Posted on 06/05/2009 1:46:32 PM PDT by LottieDah
Gangs have always been in NYC. Cop or not, if you don’t know that you don’t know anything. Gangs were in LA in the 1950s, I should know, I lived there at the time, I grew up in the 1950s, graduated from HS in 1959, NYC had gangs then. Do you really think they went away in 1970? The biggest gang in the area of LA I lived in, Bell Gardens, were the Puchukos(spelling my be off)had a tatoo on the web between thumb and forefinger(a cross with spikes radiating out from it). The NYC gangs were less well known but they were there. Gangs started up anew because of the repeal of prohibition, the mafia needed something to take the place of booze so drugs were it. Gangs jumped on the band wagon because it was an easy way to get money. By the 70s gangs were flourishing all over the US, including NYC. Had your eyes closed did you? Must have if you were a cop then and didn’t know the gangs were operating in your area.
If you don’t know the difference between ‘gangs’ and OC then there is no point continuing.
> If you don’t know the difference between ‘gangs’ and OC then there is no point continuing.
Don’t be silly. That’s not what I was asking. Not all OC are gangs and not all gangs are OC. There is however overlap. I was asking about the influence of LCN on gang activity in NYC.
And I just gotta laugh when some guy who grew up in LA in the 50s tells me I don't know about my hometown in the 70s.
The gangs in NYC were not so much about money as they were about testosterone and turf. Cocaine changed that.
And, there is a difference between gangs, gang-bangers and gangsters.
> And, there is a difference between gangs, gang-bangers and gangsters.
In our argot, the first two are synonymous. We don’t have gangsters IMO. Not the real thing. Or if we do, they are quite invisible.
I fully agree.
When TSHTF I will turn first to ice cream tasters and tennis boys for leadership as regards survival.
They will be in the best position to survive.
Oh.. wait.....
Fairy tales used to start out, “once upon a time”, now they start with, “a new study says”.
Further evidence that women vote differently than men.
Women, generally, are more likely than men to trade freedom away for security.
Ummmmmmmm.... I think you’re reading way more into my post than you really needed to. I don’t know of a single mom of a 7 yo boy who relishes the idea of him going off to war someday. Quite the opposite in fact.
Gang members are criminals. No one needs criminals. Former gang members might be just fine.
> Gang members are criminals. No one needs criminals.
Generally it is not a crime (at least not where I live) to belong to a gang. Freedom of Association allows people to belong to gangs with impunity. Where they get into trouble is when they use their associations to commit crime — then they become a part of a criminal conspiracy. But being a member of a gang is not punishable as a crime, in and of itself, and being a gang member doesn’t necessarily make somebody a criminal. That would be Guilt by Association, which does not form a part of our laws (or yours, for that matter).
> Former gang members might be just fine.
I’d agree with that: our organization accepts former gang members, and they tend to do quite well. We do not accept current gang members, not because they are criminals (they aren’t, necessarily) but because they’d have divided loyalty. I’d expect the divided loyalty would be an issue for the military too — if it isn’t, perhaps it should be.
You’re joking, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.