OVERCOMING WRITER'S CELL BLOCK
I took the LAT to task in my last post for that meandering piece JILL LEOVY did on -- well I'm not sure what it was about except an AK-47, lots of shootings and something about elusive gangsters.
Today, I've got to thank the TIMES for alerting me to two bills that passed committee in the State Assembly and the Senate. JENIFER WARREN has the byline. Both bills would make it easier to visit state inmates. And boy, could it ever be made easier. In a word, prison visits are a pain in the ass.
Here's how it works. Once you contact an inmate by mail and he agrees to talk to you, you fill out a form and mail it to the particular institution. The prison then sends the paperwork over to the CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE where they do a background check on you. That process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. On one hair-pulling, teeth gnashing, phone slamming occasion, it took me nine -- count 'em nine -- months to get the DOJ clearance. Of course, they'd cleared me numerous times before but somehow they couldn't find my paperwork. They kindly offered to have me PAY to get fingerprinted again. I don't mind the fingerprint part. It's the paying for it AGAIN that pissed me off. I'm hoping they're better at tracking terrorists than they are at finding people who pester them twice a week, every week, for nine months.
Once you do get clearance to visit an inmate, that permission is apparently only good at that institution. I've had several occasions where I got permission to vist a guy in SUSANVILLE let's say. Then found out he'd been moved to MULE CREEK. The SUSANVILLE permission wasn't good at MULE CREEK so I had to apply all over again. Technically, all the CDC institutions are supposed to be linked to the same visitor database and the system should be the same all over the state. In reality, each institution is a sovereign entity and doesn't have to recognize policies from other institutions.
Once you do get to visit, the TIMES piece correctly points out that you're not allowed to bring a notebook or a writing instrument. I can understand the reason for that. One way of smuggling drugs into a prison is to soak paper in anything from liquid meth to LSD. And it's easy to pass an innocent looking sheet of paper to an inmate in a CONTACT VISIT situation. Same thing with a pen. Even a .39 cent BIC can make a devastating stabbing weapon if delivered somewhere soft and jellatinoid like an eyeball. So yeah, these are real concerns for prison officials.
The facility sometimes provide you with a few sheets of paper and the tiny nub of a pencil. The reason for the tiny pencil, of course, is that it's tough to use as a stabbing device. I can understand that. So why don't they let us bring a laptop. I've never heard of anyone getting stabbed or shot with a laptop. And what's with the no recording device?
On NO CONTACT visits, (the glass walls and phones you've seen on TV) I have been allowed to bring a notebook and pen. But no tape recorder or laptop. Trust me, there's nothing you can pass through those walls except looks.
I sympathize with the CDC. One of the big problems they have is information flowing into and out of jails. I'm not talking about the kind of information writers and journos are after but the kind that can get people killed on the street or in other prisons -- GREENLIGHTS, ORDERS etc. So if the CDC wants to monitor my conversation, have at it. They'll be reading about it anyway. Same goes for letters. This is a very serious concern for the prisons and dropping the standards for easier access is just one more avenue the bad guys can exploit for evil purposes. Even with the strict regulations, the prisons are already as leaky as a HAITIAN refugee boat. And the gangster intelligence net is impressively effective and robust. Giving bad guys another communication channel will not serve society.
Another issue the TIMES raises is the possibility of glorifying criminals through interviews with media. This is an argument made by victims groups and LAW ENFORCEMENT. This is another legitimate point. You can imagine what some supermarket tabloid or "reality" media would do with audio and video access to people like DAHMER, NG and that psycho with the BOB MARLEY hair that killed his wives/daughters and his children/grandchildren. It's bad enough having a loved one murdered. Seeing the murderer on TV sandwiched between a segment on J-LO's ring and COURTNEY LOVE's boob flashing is just a heartless opening of wounds. This is a tough issue and I'm not sure if anyone can construct a policy that would prevent disgusting exploitation and still allow even-handed access. SB1164, the bill under discussion would allow cameras, notebooks and recording devices in jail interviews. Good luck on threading through that minefield. It would make my work easier but it could turn into NBC's NATURAL BORN KILLER OF THE WEEK SHOW.
