters, procedures, bylaws, codes, etc.? What about Gang/STG commercial publications? What about illustrations or artwork?


Unfortunately, these are the same questions that would allow a defense attorney to claim the instruction is vague and over-broad, and that's an indication that more thought should be invested in it in the first place.


What do you think?

Florida gang law prohibiting requiring recruiting prospects to commit crime OK!

According to Associated Press (AP) coverage of the appellate court in the 1st District, the Florida Law prohibiting gang leaders to require new members to commit a crime to join the gang is fine, just fine.


Well that's a relief!


The court did not like the prohibition against using technology to communicate, however. Apparently the law would have made it unlawful not just to discuss gang business but other things, as well.


The recruitment law passed constitutional muster because it applies only if criminal activity is a condition of membership. It's been my experience that gangs and crime go hand-in-hand, and most who join gangs commit a crime to do so.


District Judge Stephanie Ray wrote that in the recruitment law, the Legislature "attempted to strike a proper balance between protecting fundamental rights and using legitimate government police powers to fight the scourge of gang-related criminal activity."  She noted several other states, including California, Texas, Indiana and Idaho, have passed similar laws, some of which also have been upheld by the courts.  

Section 874.05(1), the “gang recruitment” provision, was enacted to protect the public from speech and conduct used to encourage gang membership, where a condition of membership or continued membership is the commission of any crime. 

Section 874.05(1): The “Gang Recruitment” Statute The “gang recruitment” statute states: 

874.05 Causing, encouraging, soliciting, or recruiting criminal gang membership.--- (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) [which deals with a second or subsequent violation], a person who intentionally causes, encourages, solicits, or recruits another person to become a criminal gang member where a condition of membership or continued membership is the commission of any crime commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in [various statutes]. § 874.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). 

. . .  the State has a compelling interest in thwarting solicitation and recruitment into gangs where criminal conduct is a condition of membership or continued membership. See State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101, 1116-17 (Fla. 2004) (finding cities’ juvenile curfew ordinances furthered the State’s compelling interest in protecting juveniles from victimization and reducing juvenile crime); State v. T.B.D., 656 So. 2d 479, 482 (Fla. 1995) (“Florida has a
compelling interest in protecting the right of each of its citizens to live at peace in the sanctity of his or her home, free from violence and the threat of violence.”).

Under the second prong of strict scrutiny, we review section 874.05(1) to ascertain whether it is narrowly tailored to promote the compelling governmental interest . . . under Florida’s broad statutory definitions of “criminal gang” and “criminal gang member,” a person can join or associate with such a group without any actual intent to commit a crime. § 874.03(1), (3). 

This statute criminalizes the speech and conduct of the solicitor/recruiter, rather than the person solicited or recruited.

Although the language of section 874.05(1) is silent regarding whether the solicitor/recruiter must know of the crime-related condition of gang membership, silence alone does not necessarily suggest the legislative body “intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605 (1994) (holding that in order to convict a defendant of illegal possession of an automatic weapon the government had to prove the defendant knew of the automatic character of the weapon); see Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952); State v. Giorgetti, 868 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 2004). 

The Legislature has narrowly tailored this law to effect its intended purpose to promote public safety and prevent crime without impermissibly intruding upon the rights of law-abiding persons or, for that matter, the discrete lawful activities of gang members.

The case is Naymontie Nashare Enoch v. State of Florida, 1D10-3443.


What do you think?

Big League Gangfighting in the Volunteer State

In The odds of finding a "pattern of criminal gang activity" we examined the likelihood of a gang member committing a crime, that he was caught doing, that was considered a felony, twice, within a five-year period, after committing a prior crime for which he was caught and convicted . . . 


I know, it's confusing . . . perhaps it will still be applied.


Despite my suspicions that the law will not be used heavily by prosecutors, I am impressed that it is law, and available. This is all part of the legislature's move to place criminal gang offenses within the state’s existing Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, where convictions would be class B felonies with sentences ranging from at least 12 to 20 years (as we discussed in Gang Laws and their inability to be useful against real criminals.


While RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past four decades, prosecutors have used it against many organized crime groups: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments and even politicians. To violate RICO, a person must engage in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise. 


