Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Gangs lose in court, again 2nd civil injunction upheld
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionOnce again, a state court of appeal has weighed a narrow challenge to an Oxnard civil gang injunction, and denied it. By upholding the injunction, the justices have handed the community a victory and dealt a blow to criminal street gangs.
Monday, the Court of Appeal, 2nd District in downtown Ventura, rejected arguments that Mario DeLucas — who denied being a gang member, even though authorities identified him as belonging to the Southside Chiques — should have been heard during a court proceeding to determine whether the injunction should be made permanent.
Basically, the justices ruled that the injunction had "no direct or immediate effect" on Mr. DeLucas, who repudiated any gang affiliation and said he had not been served with papers identifying him as a gang member.
"This is the second case that a court of appeal has affirmed a gang injunction that our office has obtained against criminal street gangs in Oxnard," Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz told The Star. "I think it affirms the validity of using injunctions to help protect the community against street gangs."
The Southside Chiques injunction is modeled after one issued in 2004 against the Colonia Chiques, Ventura County's largest street gang. In 2007, the same court of appeal upheld that injunction with the exception of its curfew provision, which was ruled unconstitutionally vague.
The two civil injunctions, among other things, forbid gang members from creating a public nuisance by associating with one another, possessing weapons or drugs and publicly consuming alcohol within an identified safety zone. Those in violation can be arrested for contempt of court and sent to jail for up to six months, fined as much as $1,000 or both.
Since the gang injunctions have been in effect, the number of aggravated gang assaults in Oxnard has been cut in half, and crime by gangs — namely, murders, carjackings, robberies and witness intimidations — has dropped 70 percent, police report.
While The Star's Editorial Board supports the use of civil gang injunctions to protect law-abiding citizens, it realizes these injunctions, while certainly effective law-enforcement tools, are not a cure-all. Long-term programs addressing health, poverty, education and recreation are needed in a community to attack the gang problem.
Critics contend the injunctions are overly broad and give police a green light to harass anyone who even looks like a gang member. We haven't heard or seen anything that supports that claim since the two injunctions have been in place.
Through the use of gang injunctions and other intervention tools, Oxnard police have made positive strides in steering children away from gang life and in making the streets safer for crime-weary residents.
No matter one's thoughts on civil injunctions, it's chillingly apparent that Oxnard and all of Ventura County are better off without gangs.
Posted by JusAnAmerican on April 20, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad to see that as a resident of Ventura County, our law enforcement agencies fight gangs with every tool at their disposal.
Posted by Face on April 20, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Allowing gangs to exist in our community at all blows my mind. All gangsters should be pressed into a special service to serve 8 years. Would you allow a feral dog to run roughshod in your backyard, killing your pets and family members, destroying your property? I am betting the answer is No. So why would you allow feral kids to do the same to your community? They have lost their right to live in society and should be removed accordingly.
Posted by yotonto on April 20, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To the Stars Editorial Board,
Put your money where you mouth is, so to speak. Oxnard recently created a new TV Show called Straight To You, and you put it in the middle of the paper somewhere. This TV show is much needed by the community and is a great communication and educational tool for all the residents at large. But like I mentioned, that story was buried in the "B" section, it didn't even make the first page of that section.
But the Martin Polo case hits the front page above the Pope even! andyou don't have all the facts!!
At least be honest, crime sells papers, and money is more important to you than running a "positive" story that is really good for the city of Oxnard and it's neighbors.
Posted by archtmf on April 20, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There needs to be a countywide gang injunction. There is a lot more crime by the Oxnard gangs happening outside of the boundaries of the current injunction areas. And Ventura, Santa Paula and Fillmore based gangs are becoming more of a problem also.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 20, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I have not been a proponent of such injunctions, some of the features of which seemed excessive, there seems little doubt that they are effective.
It does seem to me there should be more recognition for those who abandon the "gang" lifestyle, and rewarding of those who move away. I'm not sure the current status of the injunction deals with this well.
Another problem I have is that if certain "activities" are only covered in specified areas....does that mean they are legal elsewhere??
Not to expand on the injunctions area...but if certain activities or behavior are illegal in one part of town...wny are they not illegal throughout the county?
Gangs are our current urban form of "terrorist" organizations. Perhaps our dealings with them should be broader.
Posted by jill on April 20, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If these little gangsters are going to act like kids, they will need to be monitored and punished just like kids. It's their own fault. Supposed non-gang members who feel victimized by the injunction can thank the gang members for that; don't blame lawmakers, who are just trying to protect the community. The injunction is a wonderful tool. It would sure be nice if these gang members would grow up and become responsible citizens and injunctions would no longer be necessary, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Posted by steveb36701 on April 20, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It does seem to me there should be more recognition for those who abandon the "gang" lifestyle, and rewarding of those who move away. I'm not sure the current status of the injunction deals with this well."
The injunction does deal with these items very well. If a person abandons the gang lifestyle (and can prove it), and/or the person(s) move away from the area, they DO NOT get arrested and DO NOT go to jail. Pretty good reward in my opinion.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on April 20, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More is made of what happens in Iraq (suicide bombers) blowing people up. Yet here in our own state (and country) we have home-grown terrorists killing motorists, children, grandparents, parents, etc on a daily basis. We complain because Iraq can't control its terrorists... ha, we should talk! Good job Oxnard PD... this shows you have a lot of good people; not just a few bad apples. Show VPD how to get a gang injunction and keep up the good work!
Posted by lrgvanman on April 20, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Terrorism in any form, no matter how minute, is intolerable and should be dealt with seriously. These people are terrorists and do nothing but degrade their surroundings. They should be exterminated as any pest is. Thank You OPD for your accomplishments against this, one of our homeland insecurities, and here's to growing confidence that we can and will put more than a dent in this senseless activity.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 20, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
darnit "steve" but it sounds to me like just abandoning the gang lifestyle is not enough for you....the person should "move away"..hmm..
Posted by steveb36701 on April 21, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom, go back and reread my post. I said give it up AND/OR move away... Giving up the gang lifestyle is a wonderful thing as long as it can be verified.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.