Clearly, I've got a dog in this fight and I'd like to have access that's more streamlined and one that makes it easier to do my work. I'd like to have a still camera and a tape recorder. I wish it would happen. And I hope those who might abuse the privilege don't make me regret that my wish came true.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
OVERCOMING WRITER'S CELL BLOCK
I took the LAT to task in my last post for that meandering piece JILL LEOVY did on -- well I'm not sure what it was about except an AK-47, lots of shootings and something about elusive gangsters.
Today, I've got to thank the TIMES for alerting me to two bills that passed committee in the State Assembly and the Senate. JENIFER WARREN has the byline. Both bills would make it easier to visit state inmates. And boy, could it ever be made easier. In a word, prison visits are a pain in the ass.
Here's how it works. Once you contact an inmate by mail and he agrees to talk to you, you fill out a form and mail it to the particular institution. The prison then sends the paperwork over to the CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE where they do a background check on you. That process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. On one hair-pulling, teeth gnashing, phone slamming occasion, it took me nine -- count 'em nine -- months to get the DOJ clearance. Of course, they'd cleared me numerous times before but somehow they couldn't find my paperwork. They kindly offered to have me PAY to get fingerprinted again. I don't mind the fingerprint part. It's the paying for it AGAIN that pissed me off. I'm hoping they're better at tracking terrorists than they are at finding people who pester them twice a week, every week, for nine months.
Once you do get clearance to visit an inmate, that permission is apparently only good at that institution. I've had several occasions where I got permission to vist a guy in SUSANVILLE let's say. Then found out he'd been moved to MULE CREEK. The SUSANVILLE permission wasn't good at MULE CREEK so I had to apply all over again. Technically, all the CDC institutions are supposed to be linked to the same visitor database and the system should be the same all over the state. In reality, each institution is a sovereign entity and doesn't have to recognize policies from other institutions.
Once you do get to visit, the TIMES piece correctly points out that you're not allowed to bring a notebook or a writing instrument. I can understand the reason for that. One way of smuggling drugs into a prison is to soak paper in anything from liquid meth to LSD. And it's easy to pass an innocent looking sheet of paper to an inmate in a CONTACT VISIT situation. Same thing with a pen. Even a .39 cent BIC can make a devastating stabbing weapon if delivered somewhere soft and jellatinoid like an eyeball. So yeah, these are real concerns for prison officials.
The facility sometimes provide you with a few sheets of paper and the tiny nub of a pencil. The reason for the tiny pencil, of course, is that it's tough to use as a stabbing device. I can understand that. So why don't they let us bring a laptop. I've never heard of anyone getting stabbed or shot with a laptop. And what's with the no recording device?
On NO CONTACT visits, (the glass walls and phones you've seen on TV) I have been allowed to bring a notebook and pen. But no tape recorder or laptop. Trust me, there's nothing you can pass through those walls except looks.
I sympathize with the CDC. One of the big problems they have is information flowing into and out of jails. I'm not talking about the kind of information writers and journos are after but the kind that can get people killed on the street or in other prisons -- GREENLIGHTS, ORDERS etc. So if the CDC wants to monitor my conversation, have at it. They'll be reading about it anyway. Same goes for letters. This is a very serious concern for the prisons and dropping the standards for easier access is just one more avenue the bad guys can exploit for evil purposes. Even with the strict regulations, the prisons are already as leaky as a HAITIAN refugee boat. And the gangster intelligence net is impressively effective and robust. Giving bad guys another communication channel will not serve society.
Another issue the TIMES raises is the possibility of glorifying criminals through interviews with media. This is an argument made by victims groups and LAW ENFORCEMENT. This is another legitimate point. You can imagine what some supermarket tabloid or "reality" media would do with audio and video access to people like DAHMER, NG and that psycho with the BOB MARLEY hair that killed his wives/daughters and his children/grandchildren. It's bad enough having a loved one murdered. Seeing the murderer on TV sandwiched between a segment on J-LO's ring and COURTNEY LOVE's boob flashing is just a heartless opening of wounds. This is a tough issue and I'm not sure if anyone can construct a policy that would prevent disgusting exploitation and still allow even-handed access. SB1164, the bill under discussion would allow cameras, notebooks and recording devices in jail interviews. Good luck on threading through that minefield. It would make my work easier but it could turn into NBC's NATURAL BORN KILLER OF THE WEEK SHOW.
Clearly, I've got a dog in this fight and I'd like to have access that's more streamlined and one that makes it easier to do my work. I'd like to have a still camera and a tape recorder. I wish it would happen. And I hope those who might abuse the privilege don't make me regret that my wish came true.