The TN Legislature appears to be making a shift toward acknowledgement that gangs are more of an organized crime problem than a juvenile delinquency problem.


BRAVO!


This shift puts us in, or at least heading toward, the Big Leagues, where states like New York, Illinois, and California (motivated by crime in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles) have (and have had) similar laws.


Not so bravo


According to New York Criminal Procedure:  (b) A criminal act is "a part of" a pattern of criminal activity when alleged in a count of enterprise corruption when it is committed prior

  to commencement of the criminal action in which enterprise corruption is
  charged and was committed in furtherance of the same  common  scheme  or
  plan or with intent to participate in or further the affairs of the same
  criminal  enterprise  to  which  the crimes specifically included in the
  pattern are connected.

I take that to mean the crime has to be gang (or other organized crime group)-related.


Illinois defines a pattern as 2 or more gang-related criminal offenses committed in whole or in part within this State when: (1) at least one such offense was committed after the effective date of this Act;(2) both offenses were committed within 5 years ofeach other; and(3) at least one offense involved the solicitation tocommit, conspiracy to commit, attempt to commit, or commission of any offense defined as a felony or forcible felony under the Criminal Code of 1961."Course or pattern of criminal activity" also means one or more acts of criminal defacement of property under Section 21-1.3 of the Criminal Code of 1961, if the defacement includes a sign or other symbol intended to identify the streetgang.


So it appears Illinois requires the gang member to be careless enough to commit repeated crimes within the state, but they specifically include graffiti as a repeated offense?


California appears similar to ours with their Section 186.22(e), which defines a “pattern of criminal gang activity” as the “commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction of two or more of the offenses [enumerated therein] . . . committed on separate occasions, or by two or more persons . . . .”

So where do we go from here?


What do you think?

Public disclaimer: I am a founding board member of the Tennessee Gang Investigator's Association.

Like the TNGIA on Facebook!

The odds of finding a "pattern of criminal gang activity"

According to Tennessee § 40-35-121. Criminal Gang Offenses—Enhanced Punishment—Procedure, a "Pattern of criminal gang activity" means prior convictions for the commission or attempted commission of, or solicitation or conspiracy to commit either:

• Two (2) or more criminal gang offenses that are classified as felonies; or
• Three (3) or more criminal gang offenses that are classified as misdemeanors; or
• One (1) or more criminal gang offense that is classified as a felony and two (2) or more criminal gang offenses that are classified as misdemeanors; and
• The criminal gang offenses are committed on separate occasions; and
• The criminal gang offenses are committed within a five-year period.

Put another way, it means the (presumably street-wise) gang member has to avoid conviction of all but two times he commits a felony in five years to keep from having this enhancement apply to his actions. 

To understand how easy this is, consider the arrest rate of people, generally, for all crimes, bearing in mind that gang members have a built-in mentoring and arrest avoidance program. 

The FBI reports an arrest rate based on the population. They reported in 2009 that the arrest rate was 4,478.0 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants of the total estimated United States population (violent crime was 191.2 per 100,000 and property crime was 571.1 per 100,000). That means that an estimated 4500 arrests were made for every 100,000 people, or 4 1/2 per 100 (4.5%).

This method of calculation shows arrest rates but what about the arrest percentage, or: How likely is a perpetrator to get arrested for committing a crime? 

This is often represented by a crime funnel. The funnel represents the much lower number of crimes detected and punished by the criminal justice system than the number actually committed. Early in the criminal justice system (where the police are), many arrests are made, but the number to be prosecuted shrinks as they are removed from the process. Some are dismissed, while others get referred for treatment or counseling. 

Here's an example:

Note that the basic numbers go like this. For every 1,000 crimes committed, 500 of them (that's half) are reported to the police. Of the 500 reported to the police, 100 arrests (that's 20% of the crimes reported and 10% of the crimes committed) are made.

And now that the police have done the hard work, the folks in the rest of the "system" take over.

Of the 100 arrests, about one-third (35%) are juveniles, and 30 of them are put on probation or have their cases dismissed. Though many gang members are juveniles, you can imagine how that wraps up -- stick with me for the adult analysis. 

