West of the Boulevard News

News from the Carytown and Museum District areas

WWC found guilty of FELONIES

Posted on | August 28, 2007 | 5 Comments

Seriously people:

Four of the five youths were found guilty of felony gang participation charges and given 96 hours of community service. Judge J. Stephen Buis told them that if they stay out of trouble until a hearing in May, he might dismiss the guilty verdicts.

Absurd.

Category: News

Comments

5 Responses to “WWC found guilty of FELONIES”

  1. Bill
    August 28th, 2007 @ 11:37 am

    They cracked someone’s skull, and may have their guilty verdicts dismissed. Absurd? Absolutely.

    What I find absurd is that youth from other parts of town don’t get the same treatment.

    When this new “anti-gang” law was introduced to target “inner city” youth, there was no major outcry that minor crimes would carry too large of a sentence. Now that some west end white youth are caught up in the law, people are talking about how over-the-top it is. Felony gang participation- if these kids don’t deserve a conviction then no one does.

  2. Eric
    August 28th, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

    “Prosecutors said the teens met through a church group, shared an enjoyment of punk-rock music and lived a straight-edge lifestyle, shunning the use of drugs and alcohol and promiscuous sex.”

    PRISON they all need to go to PRISON. Shunning drugs and alcohol and sex. How dare they try to run a “gang” like that in Richmond…

  3. Ross
    August 28th, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

    Hey why not charge the kid(s) involved in the assault with, oh I don’t know, assault?

    I’m no lover of squads or crews, but I’m not sure that the group in question fits the definition of gang — which you can read here:

    “Criminal street gang” means any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, (i) which has as one of its primary objectives or activities the commission of one or more criminal activities; (ii) which has an identifiable name or identifying sign or symbol; and (iii) whose members individually or collectively have engaged in the commission of, attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of two or more predicate criminal acts, at least one of which is an act of violence, provided such acts were not part of a common act or transaction.

  4. Bill
    August 29th, 2007 @ 10:01 am

    Actually, it seems they fit the definition perfectly. At least so thought the judge in the trial.

    i) They existed to intimidate and beat people up
    ii) they had a name
    iii) they beat people up

    How does that not fit?

    The NAACP, ACLU, and Human Rights Watch all opposed this law because they were afraid it might lead to punishment too harsh for the crimes committed and lead to an even higher incarceration rate in this country. I say they were right. But, like I said earlier,it’s not just because some white west end kids got caught up in this mess…

  5. Chris
    October 21st, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

    i know someone it the gang

Leave a Reply