I took the LAT to task in my last post for that meandering piece JILL LEOVY did on -- well I'm not sure what it was about except an AK-47, lots of shootings and something about elusive gangsters.
Today, I've got to thank the TIMES for alerting me to two bills that passed committee in the State Assembly and the Senate. JENIFER WARREN has the byline. Both bills would make it easier to visit state inmates. And boy, could it ever be made easier. In a word, prison visits are a pain in the ass.
Here's how it works. Once you contact an inmate by mail and he agrees to talk to you, you fill out a form and mail it to the particular institution. The prison then sends the paperwork over to the CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE where they do a background check on you. That process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. On one hair-pulling, teeth gnashing, phone slamming occasion, it took me nine -- count 'em nine -- months to get the DOJ clearance. Of course, they'd cleared me numerous times before but somehow they couldn't find my paperwork. They kindly offered to have me PAY to get fingerprinted again. I don't mind the fingerprint part. It's the paying for it AGAIN that pissed me off. I'm hoping they're better at tracking terrorists than they are at finding people who pester them twice a week, every week, for nine months.
Once you do get clearance to visit an inmate, that permission is apparently only good at that institution. I've had several occasions where I got permission to vist a guy in SUSANVILLE let's say. Then found out he'd been moved to MULE CREEK. The SUSANVILLE permission wasn't good at MULE CREEK so I had to apply all over again. Technically, all the CDC institutions are supposed to be linked to the same visitor database and the system should be the same all over the state. In reality, each institution is a sovereign entity and doesn't have to recognize policies from other institutions.
Once you do get to visit, the TIMES piece correctly points out that you're not allowed to bring a notebook or a writing instrument. I can understand the reason for that. One way of smuggling drugs into a prison is to soak paper in anything from liquid meth to LSD. And it's easy to pass an innocent looking sheet of paper to an inmate in a CONTACT VISIT situation. Same thing with a pen. Even a .39 cent BIC can make a devastating stabbing weapon if delivered somewhere soft and jellatinoid like an eyeball. So yeah, these are real concerns for prison officials.
The facility sometimes provide you with a few sheets of paper and the tiny nub of a pencil. The reason for the tiny pencil, of course, is that it's tough to use as a stabbing device. I can understand that. So why don't they let us bring a laptop. I've never heard of anyone getting stabbed or shot with a laptop. And what's with the no recording device?
On NO CONTACT visits, (the glass walls and phones you've seen on TV) I have been allowed to bring a notebook and pen. But no tape recorder or laptop. Trust me, there's nothing you can pass through those walls except looks.
I sympathize with the CDC. One of the big problems they have is information flowing into and out of jails. I'm not talking about the kind of information writers and journos are after but the kind that can get people killed on the street or in other prisons -- GREENLIGHTS, ORDERS etc. So if the CDC wants to monitor my conversation, have at it. They'll be reading about it anyway. Same goes for letters. This is a very serious concern for the prisons and dropping the standards for easier access is just one more avenue the bad guys can exploit for evil purposes. Even with the strict regulations, the prisons are already as leaky as a HAITIAN refugee boat. And the gangster intelligence net is impressively effective and robust. Giving bad guys another communication channel will not serve society.
Another issue the TIMES raises is the possibility of glorifying criminals through interviews with media. This is an argument made by victims groups and LAW ENFORCEMENT. This is another legitimate point. You can imagine what some supermarket tabloid or "reality" media would do with audio and video access to people like DAHMER, NG and that psycho with the BOB MARLEY hair that killed his wives/daughters and his children/grandchildren. It's bad enough having a loved one murdered. Seeing the murderer on TV sandwiched between a segment on J-LO's ring and COURTNEY LOVE's boob flashing is just a heartless opening of wounds. This is a tough issue and I'm not sure if anyone can construct a policy that would prevent disgusting exploitation and still allow even-handed access. SB1164, the bill under discussion would allow cameras, notebooks and recording devices in jail interviews. Good luck on threading through that minefield. It would make my work easier but it could turn into NBC's NATURAL BORN KILLER OF THE WEEK SHOW.