Of the 100 arrests, about two-thirds (65%) are adults, and 25 of those cases are dropped. Of the 40 people remaining, prepared for court (a function of the Courts part of the Criminal Justice System), 10 jump bail, abscond, or otherwise take affirmative action to avoid further prosecution. From the remaining 30, 27 plead guilty in court, 2 who didn't are found guilty, and 1 (of 30 who remain of the 100 arrested for the 1000 crimes) is acquitted. 

Note, if you will, that acquitted is not the same as innocence -- it's the same as there wasn't enough evidence to support the charges. Note, also, that the court system is where multiple incidents can be combined into one and felonies can turn into misdemeanors.

Of the 29 people sentenced, 8 of them (about 27%) are placed on probation and 21 of them are incarcerated (both are functions of the Corrections part of the Criminal Justice System).

To make sure we have that locked in and comprehended -- for every 1000 crimes committed, 500 (half) get reported. Of the reported crimes, 100 arrests (one-fifth) are made. Of the people arrested, about 29 people (less than 30% of those arrested) are convicted, and 20 (one-fifth) are incarcerated. That's a little different than the FBI numbers, don't you think?

So, assuming a gang member doesn't get locked up for five years, they have to fight the odds of getting convicted of two separate felonies or three separate misdemeanors during that time OR they can be identified as being involved in a pattern of criminal gang activity.

What are the odds of that?

  

See also: 

Gang Laws and their inability to be useful against real criminals

A great civil law tool -- injunctions and related actions against gangs -- but what about civic involvement -- Southern Style!

It's not been covered too much in the news, but check out Metro Files Lawsuit Against Accused Gang Members: Metro's legal department has filed a lawsuit against the Kurdish Pride Gang (KPG) and several of their alleged members, asking that they be declared a public nuisance. Wouldn't it be nice if all the gangs and other organized crime groups -- heck, even regular everyday criminals -- could be declared a nuisance?


Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough citizens who are 1) annoyed and 2) able to stand up for themselves. I completely support the MNPD's actions, but why is it they seem to be the only ones acting like gangs in our communities are a bad thing? These groups have been treated as if they are living the American Dream -- and unfortunately in many cases, they are. 


Typical responses to gang behavior include public (community or neighborhood based) official (using the criminal justice system) and legislative (local, state, and federal legislative bodies) action.  Local anti-gang legislation like civil abatement laws, injunctions, and restrictive ordinances rarely make an impact on gangs, though they often force a move out of "our neighborhood". With these injunctions, gang-free zones are sought (like public parks or neighborhoods). 


In this country, it′s not against the law to be a member of a gang. The First Amendment  gives us the right to join any group or club, assuming we meet their requirements. Implicit within this right is the right to associate with members of the group. That seems to indicate the right includes membership and affiliation with gangs and gang members. What is prohibited is the committing of crimes and other actions that gang members often do. In a nutshell, then, it's legal to be a member of a gang, but not to be an active member, as active gang members commit crimes (or their group would not "qualify" as a gang). The constitutional right to assemble allows us to gather (only) for lawful purposes. Thankfully, the courts have held that the government may prohibit people from associating in groups that engage in and promote illegal activities. 


With injunctions and related actions, the gang is sued as a public nuisance with evidence provided by the police and sometimes members of the community.   Injunctions have been seen to reduce gang member visibility, gang intimidation, and fear of crime by residents.   That works for the community, at least for a time, but we can do better.


The better strategies incorporate the community-based policing efforts that include mobilizing and interacting with community members in a coordinated effort.  When there is an established community policing effort (not unlike what it took to implement bike patrols, drug market interventions, and the use of Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety -- DDACTS), prosecutors and police can include input from police, prosecutors, merchants, property owners, and other community members when devising strategies like obtaining injunctions, so there's more of a chance the affected parties are included in the decisions.  


Additional work to improve neighborhood cohesion and informal control is needed, but let's not depend entirely on the police to do it.   Gang injunctions should be used on a continuing basis and more resources should be directed into the enforcement and maintenance of gang injunctions, assuming they are effective, but at some point citizens need to get engaged in the process. It starts by teaching children (not just our own, unfortunately) that gangs are a bad thing. We need to change the paradigm, and that requires a relatively long-term commitment. 


