Thursday, March 19, 2009
Hannan / Law and Order / Legislature / Politics Nashville Gang Sign Ban Is, Like, Totally Nuanced, Homie
Posted by Caleb Hannan on Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Metro police are working on a law that would make gang signs illegal. So says the Tennessean, which makes it seem as if imitating Lil Wayne will automatically land you in the back of a squad car.
At first glance, banning gang signs seems like a law everyone, no matter their political stripe, can line up against. Libertarians can call it unconstitutional. Conservatives can decry the money wasted locking up every kid throwing up a pair of crooked fingers. And University School seniors can bemoan their lack of hand-gesture options during the obligatory pre-prom photo session. After all, what's a boy to do if he can't toss a little West Side flava at that Nikon?
But further inspection reveals that the law might actually work -- police Sgt. Gary Kemper, head of Nashville's gang unit, is on board, and no one knows more about Music City's Bloods, Crips and Gangster Disciples. That's because the ban isn't about putting more people in jail. It's about treating gangs like the cohesive organizations they're striving to be, thus nullifying them.
Here's the gist: Let's say there's a gang terrorizing downtown Nashville. For arguments sake we'll call them the Campfields. Everyone knows the Campfields are up to no good. They stalk about in the legislative plaza, flashing their signature sign (a "C", naturally) and robbing little old ladies...
According to Kathy Evans, the Metro lawyer responsible for writing the bill, Nashville police and neighborhood leaders would have to satisfy a high burden of proof that the Campfields are 1) a gang and 2) breaking the law. This would only be possible with tons of evidence -- in California cities like San Francisco and San Diego, where similar bans already exist, this means providing thousands of pages of discovery documents.*
*When first tasked with the assignment, Evans was razzed by fellow employees for working on something that, at first blush, seemed to blatantly violate free speech. They gave her her own gang sign: an upside down pointer finger, as in down with the First Amendment.
Evans says the bill is narrowly focused to target only actual gang members. The effect being that it reduces profiling and prevents gangs like the Campfields from grouping in their normal haunts. That makes recruiting new members more difficult. And research from other cities shows that, because gangs are extremely territorial, they're more likely to stay hidden rather than find a new place to gather.
"In the places where this has happened there's been a huge reduction in gang activity," says Evans. "It freaks them out to be on a list. It's the community saying 'We know who you are.' It's totally psychological."
The bill is still in draft form but will be in the legislature soon. Here's hoping, when it finally reaches the statehouse, people like Evans will actually have time to explain the intricacies of why it works, rather than pulling out plastic waterguns, making pew-pew noises and saying "gangs bad" over and over.
Comments (17)
Showing 1-17 of 17
Gang signs = speech. Freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
Bill of Rights > Metro Police.
like
dislike
Wow...so even the Scene is backing this absurdity. "Libertarians" aren't the only people who will find it unconstitutional. ANYONE WITH A BRAIN WHO CAN READ should find it as such.
Kathy Evans...you are SHAMEFUL.
I am not sure how they will prosecute this, but something needs to be done. I sub teach in as many inner city schools as I can (my pie in the sky way of trying to be a solution, not just a critic....)anyway, I was teaching at several of the schools on picture days. We had a terrible time getting the kids to quit flashing signs in both their group as well as individual pictures. The youngest group I escorted was first grade. Too bad and so sad that they look up to these gangs.
I consider myself a Libertarian, but the behavior in schools due to gangs is dangerous and one well placed sign in a crowded high school hallway is dangerous, maybe deadly. It is comparable to yelling "fire" in a crowded room. Free speech is one thing, but these signs are not only used to identify, they are used to intimidate and initiate dangerous behavior.
Does this mean that University of Florida fans will be locked up if the Gators play at Vanderbilt Stadium and they do the "jaws" gang sign? If not, why not?
Stupid law. Unconstitutional law.
Oh c'mon DG, you and I both know that's not what we're talking about here. Courts in California and Texas have upheld the constitutionality of their own versions, and they way Tennessee's proposed law is currently written, the definition of "gang" will be even narrower than in either of those states.
It's not about locking up thug-wannabes or a thousand Gator fans doing the chomp. This is about outing known gang members who are actively involved in lawless behavior, i.e. criminals. The standards are incredibly high, that's why the Metro gang unit is involved -- they're the ones who've been taking notes the whole time.
I understand the initial reaction; it's the same one I had upon seeing "gang sign ban." Just trying to say there's more to it than meets the eye.