Clearly, I've got a dog in this fight and I'd like to have access that's more streamlined and one that makes it easier to do my work. I'd like to have a still camera and a tape recorder. I wish it would happen. And I hope those who might abuse the privilege don't make me regret that my wish came true.
OVERCOMING WRITER'S CELL BLOCK
I took the LAT to task in my last post for that meandering piece JILL LEOVY did on -- well I'm not sure what it was about except an AK-47, lots of shootings and something about elusive gangsters.
Today, I've got to thank the TIMES for alerting me to two bills that passed committee in the State Assembly and the Senate. JENIFER WARREN has the byline. Both bills would make it easier to visit state inmates. And boy, could it ever be made easier. In a word, prison visits are a pain in the ass.
Here's how it works. Once you contact an inmate by mail and he agrees to talk to you, you fill out a form and mail it to the particular institution. The prison then sends the paperwork over to the CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE where they do a background check on you. That process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. On one hair-pulling, teeth gnashing, phone slamming occasion, it took me nine -- count 'em nine -- months to get the DOJ clearance. Of course, they'd cleared me numerous times before but somehow they couldn't find my paperwork. They kindly offered to have me PAY to get fingerprinted again. I don't mind the fingerprint part. It's the paying for it AGAIN that pissed me off. I'm hoping they're better at tracking terrorists than they are at finding people who pester them twice a week, every week, for nine months.
Once you do get clearance to visit an inmate, that permission is apparently only good at that institution. I've had several occasions where I got permission to vist a guy in SUSANVILLE let's say. Then found out he'd been moved to MULE CREEK. The SUSANVILLE permission wasn't good at MULE CREEK so I had to apply all over again. Technically, all the CDC institutions are supposed to be linked to the same visitor database and the system should be the same all over the state. In reality, each institution is a sovereign entity and doesn't have to recognize policies from other institutions.
Once you do get to visit, the TIMES piece correctly points out that you're not allowed to bring a notebook or a writing instrument. I can understand the reason for that. One way of smuggling drugs into a prison is to soak paper in anything from liquid meth to LSD. And it's easy to pass an innocent looking sheet of paper to an inmate in a CONTACT VISIT situation. Same thing with a pen. Even a .39 cent BIC can make a devastating stabbing weapon if delivered somewhere soft and jellatinoid like an eyeball. So yeah, these are real concerns for prison officials.
The facility sometimes provide you with a few sheets of paper and the tiny nub of a pencil. The reason for the tiny pencil, of course, is that it's tough to use as a stabbing device. I can understand that. So why don't they let us bring a laptop. I've never heard of anyone getting stabbed or shot with a laptop. And what's with the no recording device?
On NO CONTACT visits, (the glass walls and phones you've seen on TV) I have been allowed to bring a notebook and pen. But no tape recorder or laptop. Trust me, there's nothing you can pass through those walls except looks.
I sympathize with the CDC. One of the big problems they have is information flowing into and out of jails. I'm not talking about the kind of information writers and journos are after but the kind that can get people killed on the street or in other prisons -- GREENLIGHTS, ORDERS etc. So if the CDC wants to monitor my conversation, have at it. They'll be reading about it anyway. Same goes for letters. This is a very serious concern for the prisons and dropping the standards for easier access is just one more avenue the bad guys can exploit for evil purposes. Even with the strict regulations, the prisons are already as leaky as a HAITIAN refugee boat. And the gangster intelligence net is impressively effective and robust. Giving bad guys another communication channel will not serve society.
Another issue the TIMES raises is the possibility of glorifying criminals through interviews with media. This is an argument made by victims groups and LAW ENFORCEMENT. This is another legitimate point. You can imagine what some supermarket tabloid or "reality" media would do with audio and video access to people like DAHMER, NG and that psycho with the BOB MARLEY hair that killed his wives/daughters and his children/grandchildren. It's bad enough having a loved one murdered. Seeing the murderer on TV sandwiched between a segment on J-LO's ring and COURTNEY LOVE's boob flashing is just a heartless opening of wounds. This is a tough issue and I'm not sure if anyone can construct a policy that would prevent disgusting exploitation and still allow even-handed access. SB1164, the bill under discussion would allow cameras, notebooks and recording devices in jail interviews. Good luck on threading through that minefield. It would make my work easier but it could turn into NBC's NATURAL BORN KILLER OF THE WEEK SHOW.