The action against the KPG represents the first time a local government has sought to have alleged members declared a public nuisance since criminal gang behavior was added to the state's public nuisance law in 2009. This action (at least the use of injunctions in Nashville) has been planned for a few years. That serves as yet another reason that citizens need to get involved in the push-back effort against gangs. Citizen groups, as evidenced by Occupy Nashville, Wall Street, and so many others, don't have such a long and extended lead time waiting for the legislators, leadership, and courts to synchronize.


Other coverage by NPR here.


What do you think?

All grown up but still banging - when juvenile gang members become adults

Presenting today to the Tennessee Alliance for Children and Families, 8th Annual Education Conference “Achieving Success in the Face of Adversity.” 

Presentation titled All grown up but still banging: What issues can we expect if they don't "age out?”  in Nashville, TN on June 13, 2012. 

All grown up

View more PowerPoint from Carter Smith


Handouts at http://apsu.academia.edu/CarterSmith/Talks/88098/All_grown_up_but_still_banging_What_issues_can_we_expect_if_they_dont_age_out_? 

Gangs in Child Welfare

On Friday, I will be in a satellite and internet broadcast panel discussion hosted by the Tennessee Center for Child Welfare (TCCW). The panel will be addressing “Gangs in Child Welfare” on May 18, 2012. Available at the TCCW web site - http://video.tccw.org/video/gangs-child-welfare

•Overview and History of Gangs

•Carter Smith

•Ben Austin

•Meaning/Defining gangs

•Street gangs mentioned by Chaucer (1390) and Shakespeare (1602)

–little known of the members

•Generally accepted criteria for identifying groups as gangs:     

–Three or more members.    

–Members share group identity and other symbols.    

–Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang.   

–Permanence and organization.    

–Criminal activity.

•Gang Formation

•Individual needs

–physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem

•Individual responses

–To pressure/Strain

•Community needs

–Security/Economy

•Community responses

–Support/Conceal crime

–Hire/direct Law Enforcement

•Economic association

•Traditional gang organization not unlike traditional business organization

–Fills a void

–Serves community

–Depended upon

•Gangs engage in legitimate business activity.

–Startup funding from ill-gotten gains

–Often use legitimate business to launder money

–Nonetheless, gang businesses serve community

Flash Mobs and Street Gangs morphing into . . .?

. . . young adults have been uniting in order to commit robberies. More disconcerting is the use of social media to organize gang gatherings . . . more here

Street gangs have been around since as far back as Chaucer in 1390 and Shakespeare in 1602, though little was known of the members of those groups (Klein, 1995). almost two decades ago Ball and Curry defined gangs as a …spontaneous, semisecret, interstitial, integrated but mutable social system whose members share common interests and that functions with relatively little regard for legality. (p. 9)

But they were never as spontaneous in appearance as modern day flash mobs . . . were they?

Flash mobs are hardly new, at least if you are using technology time. They were mainstream enough to be covered by a national media outlet in February 2006 when a Fox News affiliate in San Francisco reported 1,000 people meeting at the city's Ferry Building for a 30-minute outdoor pillow fight.

But the synthesis, or morphing of flash mobs and gangs has produced a hybrid that few appear prepared to respond to, and for good reason. The spontaneity and secrecy of the flash mob combined with the no-holds-barred targeted crime and/or violence of the street gang produces a mix that would be hard to combat even with inside intelligence. The instant access and extended reach of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook bring a twist that makes the spontaneous volatility even more difficult to prevent.

The earliest we have been able to find gang-like activity with flash mob-like technology-assisted surprise was in March 2004 when 3 dozen people were arrested for a street fight arranged via an Internet chat room. Two Dallas gangs, after trading insults in a chat room, traded their keyboards for fists and baseball bats and arranged a time to meet and duke it out in real life.

But that action didn't start a trend like the one seen in recent months. The seemingly random acts of the groups highlighted here should be concerning to law enforcement across the country. Flash-mob violence has recently been reported in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.

