If only we would.....

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;21548 wrote:

One man klan

Ridiculous drivel.

IMO his purpose is to incite the rational individuals that populate this site.

No, it's true.

Being in a gang does not inherently harm anyone else.

@One Man Clan,

One Man

And you know this to be fact how? I am interested in your theory - if it has validity or not.

The term 'gang' posits a negative connotation but hardly a baseball team or cheerleading group right?

What is it the 'gang' does to be a 'gang'???

Find us something positive to prove your point.

1 Reply

@trappedbyparties,

It depends of course on the purpose of the joining. If it is a gang of friends, ok, but a gang of thieves for example not so good.

gang (plural gangs)

A going; a course.
A number going in company; hence, a company, or a number of persons associated for a particular purpose; a group of laborers under one foreman; a squad; as, a gang of sailors; a chain gang; a gang of thieves.
A combination of similar implements arranged so as, by acting together, to save time or labor; a set; as, a gang of saws, or of plows.
A set; all required for an outfit; as, a new gang of stays.
The mineral substance which incloses a vein; a matrix; a gangue.
(Electrical components) The number of switches wired into one face plate.
(Electrical components) A group of wires attached as a collection; a gang of wires

gang - Wiktionary

1 Reply

@Skye cv,

Skye;21550 wrote:

One Man

And you know this to be fact how? I am interested in your theory - if it has validity or not.

The term 'gang' posits a negative connotation but hardly a baseball team or cheerleading group right?

What is it the 'gang' does to be a 'gang'???

Find us something positive to prove your point.

So now something positive is necessary to prove nothing negative exists?

You people are saying we should punish people for nothing more than being in a gang?

Why should that even be a crime?

1 Reply

@markx15,

markx15;21552 wrote:

It depends of course on the purpose of the joining. If it is a gang of friends, ok, but a gang of thieves for example not so good.

If you can prove that each individual you plan on punishing has intent (BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT) it would be fine by libertarian principle.

0 Replies

@One Man Clan,

OneMan

Sorry that one flew right by me....

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

OMC

Quote:

Being in a gang does not inherently harm anyone else.

Markx above did not quote ALL the definitions in Wikipedia:

Usage/Definition

In modern usage, gang often refers to loosely organized groups that control a territory through readiness to use violence, especially against other gangs. However, there is not an exact, agreed-upon definition. Hundreds of attempts at such definition have been debated ever since Frederic Thrasher (1927) defined the 1313 gangs he observed in Chicago.[1]

The word "gang" generally carries a negative connotation, though within a gang which defines itself in opposition to mainstream norms, members may adopt the phrase in proud identity or defiance.[citation needed] Gang activities are not restricted to typical organized crime groups.[2]

An article in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice[3] talks of a consensus definition developed over 5 years and agreed on by more than 100 gang research scholars in the United States and Europe. It is a minimalist definition specifically designed to enhance comparative street gang research.
“ A street gang is any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity. ”

This is what a gang is, my young friend. Nothing more than a band of hoodlums and thugs.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

I see your point. I think though that "gang" has a legal definition that stands for a group of more than 3 people who engage in illegal activities. At least we have this here in Brazil.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

Quote:

This is what a gang is, my young friend. Nothing more than a band of hoodlums and thugs.

How are you still not getting it?

Sure, a gang as a collective whole is harmful, but people shouldn't be punished as collective wholes.

Got it?

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

OneMan

Where are we talking about punishment?

The 'gang' is a collective of people with a common intent.

If the intent is carried out - and it is against the law or is harmful to others - then punishment comes into the discussion.

A gang without inertia is simply a gang but historically their common intent is often negative.

0 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;21560 wrote:

How are you still not getting it?

Sure, a gang as a collective whole is harmful, but people shouldn't be punished as collective wholes.

Got it?