Clearly, I've got a dog in this fight and I'd like to have access that's more streamlined and one that makes it easier to do my work. I'd like to have a still camera and a tape recorder. I wish it would happen. And I hope those who might abuse the privilege don't make me regret that my wish came true.
I took the LAT to task in my last post for that meandering piece JILL LEOVY did on -- well I'm not sure what it was about except an AK-47, lots of shootings and something about elusive gangsters.
Today, I've got to thank the TIMES for alerting me to two bills that passed committee in the State Assembly and the Senate. JENIFER WARREN has the byline. Both bills would make it easier to visit state inmates. And boy, could it ever be made easier. In a word, prison visits are a pain in the ass.
Here's how it works. Once you contact an inmate by mail and he agrees to talk to you, you fill out a form and mail it to the particular institution. The prison then sends the paperwork over to the CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE where they do a background check on you. That process can take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. On one hair-pulling, teeth gnashing, phone slamming occasion, it took me nine -- count 'em nine -- months to get the DOJ clearance. Of course, they'd cleared me numerous times before but somehow they couldn't find my paperwork. They kindly offered to have me PAY to get fingerprinted again. I don't mind the fingerprint part. It's the paying for it AGAIN that pissed me off. I'm hoping they're better at tracking terrorists than they are at finding people who pester them twice a week, every week, for nine months.
Once you do get clearance to visit an inmate, that permission is apparently only good at that institution. I've had several occasions where I got permission to vist a guy in SUSANVILLE let's say. Then found out he'd been moved to MULE CREEK. The SUSANVILLE permission wasn't good at MULE CREEK so I had to apply all over again. Technically, all the CDC institutions are supposed to be linked to the same visitor database and the system should be the same all over the state. In reality, each institution is a sovereign entity and doesn't have to recognize policies from other institutions.
Once you do get to visit, the TIMES piece correctly points out that you're not allowed to bring a notebook or a writing instrument. I can understand the reason for that. One way of smuggling drugs into a prison is to soak paper in anything from liquid meth to LSD. And it's easy to pass an innocent looking sheet of paper to an inmate in a CONTACT VISIT situation. Same thing with a pen. Even a .39 cent BIC can make a devastating stabbing weapon if delivered somewhere soft and jellatinoid like an eyeball. So yeah, these are real concerns for prison officials.
The facility sometimes provide you with a few sheets of paper and the tiny nub of a pencil. The reason for the tiny pencil, of course, is that it's tough to use as a stabbing device. I can understand that. So why don't they let us bring a laptop. I've never heard of anyone getting stabbed or shot with a laptop. And what's with the no recording device?
On NO CONTACT visits, (the glass walls and phones you've seen on TV) I have been allowed to bring a notebook and pen. But no tape recorder or laptop. Trust me, there's nothing you can pass through those walls except looks.
I sympathize with the CDC. One of the big problems they have is information flowing into and out of jails. I'm not talking about the kind of information writers and journos are after but the kind that can get people killed on the street or in other prisons -- GREENLIGHTS, ORDERS etc. So if the CDC wants to monitor my conversation, have at it. They'll be reading about it anyway. Same goes for letters. This is a very serious concern for the prisons and dropping the standards for easier access is just one more avenue the bad guys can exploit for evil purposes. Even with the strict regulations, the prisons are already as leaky as a HAITIAN refugee boat. And the gangster intelligence net is impressively effective and robust. Giving bad guys another communication channel will not serve society.
Another issue the TIMES raises is the possibility of glorifying criminals through interviews with media. This is an argument made by victims groups and LAW ENFORCEMENT. This is another legitimate point. You can imagine what some supermarket tabloid or "reality" media would do with audio and video access to people like DAHMER, NG and that psycho with the BOB MARLEY hair that killed his wives/daughters and his children/grandchildren. It's bad enough having a loved one murdered. Seeing the murderer on TV sandwiched between a segment on J-LO's ring and COURTNEY LOVE's boob flashing is just a heartless opening of wounds. This is a tough issue and I'm not sure if anyone can construct a policy that would prevent disgusting exploitation and still allow even-handed access. SB1164, the bill under discussion would allow cameras, notebooks and recording devices in jail interviews. Good luck on threading through that minefield. It would make my work easier but it could turn into NBC's NATURAL BORN KILLER OF THE WEEK SHOW.
