Monday, April 27, 2009

73


View Larger Map
A man's body found at Christian and Smallwood streets by Samuel Morse Elementary, two weeks after the body of 30-year-old Russell Day was found close by.

Trial is scheduled to start tomorrow for the three defendants accused in the murder of Ken Harris: Charles Y. McGaney, 20, Gary A. Collins, 20, and Jerome Williams, 16.

Prosecutor: the Black Guerrilla Family pays $10k for hits on correctional officers

Drunken assaults and robbery around JHU (via Spotcrime)

Criminal perpetrators, fashion victims:
Two people assaulted and robbed an MTA bus driver on 33rd street. Police are seeking two suspects, one sporting a fur hat and the other in a hoodie and fuschia knit cap (for the record, it was 91 degrees today)

County police are ISO a woman with a pierced lip and a distinctive wrist tattoo accused of stealing an ATM card from a mentally-challenged sexagenarian to feed her Hot Topic addiction

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Black Guerrilla Family...

I am sure the gang meant Black Gorilla Family

Maurice Bradbury said...

are you WMAR's copy editor?

Anonymous said...

No I am not WMAR's copy editor. I just know that black street thugs would not know how to spell, let alone know the difference, between guerrilla and gorilla.

The guerrilla spelling has come from politically correct news reporters.

Anonymous said...

Mel: It's indeed Guerrilla. Check Wikipedia, google. It was started in the 1960s, not by some kids on the street last week

ppatin said...

Here's a story about the first day of sentencing for Patrick Byers.

Am I the only one who thinks our system for who gets the death penalty is asinine? What we ought to do is decide what crimes merit the DP, and then sentence anyone who's convicted of that crime to death. Instead we have pathetic spectacles like Byers' lawyer showing pictures of that thug when he was a kid, as if that in any way excuses or mitigates what he did.

buzoncrime said...

Mel can be forgiven: there is/was in fact a gang dominating the Barclay neighborhood in Baltimore which called itself the Young Gorilla Family. And I was as surprised as I could be that they did, in fact, use the "o", instead of the "ue".

Apparently, Young Gorilla Family is a Baltimore based gang, whereas Black Guerilla Family is national in scope.

A pox on both their houses. To paraphrase Commissioner Bealefeld: they don't believe in academic achievement, they don't believe in good will, they believe in force, violence, and intimidation. And, of course, drug trafficking, messing with people they don't even know, and murder. {Of course, if drugs were "legalized" both gangs would just go away, right?}

ppatin said...

"Of course, if drugs were "legalized" both gangs would just go away, right?"

No, but it would eliminate a lot of the financial incentive for them to engage in acts of violence in order to control "territory." When Prohibition ended it's not like the gangsters who sold bootleg booze all became law-abiding citizens, but they certainly seemed to wreak less havoc on society. I'm under no illusion that ending the "War On Drugs" will solve all of society's problems, but right now drug prohibition seems like the ultimate example of a failed big government program.

buzoncrime said...

P----Well, Peter Moskos, the former Baltimore Eastern District cop turned prof, would agree with you. So would the Economist magazine, which calls legalization the least worst option.

Buz thinks, that at this time, there would have to be widespread agreement among all the industrialized western countries about this. The U.S. could not undertake such action alone. (Though the recession/depression would probably be solved instantly! No more General Motors; just a general high!).
There are other fundamental differences between booze and other drugs, weed possibly in its own category. But I don't want my airplane pilot or train engineer high on anything except coffee. Decriminalization may work to some extent, but all of those substances are still going to be regulated or controlled. The private sector will pick up where laws might be relaxed.
And, yeah, everyone wants the right to "get high" for putting stuff into their bodies, but how many are willing to accept the responsibility for what the consequences are of what they do. Buz is always amused when in court people claim that they only did it because they were an addict (it's not their fault, the substance made them take it).

ppatin said...

Buz:

Rather than total legalization I think we might be better off with programs like they have for heroin addicts in Switzerland. Drugs are certainly NOT legal there, however someone who is hooked on heroin and has failed at rehab can receive heroin from a clinic as a way of managing their condition. It takes a lot of money out of the hands of drug dealers, it's better for the addicts and probably better for society as well. I'll need to look up more details on exactly how it's implemented, however it seems to have worked reasonably well so far.

Abstract said...

While I agree with alot said here.

"Buz is always amused when in court people claim that they only did it because they were an addict (it's not their fault, the substance made them take it)."

I'm amused when people that don't have real knowledge of addiction try to talk about it. You may have knowledge on addiction related crime, on that aspect I will let you be the expert, but it does by no means qualify you as to why someone did what they did. Addiction IS a disease, and though the drugs ARE the reason they stole, I agree it is not an excuse. They shouldn't be excused from doing it, however if you understand by treating addiction you prevent crime, then the world would be a better place. You don't clean an addict up by putting him in jail, all you do is make it 10 times worse, then release him back into society. People with addiction will get it no matter what. Criminalizing drugs doesn't do much but create gang territory, it doesn't stop the addict, in fact it creates them. If there were a better reason to do drugs then being arrested and labeled a criminal so you never have chance at a real life, then i haven't found one. If they legalize cocaine and heroine tomorrow are you all going to go out and buy some? Is that really what has stopped you?

ppatin said...

"Addiction IS a disease, and though the drugs ARE the reason they stole, I agree it is not an excuse. They shouldn't be excused from doing it, however if you understand by treating addiction you prevent crime, then the world would be a better place."