Chicago
Recently in Chicago, the Chicago Sun-Times (and Police Magazine) reported groups of youth were using text messaging and social media to gather at specified locations on the city's South Side, where robbers attacked people with pepper spray. Flash mob attacks were also reported in the Streeterville neighborhood.

Los Angeles
On April 28, 2011 in Venice Beach, a man was shot amid a flash mob that was organized around a Venice Beach basketball court on Twitter. According to NPR, Alexandria Thompson used her Tweetdeck to monitor potential dangers (she is on neighborhood watch) and reported to the police when "Venice beach bball ct going up tomorrow," showed up. There was also mention of gang affiliations which also led to her reporting the possibility of trouble to the police.

Philadelphia
One store owner observed that "all of a sudden the street was really crowded." Some say the crowd of youths was in the hundreds. Others say thousands. The kids began to jump up and down, and then utter chaos broke out. Some of the teens started beating each other up, while others began banging on the windows of his shop. "They were trying to climb in the windows on top of the people who were dining, so we pushed them out, we closed the doors and we locked the front doors," he said. "Whatever they had in mind, to me, it was like a home invasion."

Washington D.C.
In April 2011 in Washington, D.C., nearly 20 youths gathered outside the G-Star Raw clothing store in Dupont Circle and filed in together, brushing past customers. Video from the store's security camera shows them marching directly to the shelves of expensive designer jeans and racks of high-end shirts. They sorted through the selections for their sizes and tucked them under their arms, initially behaving like usual, if rushed, customers. Then they all suddenly made for the exit, escaping before police arrived 10 minutes later. In just moments, on a busy street in the middle of the day, the suspects had stolen an estimated $20,000 in merchandise, police said.

According to the National Retail Federation, 94.5 percent said they were victimized by organized criminals in the past year. And 84.8 percent said the problem has only worsened in the past three years.

So what's the fix? It's likely the guarded response will be an attempt to diminish the danger, but is that really a good idea?

Last year, the Pennsylvania Bar Association showed some vision when they designed a mock trial scenario about a group that was "not a gang in the traditional sense, but was a collection of students who were organized by social networking technology . . ."

What do you think?


Ball, R. A., & Curry, G. D. (1995). The logic of definition in criminology: Purposes and methods for defining "gangs". Criminology, 33(2), 225-245. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01177.x
Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York: Oxford University Press.

short link to this article - http://bit.ly/lvkbLw

Presenting in Murfreesboro on Gangs & College & Technology

Description An overview of ongoing research including preliminary results form 2009-2011 survey of college students and police regarding the presence of gangs on college campuses.

Here's the publicly-releasable stuff:

Gangs+college

View more presentations from Carter Smith.

Presenting at "Gang Talk Thursday" webinar series - National Crime Prevention Council

Hybrid Gangs

View more presentations from Carter Smith.

Gang Resources from the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)

The next Gang Talk Thursday will be June 17th from 3:00 – 4:00 pm Eastern time (rescheduled from May 20th, rescheduled from January).

The Emergence of Hybrid Gangs

With an increased national emphasis on homeland security, gang activity has not received the attention it did even a decade ago. The results of recent nationwide surveys of police indicate that gangs have not decreased or become less dangerous to our communities. On the contrary, as police and community pressure have waned, gangs have gained strength and are more active with controlling the drug trade, recruiting new members, and expanding their reach to more communities. Additionally, police agencies are seeing more hybrid gangs that don't follow traditional organization and operating methods of traditional gangs. Hybridization makes intelligence gathering and dissemination more difficult for people in all facets of the criminal justice system and the community. This webinar was designed to provide an overview of emerging trends in hybrid gang activity.

California Attorney General’s Office Crime and Violence Prevention Center. (2003). Gangs - A COMMUNITY RESPONSE. http://www.safestate.org
National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations. (2005). National Gang Threat Assessment. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/what/2005_threat_assesment.pdf
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2001). Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov
Thrasher, F.M. (1927). The Gang: A Study of One Thousand Three Hundred Thirteen Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Valdez, A. (2007). Gangs Across America: History and Sociology. San Clemente, CA: Law Tech Publishing.