Clearly, I've got a dog in this fight and I'd like to have access that's more streamlined and one that makes it easier to do my work. I'd like to have a still camera and a tape recorder. I wish it would happen. And I hope those who might abuse the privilege don't make me regret that my wish came true.
Monday, March 22, 2004
CONFUSED BY THE LA TIMES? ME TOO.
In the March 22 LA TIMES, JILL LEOVY has one of her patented confuse-o-rama gang pieces, the kind that leave you less informed at the end than you were at the start.
Let’s start with the headline and sub-head. It reads as follows:
WEB OF CRIME PROVES TOUGH TO UNTANGLE
A small, changing gang cell appears responsible for some of the worst violence in South L.A.
Wow. Knock out story. I thought this was going to be a piece about the SOUTH LA equivalent of MURDER INC., the infamous Italian MAFIA murder-for-hire squad. The first three sentences certainly seem to point in that direction. Multiple murders, same area, same weapon. Whoah. Sounds like hard-core gunslingers taking out enemies either for fun or profit. .
But then you get to the meat of the piece and realize this is just LEOVY’S undigested, poorly-thought out and confused take on the criminal life. It turn out that an AK-47 semi-auto rifle, a .45 and a 9 mm handgun, in various combinations, were connected to a dozen shootings.
But then the AK-47 was confiscated and some of the shooters arrested and – SURPRISE, SURPRISE – other shootings and murders happened that involved semi-auto AK-style rifles and handguns. What gives?
The whole premise of the piece starts falling apart and then completely goes off the rails when LEOVY starts citing statistics that a third of murder defendants have no previous criminal record. Where'd that come from?
Then the piece really crashes and burns when she quotes South Bureau DC EARL PAYSINGER who says that chasing the guns is less important than finding the shooters. After all, he says, “people pull the trigger.” So what happened to the connection with the magic gun that did all the shooting? Nothing about this piece tracked. Just like her disconnected interview on PACIFICA RADIO some months back.
JILL, just FYI, here’s the deal with guns and gangsters.
Let’s start with the basics. There are two categories of guns we’re talking about here. First is the purely defensive carry gun. This could be anything from a tiny .22 to full-house .45 ACP.
Generally speaking, the carry piece is clean. And concealable, natch. It may have been used in a crime somewhere, sometime in the past, but the current owner probably doesn’t know about that. Given a choice, a criminal would much rather carry a clean gun than a dirty one. Just in case he's stopped by cops and they find it. Common sense.
The carry piece, as I said, is a DEFENSIVE firearm. It’s carried for that “Oh SHIT!” moment when the owner encounters a rival gangster or is suddenly drawn down on by a drive by shooter. In the military they call this surprise firefight a “meeting engagement.” In fact, last week two known gangsters walked on a murder charge because they fired in self-defense in response to a drive-by. See earlier post.
These are broad strokes I’m taking here, but generally speaking, gangs have a stash of OFFENSIVE guns. It could be a single gun or a closet full. Whether or not she’s aware of it, the subject of LEOVY’s story is the OFFENSIVE weapon. This is a weapon a shooter would “draw” from the ARMORY, if you will, to do a mission. The term ARMORY is not something a gangster would use, but in effect, that’s what it is. Most of the time, OFFENSIVE guns are long guns – rifles and shotguns. Handguns, unless used in short range situations, are a bad choice for a drive by or if you’re planning on firing into a car or through the walls of a house. Again, this is speaking generally. Sometimes handguns are used by secondary shooters as suppression fire weapons to keep opponents heads down while the primary shooter cuts loose with the long gun. In truth, virtually every kind of gun you can imagine has been used in drive-bys, but here LEOVY was talking about an AK-47.
It’s no surprise that a single long gun like the one in her piece would be used multiple times because chances are, that gun is "controlled" by a big homie. It could be stashed in the homie’s house or at the house of someone he trusts. The ARMORY, if you will. The armory "supervisor" may not even be a gang member but may be just an affiliate or somebody that owes the gang something.
Drive by shootings are planned, as opposed to the “meeting engagement” mentioned earlier. Some are planned better that others. Read “MONSTER” by CODY SCOTT or talk to gangsters and you’ll learn that part of the most minimal planning process is “how we strapped?” Which means what guns are available, who’s got them, where’s the ammo and who takes the guns back after we’re done?
