LAT FINALLY GETS IT RIGHT
In a follow-up story to SANA's bust in OC, Sam Quinones makes a couple of startling but long overdue admissions in the LA Times. For the first time, the LAT finally cops to the fact that the famous EME gang "truce" way back in 1992 was a "ruse." Anyone familiar with the subject knows that it was never a truce. It was merely a change in the rules of engagement. The edict from Sana, Chuco and Boxer was not "no more killing." It was "no more drivebys." A big difference. If somebody needed to be checked, it was going to be up close and personal. They said as much on FBI surveilance tapes which have always been available to the public after they were used as evidence in the big RICO cases mentioned in my previous post. The Times never bothered to look.
For years after the 1992 "park meetings" the LAT has held the opinion that LE was making the violence worse by taking "peace keeping" shot callers off the streets. The Times would back up that contention by quoting the usual suspects like Malcolm Klein, Diego Vigil, Greg Boyle and more recently, Tom Hayden. Hayden, in fact, repeated the "peace keeper" myth in his book "Street Wars." And like an echo chamber, the myth was picked up from that book and repeated in other media. If the Times writers were at all familiar with the dynamics of the relationship between the Eme and the neighborhoods, they'd know that a shot caller doesn't need to be on the street to control activity. They can do it from the SHU or anywhere.
The Times has also never written about the other items on the park meeeting agenda: taxation and organizing SOCAL gangs under the Sureno flag. This piece by Quinones finally sets the record straight.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think this article is the first major media acknowledgement that Boxer has debriefed. I follow this stuff as closely as I can, but I don't recall ever reading about Boxer debriefing prior to this piece.
Quinones went to some savvy guys for his piece: Rich Valdemar, Leo Duarte and Al Valdez. The collective knowledge of those three is encyclopedic and anyone who has worked with them or watched them testify as gang experts knows they go deep and way back. They all get props from both sides of the street for being fair and even-handed in their assessement of crimes and criminals.