DG--
Only if the Gator fans are packing and start using their chomp "sign" to imtimidate cheering Vandy fans into silence or be shot. Or maybe they will shoot up Mama's house in a drive-by on the way back to I-24. That is when it crosses from being a harmless cheer motion into a form of deadly intimidation and fear.
Yes, but who decides who is a gang member? It seems to me kind of circular here--that the flashing of gang signs is used to label someone a gang member and now, because they've been labeled a gang member, it's illegal for them to flash gang signs.
I don't understand how this holds up under the 1st Amendment. It doesn't matter that they're criminals--they still have a free speech right. And they have the right to assemble.
I don't like it. It doesn't matter if everyone "knows" these guys are criminals, until they've been charged and found guilty, they have every right to do whatever they want as long as it is legal and standing around and acting like a dumbass with your friends is legal. Creating special cases in which the Constitution doesn't apply to certain groups of people, even if they're people we don't like, just doesn't cut it for me.
Pretty sure our forefathers could get behind a law that bans the Gator chomp. I know I can.
I guess the "Fangers" is out too at the Preds games...... limiting people to do this is not going to stop the gang problem.
Usually there is not a problem when they stay on their turf. The problem for most of us occurs when they cross paths in a public place. If you see rival signs being thrown at a theater, downtown street, park, or high school basketball game, you better get out of Dodge. Would you even notice or see rival signs being thrown?
I'm not trying to be contentious, but so what? If police now see a bunch of kids standing around throwing gang signs, they are allowed to say to themselves "Oh, that leads no place good" and tell the kids to move along. They can already do that right now. They can arrest them for loitering, or, depending on where they are, trespassing.
And none of that requires making exceptions to the first amendment.
So, what purpose is served by outlawing gang signs that isn't already being served by existing laws?
Aunt B., you've got me shaking like a lilac. Your mind is just plain sharper than mine, your constitution more tenacious. So instead of offering a counterpoint, hows 'bout we just try to get more specific?
The term we're all grasping for here is gang injunction. It follows a very simple idea: that gangs, like other organizations, can be sued in civil court.
The result are what are known as safety zones. So, using the example above, if a neighborhood group provided sufficient evidence to a civil court judge that the Campfields were doing some illegal crap in legislative plaza, that judge could prohibit them from flashing gang signs, tagging or associating together in that ONE AREA. Not all over Nashville. Just there. And not just anyone. But only the people who, through strict documentation, have already been identified as members of that gang.
I totally get the arguments against it because it's difficult to see what this will actually look like in practice. Just wanted to offer some details I probably should have included above.
(And here's a suggestion for the Metro officials pushing this: take a cue from the Bushies and name this something like the Neighborhood Reclamation Act, i.e. make it sound like you're an asshole if you vote against it. The quicker you can disassociate yourselves from "gang sign ban" the better.)
I think I'm just going to have to read the bill when they get to it, because I'm just not seeing how making flashing gang signs illegal helps and/or doesn't violate the 1st Amendment.
I don't know. I am of two minds. Of course I don't want active gang members who are engaged in criminal activities in my neighborhood. But, if they are going to be in my neighborhood, I sure as hell DO appreciate them making it obvious who they are.
Anyway, you go ahead and poke fun at the lilac, but if you knew from whom it came... Well, let me just say that you'd be in Pete's office right now brainstorming about what awesome present he should be giving me.
Let's not be stupid. Free speech is vitally important, but it has never been the case that all speech, regardless of content or context, is always protected. To suggest that it is displays a complete ignorance of the history of First Amendment interpretation. The Supreme Court has ALWAYS taken a nuanced (to steal Caleb's word) approach to this subject. Constitutional law is complicated stuff, and requires more than knee jerk responses. I'm not saying I'm in favor of the so-called gang sign ban, but I'd like to actually read what they come up with before I form an opinion.
Also, I don't have even the slightest acquaintance with Kathy Evans, but I feel that someone should point out in her defense that as a government lawyer, she does the work she is assigned to do. It doesn't exactly sound like she was clamoring for this task, but it was given to her, and so she really only ethically has two choices: to resign her job, or to do what she's been asked to do to the best of her abilities (which is what she appears to be doing). So bashing her is a little unfair.
DG - Are you one of the gang members yourself to say such a ridiculous statement as unconstitutional & stupid law. Get smart DG. I can't believe you want the gangs to get bigger and meaner and kill your family and friends.