Sometimes, the guns in the ARMORY are traded for other weapons which may have just as bad a history but come from another part of the county. The ARMORY stock is fluid. Guns come and go. They’re used as currency to buy drugs or buy a knucklehead out of a tough spot. If you owe your dealer a wad, he’ll probably take a gun in payment or partial payment. And that gun will get traded around or bought or just change hands when some homie gets arrested and goes to jail.
OFFENSIVE long guns, unlike the cheapo throwaway .22s and .380, don’t get dumped in ECHO PARK LAKE or into somebody’s back yard. They’re too valuable for that. They get returned and recycled for other operations even if they’re super hot with lots of crimes to their credit. In fact, a gun with a long criminal history can be an asset to the defense in court.
Think of this scenario. You’re a 16-year-old active gangster who’s just been connected to a homicide. You don’t have much of a criminal history as is the case with 30% of murder defendants, according to LEOVY’S piece. You’re arrested. The bullet(s) recovered from your victim match(es) the bullets found in five or six other homicides. The defense attorney, because he knows the gun’s history through the full discovery process, stands up in front of the jury during the argument phase and tells them, “The prosecution is asking you to believe that my young client, with no criminal history, is responsible not only for this heinous murder, but also for a string of shootings and six other homicides. This is preposterous. If this were the case, this young man would be the most notorious criminal since BILLY THE KID. He wasn’t even on the streets when three of those shootings happened. He was serving time in Youth Authority.” If handled right, being connected to a gun that’s really, really dirty can be an easy “NOT GUILTY” verdict. No jury is going to believe that any single person could possibly have committed so many murders.
Trust me on this one. I’ve seen it happen. So you see, JILL, a single gun with a lot of history is nothing new. It’s not some highly motivated “cell” as she calls it, committing a lot of homicides and operating like some death squad. It’s just a lot of active shooters taking lives and destroying neighborhoods and knowing how to work the system.
While I won’t say that her piece was totally without merit, I just don’t see what her point was. I mean, listen to this one. “But it is not just the shifting of guns that makes solving gang crime difficult. Suspects are a fluid, elusive group.” Yeah, Jill. That’s why they call themselves criminals. After they do something bad, they don’t immediately surrender to authorities. They try to evade suspicion and capture. That makes them elusive. Day in, day out, the LA TIMES is committed to the relentless pursuit of the obvious.
In the March 22 LA TIMES, JILL LEOVY has one of her patented confuse-o-rama gang pieces, the kind that leave you less informed at the end than you were at the start.
Let’s start with the headline and sub-head. It reads as follows:
WEB OF CRIME PROVES TOUGH TO UNTANGLE
A small, changing gang cell appears responsible for some of the worst violence in South L.A.
Wow. Knock out story. I thought this was going to be a piece about the SOUTH LA equivalent of MURDER INC., the infamous Italian MAFIA murder-for-hire squad. The first three sentences certainly seem to point in that direction. Multiple murders, same area, same weapon. Whoah. Sounds like hard-core gunslingers taking out enemies either for fun or profit. .
But then you get to the meat of the piece and realize this is just LEOVY’S undigested, poorly-thought out and confused take on the criminal life. It turn out that an AK-47 semi-auto rifle, a .45 and a 9 mm handgun, in various combinations, were connected to a dozen shootings.
But then the AK-47 was confiscated and some of the shooters arrested and – SURPRISE, SURPRISE – other shootings and murders happened that involved semi-auto AK-style rifles and handguns. What gives?
The whole premise of the piece starts falling apart and then completely goes off the rails when LEOVY starts citing statistics that a third of murder defendants have no previous criminal record. Where'd that come from?
Then the piece really crashes and burns when she quotes South Bureau DC EARL PAYSINGER who says that chasing the guns is less important than finding the shooters. After all, he says, “people pull the trigger.” So what happened to the connection with the magic gun that did all the shooting? Nothing about this piece tracked. Just like her disconnected interview on PACIFICA RADIO some months back.
JILL, just FYI, here’s the deal with guns and gangsters.
Let’s start with the basics. There are two categories of guns we’re talking about here. First is the purely defensive carry gun. This could be anything from a tiny .22 to full-house .45 ACP.
Generally speaking, the carry piece is clean. And concealable, natch. It may have been used in a crime somewhere, sometime in the past, but the current owner probably doesn’t know about that. Given a choice, a criminal would much rather carry a clean gun than a dirty one. Just in case he's stopped by cops and they find it. Common sense.
