CALIFORNIA

[Evil Ryu]

Re: CALIFORNIA

A street gang is different from the mob. The mob is very organized to the point were they probably wouldn't make a move without an order. On the street, their are no orders. Its stand on your street and hold down the block and if a rival comes through, then you do what you gotta do. Your not gonna call your leader an be like " hey there's some cobras on our block what should we do?" I've been in it first hand so I know how it goes. So, murder doesn't always happen with an order.

theres your answer. straight from a man who used to be around it all

[NATE]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Just because someone changes their lives or become "saved" (which many claim after they are in prison), it doesn't resind or make their past offenses change.

It's amazing how an approaching execution date will make someone "a changed man". It seems that only the approaching end of his own life is changing the way he "is", which to me shows someone trying to save their own hide.

Think about it, if everyone knew the date and time they were going to die, wouldn't they "change"? Oh yeah, they sure would! But because none of us (except for Tookie) know when we're going to die, we live our lives as we always have. No need to change, because we aren't going to die today (or so we hope).

[T-Man007]

Re: CALIFORNIA

You keep saying this but you offer no argument to support your statement. Feel free to do so or it simply means nothing. In a general sense one can't be held liable for amnothers actions. Of course each rule come with it's exceptions to the rule. And in this case the extenuating circumstances more than justifies adding the exception.

I'm not saying you are wrong, i just want you to elaborate a little....

I can see both sides of this arguement. One side: althought eh guy started the crips, he can't be held responsible for everything every crip did. Especially while in jail because it would be 'physically' impossible for him to have a part in it at that point. Side two: without the founding of the crips, I'm sure without a doubt the level of crime committed in those areas would be less. Because of this man's direct teachings, leadership and criminal activity, what the crips do and have done is an 'indirect' result of him. Directly or indirectly, he is responsible for what the crips do. However, it's up to the law to decide if a man can be charged with crimes he did not commit indirectly.

[NATE]

Re: CALIFORNIA

theres your answer. straight from a man who used to be around it all

Thats my answer? sorry pal, thats not my answer, thats weak. Thats like saying ****** isn't responsible for the killings by his soldiers for the simple reason that he didn't have to hold each and every one of their hands and instruct them each time they killed.

Thats like saying Charles Manson isn't responsible for the acts of his followers because he wasn't there committing the crimes with them.

Thats like saying (hypothetically speaking here) that if Tookie ordered a hit on person X and simply said "just get the job done" without giving a detailed descrption of how he wanted it done, he's not responsible for the hit?

get real bro...

[Plucks]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Actually you can be held accountable for other peoples actions, see Charles Manson he was sentenced to death not for killing anyone but having his FOLLOWERS kill them. Its called Conspiracy. To say we are not to able to judge others is a hard thing to say. I mean we have laws and if those laws are broken then someone needs to be held responsible. I am from California i can tell you when i walked into my office today there was not a single person here that was like aww they shouldn't have done it. It was more hey its about damn time. We really aren't that big of a yupie state like everyone thinks we are.

[46and2aheadofme]

Re: CALIFORNIA

It's pretty clear that Williams can't be held legally responsible for every Crip killing (assuming there's no direct proof of him having ordered them). The question is whether we feel he is morally accountable for those killings. I think so. If there were only the 4 murders, I would read more before coming to a conclusion. But 4 murders plus founding the Crips - I don't have to think twice. It would make a complete mockery of justice to grant him clemency.

[Evil Ryu]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Thats my answer? sorry pal, thats not my answer, thats weak. Thats like saying ****** isn't responsible for the killings by his soldiers for the simple reason that he didn't have to hold each and every one of their hands and instruct them each time they killed.

Thats like saying Charles Manson isn't responsible for the acts of his followers because he wasn't there committing the crimes with them.

Thats like saying (hypothetically speaking here) that if Tookie ordered a hit on person X and simply said "just get the job done" without giving a detailed descrption of how he wanted it done, he's not responsible for the hit?

get real bro...

Alright, person x has a brother y and gangmember z murders brother y in front of person x. Do you really think that person x is saying damn gangmember z's leader?? NO!! person x is m.st likely holding gangmember z responsible for brother y's murder and is plottin on gettin back at gangmember z! You need to get real The holocaust has nothing to do with gang activity in the U.S>

[46and2aheadofme]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Alright, person x has a brother y and gangmember z murders brother y in front of person x. Do you really think that person x is saying damn gangmember z's leader?? NO!! person x is m.st likely holding gangmember z responsible for brother y's murder and is plottin on gettin back at gangmember z! You need to get real The holocaust has nothing to do with gang activity in the U.S>

I think it's entirely plausible that person X is saying damn gangmember's z's leader. I think there were a lot of person Xs (family members of Crip victims) that held Williams at least *partly* responsible and didn't shed a tear when the plunger fell.