Listen and learn - if you and two of your buddies rob a liquor store and shoot and kill the clerk and you did nothing but drive the car you are just as guilty as the one that pulled the trigger. In a gang, it's everyone or no one. There is no room for individualism. Extrapolated, tacit approval of a crime by even a minor gang member means conspiracy and guilt. Period. Got it? I do not understand why you are hung up on this issue. Again, they are hoodlums and thugs. Give them up and move to something helpful to society.

1 Reply

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;21563 wrote:

Listen and learn - if you and two of your buddies rob a liquor store and shoot and kill the clerk and you did nothing but drive the car you are just as guilty as the one that pulled the trigger. In a gang, it's everyone or no one. There is no room for individualism. Extrapolated, tacit approval of a crime by even a minor gang member means conspiracy and guilt. Period. Got it? I do not understand why you are hung up on this issue. Again, they are hoodlums and thugs. Give them up and move to something helpful to society.

In other words, you're fine if an individual is punished for what other individuals did because he's associated with them.

That's infringement on freedom of assocation.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

That's the law. Hang with the gang, and you'll hang with the gang. Freedom of association has nothing to do with this discussion - ask Tony Soprano.

Are you an ACLU attorney..?

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;21553 wrote:

So now something positive is necessary to prove nothing negative exists?

You people are saying we should punish people for nothing more than being in a gang?

Why should that even be a crime?

My degree is in Criminology not Law Enforcement but let me ask you this what do you consider harmless regarding "Gangs" what useful purpose does a gang serve. Traditionally laws enacted or expanded because the only "gangs" I'm aware of kill, sell drugs, kill, sell women aka pimps, they also require recruits to prove their loyalty by sigh killing and then selling drugs. So please could you explain what you are talking about? How can one be innocent by association when you are required to commit a crime to be part of said Gang. Or are we not understanding you and you are talking about Bingo Gangs, or Gangs of Spray painters who feel it's their right to de-face private property, or gangs of youth whom roam the street stealing and damaging private property (both crimes). I don't understand you assertion or lack there of.

1 Reply

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;21567 wrote:

That's the law. Hang with the gang, and you'll hang with the gang. Freedom of association has nothing to do with this discussion - ask Tony Soprano.

Are you an ACLU attorney..?

Of course it has to do with this discussion.

If the government can break the laws that hold it back, what DOES hold it back?

What happens to freedom of speech?
What happens to freedom to bear arms?
What happens to freedom of the press?

Or maybe you haven't read the Constitution...

And no, I would never associate myself with those commie bastards.

0 Replies

@Red cv,

Red;21575 wrote:

My degree is in Criminology not Law Enforcement but let me ask you this what do you consider harmless regarding "Gangs" what useful purpose does a gang serve. Traditionally laws enacted or expanded because the only "gangs" I'm aware of kill, sell drugs, kill, sell women aka pimps, they also require recruits to prove their loyalty by sigh killing and then selling drugs. So please could you explain what you are talking about? How can one be innocent by association when you are required to commit a crime to be part of said Gang. Or are we not understanding you and you are talking about Bingo Gangs, or Gangs of Spray painters who feel it's their right to de-face private property, or gangs of youth whom roam the street stealing and damaging private property (both crimes). I don't understand you assertion or lack there of.

You people are unable to grasp a simple point.

BEING IN A GANG is not inherently harmful.

If I join a gang today what have I done that harms somebody?

Nuthin'.

0 Replies

@trappedbyparties,

Intent, why would you join a gang with no intent? Then it wouldn't be a gang it would be a social club.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;21767 wrote:

Intent, why would you join a gang with no intent? Then it wouldn't be a gang it would be a social club.

Many people join gangs for protection.

That's the most common reason.

2 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;21770 wrote:

Many people join gangs for protection.

That's the most common reason.

Protection from whom..? The answer is obvious - other gangs of thugs.
Get onto something more productive.

1 Reply

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;21776 wrote:

Protection from whom..? The answer is obvious - other gangs of thugs.

Therefore there's no criminal intent.

Being in a gang does not BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT imply intent.

1 Reply

If only we would.....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know