August 29, 2008
Awesomer than The Fan.
August 28, 2007
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.
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.
Bill @ August 28th, 2007 at 11:37 am
“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…
Eric @ August 28th, 2007 at 1:14 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.
Ross @ August 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
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…
Bill @ August 29th, 2007 at 10:01 am
i know someone it the gang
Chris @ October 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
» Will you be attending the Watermelon Festival? (20)
» When is the last time you rode a GRTC bus? (14)
» What’s the most interesting pet you’ve ever owned? (5)
» Where do you get free wi-fi in Carytown / Museum District? (12)
Browse through our archives for these categories: spare change, features, news
Or go back in time:
Written work © 2008 under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, unless otherwise indicated.