[NATE]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Alright, person x has a brother y and gangmember z murders brother y in front of person x. Do you really think that person x is saying damn gangmember z's leader?? NO!! person x is m.st likely holding gangmember z responsible for brother y's murder and is plottin on gettin back at gangmember z! You need to get real The holocaust has nothing to do with gang activity in the U.S>

what does that have to do with anything? Your scenario isn't an ordered action, it's just a two bit chump killing somebody and probably killing him bc of gang affiliations at that.

and i wasn't saying the holocaust had anything to do with gang activity, i was merely stating that "leaders" are held accountable for actions taken by their followers wherever you look. Presidents, dictators, cult leaders, Terrorists, you name it, they are all held accountable...why should gang leaders (big or small) be any different?

i'm sorry, i thought you were a bit smarter than you are and was pretty certain that my point was very clear and easy to understand...next time i'll make sure it is....

[Evil Ryu]

Re: CALIFORNIA

what does that have to do with anything? Your scenario isn't an ordered action, it's just a two bit chump killing somebody and probably killing him bc of gang affiliations at that.

and i wasn't saying the holocaust had anything to do with gang activity, i was merely stating that "leaders" are held accountable for actions taken by their followers wherever you look. Presidents, dictators, cult leaders, Terrorists, you name it, they are all held accountable...why should gang leaders (big or small) be any different?

i'm sorry, i thought you were a bit smarter than you are and was pretty certain that my point was very clear and easy to understand...next time i'll make sure it is....

Whatever juggalo you make no sense. Everyone is saying that a leader of a gang is responsible for the actions of other members IF HE GIVES A DIRECT ORDER BUT IF NO DIRECT ORDER IS GIVEN THEN IT IS NOT ON THE LEADER. IN FACT FYI SINCE YOU PROBABLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GANG LIFE, MOST OF THE TIME MURDER OF A RIVAL FACTION OR GANG CAN RESULT IN DEATH TO ENSURE PEACE ON THE STREET. And that scenario was exactly my point, the murderer is a gang member and killed someone without a direct order from his leader. Thats what I am trying to get at. The fact that he did not take a direct order from a leader is my point. The leader is not responsible for him murdering that person. And how do you know that the one murdered is gang related?

[FUZO]

Re: CALIFORNIA

HEY BRO TAKE IT EASY THIS IS ONE DEBATE YOU WILL NOT WIN.


1-A LEADER TAKES RESPONCIBLITY FOR HIS SOLDIERS KILLING OTHER SOLDIERS WETHER HE GAVE THE ORDER OR NOT.TOOKIE POOKIE WHATEVER HIS NAME WAS IS A COLD BLOOD KILLER THAT KILLED 4 PEOPLE HE GOT CAUGHT AND WHO KNOWS HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE HE KILLED THAT HE DIDNT GET CAUGHT.HE SHOULD OF BEEN PUT TO DEATH LONG AGO.I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF HE TURNED HIS LIFE AROUND IN PRISON HE MURDERED 4 PEOPLE AND HAD NUMEROUS OF PEOPLE KILLED.THATS IT QUIT WASTING YOUR BREATH ON GANG SHIT. DUDE IS DEAD MOVE ON OR I CLOSE THIS THREAD.IF YOU CANT TAKE THE HEAT GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN BRO

[NATE]

Re: CALIFORNIA

Whatever juggalo you make no sense. Everyone is saying that a leader of a gang is responsible for the actions of other members IF HE GIVES A DIRECT ORDER BUT IF NO DIRECT ORDER IS GIVEN THEN IT IS NOT ON THE LEADER. IN FACT FYI SINCE YOU PROBABLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GANG LIFE, MOST OF THE TIME MURDER OF A RIVAL FACTION OR GANG CAN RESULT IN DEATH TO ENSURE PEACE ON THE STREET. And that scenario was exactly my point, the murderer is a gang member and killed someone without a direct order from his leader. Thats what I am trying to get at. The fact that he did not take a direct order from a leader is my point. The leader is not responsible for him murdering that person. And how do you know that the one murdered is gang related?

I actually think that neither one of us is understanding what the other is saying..I'm tired and have a headache now. I will read all of your post tomorrow when i havent been up for 18 hrs to see if i missed something and to avoid a needless/pointless argument between the two of us. well, untill tomorrow anyways.

[Evil Ryu]

Re: CALIFORNIA

I actually think that neither one of us is understanding what the other is saying..I'm tired and have a headache now. I will read all of your post tomorrow when i havent been up for 18 hrs to see if i missed something and to avoid a needless/pointless argument between the two of us. well, untill tomorrow anyways.

Sounds like a plan

[NATE]

Re: CALIFORNIA

And how do you know that the one murdered is gang related?

In your scenario? I just figured that since he was hanging out on the street with a known gang member then he was aslo affiliated with said gang. especially since a rival gang member killed him instead of his gang bangin brother...

thats how i saw your scenario.....

[Evil Ryu]

Re: CALIFORNIA

In your scenario? I just figured that since he was hanging out on the street with a known gang member then he was aslo affiliated with said gang. especially since a rival gang member killed him instead of his gang bangin brother...

thats how i saw your scenario.....

I see what i meant was that the brothers were not gangmembers. I probably should have stated that.