This bulletin, from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, reviews the chronology of major historical events associated with the emergence of street gangs in each of the four major U.S. geographic regions. (NCJ 230569)

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/History-of-Street-Gangs.pdf

Here's an essay on Leaderless Resistance by Louis Beam.

http://www.louisbeam.com/leaderless.htm

Gangs in the military: Forces conspire to make U.S. gangs a worldwide threat

New Presentation, based on LawOfficer.com Feature Article.

Although gang members constitute only a fraction of military personnel worldwide, they are a significant problem for the military and communities surrounding military bases. Since the early 1990s, the Armed Forces have taken steps to try to gain control the gang problem. The Secretary of the Army’s Task Force on Extremist Activities conducted an investigation in 1996 and found extremist and gang activity in the Army was causing significant security concerns for many soldiers (U.S. Department of Defense, 1996).

Gang members join the military for different reasons.

More at http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/online/2010/gangs_in_the_military.html

Gangs in the military: Forces conspire to make U.S. gangs a worldwide threat

View more presentations from Carter Smith.

Copy of paper here:

Gangs in the military forces conspire to make u.s. gangs a worldwide threat

View more documents from Carter Smith.

Question and Answer on responses to Gangs

1. What should schools do about gangs?

School leaders need to be able to treat gangs as they would any other group of people that threaten the safety of the students. In the elementary, middle, and high schools, youth who are involved with gangs will often be disruptive or divisive in the classroom. Teachers must be able to respond with respect while still controlling the situation. The School Resource Officers are trained to identify problems -- including the presence of gangs. Work with them. Don't let the kids in the school be terrorized by gang members -- protect them.

2. What should parents do to keep their kids out of gangs?

Parents need to fight the tendency to think "my child would never join a gang" and act as if they want to do everything in their power to keep that from happening. This applies to parents at all socio-economic levels. Parents need to teach their children discipline and respect and the boldness to express individuality. If you sense that your child has something they don't belong having in their possession (gang attire, paraphernalia, guns, knives, drugs, etc.) ask them about it and then follow up by looking through their possessions -- no matter what they think about it. Gangs are not a minor illness that will go away with time. They are a poison that will kill people. If a police officer suspects your child is in a gang -- don't start by denying it, start by trying to see why it might look that way.

Act like a parent -- not a lawyer.

Demand that the local school system stop tolerating the presence of gang members in the schools. Call your elected representatives and public servants regularly and voice your concerns. There are gangs in many of the public schools in Middle Tennessee -- stop sitting idly by and letting them establish a presence in the schools. If the people we vote for and pay to run the schools won't work to keep gangs from taking over the schools -- replace them.

3. What should youths who are being recruited to be in a gang do?

If members of a gang try to recruit you -- make it clear that you are not interested. It is possible to be respectful while declining an offer to join or even affiliate with the gang. These people will act as if they will be your best friends and yet what they will do is help you ruin your life. Gang members rarely become productive citizens and when they do it is only after they leave the gang - many are dead before they are old enough to be parents. If you don't know what you want to do with your life -- it's better to do nothing than to join a gang (even if they don't call themselves a "gang").

4. What should members of the community (police, churches, neighborhood groups, etc.) do about gangs?

Community leaders need to respond to gangs as if they are poisonous to the welfare and safety of all members of the community -- because they are. The gang mentality is being shared through movies, music, and Internet communication methods, and will reach the youth. Members of the community need to be vigilant in their search for indicators of gang activity and find things for the youth to do other than "hanging out" with a bunch of thugs. Avoid denial at all costs -- if someone acts like they are in a gang they probably are. There's no need to support what others are doing when what they are doing hurts them and everyone that comes in contact with them. Being a gang member is not a protected class of society - treat gangs like you want them to go away -- and they will.

Carter Smith is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) and a founding board member of the Tennessee Gang Investigators Association (TNGIA). MTSU and TNGIA are co-hosting a Youth Gang - Organized Crime Symposium March 11-13, 2010. The event is open to the public. For more information, visit http://www.mtsu.edu/fire

More at The Tennessean.