The problem is that the effectiveness of drug treatment is at best highly questionable. Lots of people go in and out of treatment programs and never clean themselves up.

Cham said...

Abstract:

Yes, you can get off of drugs in prison and get help. NA is very much alive and well in the Maryland prison system. The program is run by the prisoners. Over at Hagerstown there is a 4-6 month wait to get in the program. If you want help while you are in the system you can get it, but you might have to wait awhile and you better behave once you get there.

buzoncrime said...

P---I was just being a bit sarcastic and snarky about the gangs running around the Inner Harbor. People that run around in groups attacking people weren't doing it for the money; they were doing it as part of a group thing, if you will, "for fun".

And though, if drugs were somehow "decriminalized", these groups, would not stop declaring territory, and not stop doing illegal things, including black market selling of the now decriminalized drugs? Why should they stop? Oh, I suppose, depending on how one decriminalizes, the legal market would cut into their sales; Buz remains skeptical. A large factor in gang belonging is protection from the "other"-whoever that is.

I read some about Switzerland's heroin treatment program, and some aspects of it have a certain charm. The Lancet article of 2006 was generally supportive, but it did note that heroin maintenance was long-term, and for those who engaged in the program and stopped, virtually all re-entered the program within 10 years. It did, however, have the effect of heroin being now viewed as a drug for "losers" and "junkies". Who woulda thunk? Oh, and only 1300 of Switzerland's 30K heroin addicts are in the heroin prescription program.

Clearly, young folks like yourself and Abstract and Cham are trying to come to terms with this issue for the future. I did not notice in my short look any reference to other criminal activity or other measures of social health. One article lauded a guy who gets his heroin, goes to work, and plays dad on weekends. I guess that's possible; in fact, I've heard of "working addicts", but have yet to meet an actual one. In my experience as a vocational caseworker, the general rule of thumb is that persons currently using hard drugs will have extreme difficulty getting jobs, and if they do manage to get hired, will rarely keep the job for long.

Abstract---thank you for the compliment, and I suppose, the ass-chewing. Since you've declared me to be lacking in compassion--and I admire yours, a little context of my thinking might be in order.
Of course we know that addiction has been declared a disease by folks more highly educated than I could ever hope to be. And I can understand that it is difficult to stop using some drugs, but you know, they gotta want to. After my law enforcement career, I have worked at 2 non-profits, both seeing a high incidence of drug users of all kinds.
At the one I still work at part-time, 70% are court-ordered. So, I have talked to many addicts, and DWI offenders face-to-face and try to help them find employment. And, I must say: the ones that have been to DOC are much more motivated than those who have learned to game the system. I know it's anecdotal, but there it is: if you want to succeed in treatment, you often can. And, sometimes punishment or the threat of punishment is a motivator.

It seems difficult to follow your logic, at times. While you say that drug use is not an excuse for other crimes (besides possession), you seem to believe/feel that they should "get treatment", and not jail. Well, suppose they refuse to follow through with treatment? And they continue to commit crimes against the rest of us, larceny-from-auto; burglary; shoplifting, etc.? As P points out, the success rate of treatment is highly problematic in many programs; relapse rates for heroin are often 95%.
In my several year experience being around drug programs, two phrases often are heard: "he/she is not ready" or "persons who are SERIOUS can turn their lives around". These phrases are used both in conjunction with treatment and gaining employment. If you're not serious, it ain't gonna work.
So, if they say they are not responsible for committing crimes against the rest of us, yet they don't/can't stop, should we just throw out the laws for them?
While I appreciate your compassion, and am not lacking it myself (believe or not), my lack of bleeding-hearted liberalism is tempered by hard-headed compassion of experience.
One experienced therapist, a Vietnam veteran, who works in a treatment program told us: "ain't no addict around here who doesn't know where they need to go for detox." This same program has floor-to-ceiling mirrors in its common areas of the residential treatment facility. When I asked what's the deal with the mirrors, the answer was: "everywhere you look, there's a problem". Many of the folks I talk to who are current, recent, or struggling users are deeply troubled people. The drugs, and as you point out, the illegality of the drugs, just exacerbates their problems.
For the most part, if they were just given the drugs, they would still have trouble finding and keeping employment, with relationships, and with keeping out of legal trouble. Treatment is not a pill like an antibiotic; it's a long-term psycho-social process of personal change.

Almost no residential program will allow their patients to use illicit drugs while there; detection usually results in immediate expulsion. And these programs are run by what some might call bleeding heart liberals, and ex-addicts.
Perhaps we should keep Guantanamo Bay open and use it for addicts who claim they can't stop, but also can't succeed in treatment; however, they can't stop/won't stop committing crimes against the rest of us?
And though some folks feel sorry for the addict who presents in court and says the theft was because of addiction, I wonder why don't we feel similarly sorry for the drunk drivers who kill people (usually innocent people), who often are repeat offenders, but can't seem to stop drinking-and driving.

And yes, I think the illegality of heroin and cocaine does deter a fair amount of people from going out and buying it, and trying it, particularly young people.

This problems is a serious one that folks such as yourselves will struggle with to make public policy about. But any wholesale "decriminalization" which may occur, must occur in the context of society agreeing to accept a huge increase of use, addiction, accidents, and other maladies. Perhaps that is better than jail, but life is full of tradeoffs.