The carry piece, as I said, is a DEFENSIVE firearm. It’s carried for that “Oh SHIT!” moment when the owner encounters a rival gangster or is suddenly drawn down on by a drive by shooter. In the military they call this surprise firefight a “meeting engagement.” In fact, last week two known gangsters walked on a murder charge because they fired in self-defense in response to a drive-by. See earlier post.
These are broad strokes I’m taking here, but generally speaking, gangs have a stash of OFFENSIVE guns. It could be a single gun or a closet full. Whether or not she’s aware of it, the subject of LEOVY’s story is the OFFENSIVE weapon. This is a weapon a shooter would “draw” from the ARMORY, if you will, to do a mission. The term ARMORY is not something a gangster would use, but in effect, that’s what it is. Most of the time, OFFENSIVE guns are long guns – rifles and shotguns. Handguns, unless used in short range situations, are a bad choice for a drive by or if you’re planning on firing into a car or through the walls of a house. Again, this is speaking generally. Sometimes handguns are used by secondary shooters as suppression fire weapons to keep opponents heads down while the primary shooter cuts loose with the long gun. In truth, virtually every kind of gun you can imagine has been used in drive-bys, but here LEOVY was talking about an AK-47.
It’s no surprise that a single long gun like the one in her piece would be used multiple times because chances are, that gun is "controlled" by a big homie. It could be stashed in the homie’s house or at the house of someone he trusts. The ARMORY, if you will. The armory "supervisor" may not even be a gang member but may be just an affiliate or somebody that owes the gang something.
Drive by shootings are planned, as opposed to the “meeting engagement” mentioned earlier. Some are planned better that others. Read “MONSTER” by CODY SCOTT or talk to gangsters and you’ll learn that part of the most minimal planning process is “how we strapped?” Which means what guns are available, who’s got them, where’s the ammo and who takes the guns back after we’re done?
Sometimes, the guns in the ARMORY are traded for other weapons which may have just as bad a history but come from another part of the county. The ARMORY stock is fluid. Guns come and go. They’re used as currency to buy drugs or buy a knucklehead out of a tough spot. If you owe your dealer a wad, he’ll probably take a gun in payment or partial payment. And that gun will get traded around or bought or just change hands when some homie gets arrested and goes to jail.
OFFENSIVE long guns, unlike the cheapo throwaway .22s and .380, don’t get dumped in ECHO PARK LAKE or into somebody’s back yard. They’re too valuable for that. They get returned and recycled for other operations even if they’re super hot with lots of crimes to their credit. In fact, a gun with a long criminal history can be an asset to the defense in court.
Think of this scenario. You’re a 16-year-old active gangster who’s just been connected to a homicide. You don’t have much of a criminal history as is the case with 30% of murder defendants, according to LEOVY’S piece. You’re arrested. The bullet(s) recovered from your victim match(es) the bullets found in five or six other homicides. The defense attorney, because he knows the gun’s history through the full discovery process, stands up in front of the jury during the argument phase and tells them, “The prosecution is asking you to believe that my young client, with no criminal history, is responsible not only for this heinous murder, but also for a string of shootings and six other homicides. This is preposterous. If this were the case, this young man would be the most notorious criminal since BILLY THE KID. He wasn’t even on the streets when three of those shootings happened. He was serving time in Youth Authority.” If handled right, being connected to a gun that’s really, really dirty can be an easy “NOT GUILTY” verdict. No jury is going to believe that any single person could possibly have committed so many murders.
Trust me on this one. I’ve seen it happen. So you see, JILL, a single gun with a lot of history is nothing new. It’s not some highly motivated “cell” as she calls it, committing a lot of homicides and operating like some death squad. It’s just a lot of active shooters taking lives and destroying neighborhoods and knowing how to work the system.
While I won’t say that her piece was totally without merit, I just don’t see what her point was. I mean, listen to this one. “But it is not just the shifting of guns that makes solving gang crime difficult. Suspects are a fluid, elusive group.” Yeah, Jill. That’s why they call themselves criminals. After they do something bad, they don’t immediately surrender to authorities. They try to evade suspicion and capture. That makes them elusive. Day in, day out, the LA TIMES is committed to the relentless pursuit of the obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)