Community members push back against Oakland gang injunction
A gang injunction proposed by the city attorney's office could clamp down on crime over 100 blocks in North Oakland.
Dozens of community members are mobilizing against a proposed gang injunction in North Oakland near the Emeryville and Berkeley borders.
The group meets tonight, March 23, at 5:30p in the gymnasium at Bushrod Park.
The Oakland city attorney's office filed the injunction in February, though it must be approved by a judge to go into effect. The injunction would make it illegal for certain gang members to be together in public or take part in a range of activities that are already illegal.
Gang injunctions are civil orders that are punishable by fines up to $1,000, and up to six months in jail.
Supporters of such measures say they make neighborhoods safer by cracking down on gangs and crime. Opponents say injunctions criminalize daily activities, lead to racial profiling and give police too much power.
Community members concerned with the effect an injunction would have in North Oakland have met twice in March to come up with a plan to voice their anger, suspicion and disapproval.
Last week, at the Ella Baker Center in North Oakland, more than 30 local residents and members of various juvenile and social justice groups came together to brainstorm.
Jory Steele, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, provided an overview to the group about injunctions.
Steele said she was concerned that injunctions tend to be a sign of political aspirations for those who pursue them, allowing officials to appear "tough on crime." But injunctions, she said, have been shown over and over to fail to help communities.
The ACLU opposes all gang injunctions and says they are at best ineffective and at worst a tool to promote racial profiling and criminalization of daily activities.
"I take everything that comes with these injunctions with a huge grain of salt," Steele said.
All those in attendance seemed to agree that injunctions would only criminalize area youth, while failing to address any of the root causes of violence.
Some pointed out that injunctions often go into effect in areas slated for gentrification, rather than in the most violent neighborhoods.
"I mean, does North Oakland even have a gang?" asked Anita Miralle, who runs a group called Healthy Hoodz, which offers a series of workshops to increase quality of life in Oakland through nutrition, music and other means.
"That's a good question," answered other members of the the session.
"Regardless of whether there are gang members here, this is about racism and violating civil rights," said another attendee. "It's about wedging communities against each other."
Oakland police have provided photographs to the media of several young men they say are gang members. The young men are covered in tattoos and appear to have long rap sheets. The group was involved in a high-profile case last May in which one young man was killed in what authorities called a "mistaken-identity shooting," and two other bystanders were killed in a subsequent car chase.
According to police, North Oakland gangs include the Gaskill Maniacs, Bushrod Cold Gunnaz 59, ASAP/FT, 600 The 6 and 6100. Though they claim different areas in North Oakland, they have joined together, police said, to fight a south Berkeley gang.
But local residents at last week's meeting said they believe police have exaggerated North Oakland's gang problem to tap into federal grants, such as those that address domestic terrorism.
"Police come and say, 'These are gangs,'" said Jack Bryson, who attended the Ella Baker Center meeting. "Man, we live in this community. How is this a gang?"
The group discussed ways to reach out to the community, from door knocking to signature gathering, in time for a meeting in late April where a judge will decide if North Oakland would benefit from the injunction, which would cover 100 blocks and could affect up to 70 alleged gang members.
Oakland officials have said they will pursue other injunctions down the line.
Organizer Manuel La Fontaine, of All of Us or None, said the community would be much better served by more programs for jobs and education. He called injunctions "a one-dimensional approach."
"Instead of arresting me, harassing me and treating me like a gang member, why not find ways to help me be more accountable?" he said. "Talk to people, talk to family members. You have to look at all the problems."
Bushrod Park is located at 5900 Shattuck Ave. in Oakland, between 59th and 61st streets. For more information, e-mail Manuel La Fontaine at manuel@prisonerswithchildren.org.
An Oakland judge is scheduled to hear arguments about the proposed injunction on Apr. 22.
READ MORE ON OAKLAND LOCAL ABOUT GANG INJUNCTIONS
Story Features
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
From Manuel La Fontaine via e-mail: Many people in last week's anti-gang injunction meetings are part of Plan for a Safer Oakland (PSO), which is comprised of community members who care about all people in Oakland. PSO is focused around a three point plan, which includes providing accessible, comprehensive support and services for people returning from prison; investing city resources in people and not police or prisons; and standing up for Oakland’s youth who continue to be targeted and criminalized by the police. Not only are we critiquing a huge problem in Oakland, policing at its worst, but we have a proactive plan that, if taken seriously by not only elected officials, but residents and people who genuinely care about Oakland, would without a doubt make Oakland safer.
Chris Vernon
I, too, would agree with Chris and others who have opined that the evidence of gang activity is overwhelming. In fact, I was in the home of a young mother who, in 2004, was standing on her front porch with her infant in her arms when a young gang member let loose with an Uzi, spraying the neighborhood with bullets, one of which lodged in the wall within a foot or two of her. This was part of the North Oakland/South Berkeley gang warfare that resulted in the death of 8 young men, 6 in Berkeley and 2 on 58th St. one block from Bushrod Park, in Oakland.
I live in North Oakland too, and have been attending these meetings, and am part of a Plan for Safer Oakland.
While we agree that there are problems with violence in our neighborhoods, we don't agree that the injunction is an effective way to make our community safer. It doesn't address the root causes of violence such as poverty and unemployment. Heavy-handed policing tactics have a poor track record when it comes to reducing violence in the short run, and they never work in the long run. For more, check out this study: http://www.justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=22.htm
The injunction has some shocking provisions that are means for legalized racial profiling, stripping our community members of their civil rights. The gang injunction takes away the basic rights of people being served in civil court, so folks caught out being past 10 pm for example have no right to an attorney. They are guilty until proven innocent (but it makes it a lot harder for them to prove themselves), and according to the ACLU, the opt-out provision is very weak. More incarceration does not serve anyone well - it's expensive, it tears apart communities, and does not solve any problems (it only causes them!).
A war on gangs is a war on youth and underprivileged communities. The police have made clear that they intend to use policing to create "economic development" in Oakland - a code word for gentrification and economic pushout.
Oakland doesn't have the money to waste on an inefficient and unfair policing venture. Let's invest in the strengths and programs and families in our communities. Let's use Plan for Safer Oakland's 3 point plan: 1. reentry support and services for people returning from prison, 2. invest in people, not police and prisons, 3. stand up for youth
More information about the meetings and actions is coming soon!
I am a former street organizer, what police, criminologists and others would refer to as an “ex-gang member." I, wholeheartedly, agree with Lisa'a comment. As someone who has done time in California's most notorious prisons, I have witnessed, first-handedly, the repercussions of being labeled a gang member. It can be the difference between serving your time or being put in a prison within a prison, what is called the SHU. For those who are not familiar with gang life, but are mistakenly labeled by law enforcement agencies for the sake of fulfilling quotas or building a case for the district attorney, the repercussions can be detrimental, and in some cases deadly. Imagine that your grandson or nephew is hanging out with another cousin or friend who has been previously labeled a "gang member", and they get pulled over as they are driving or detained while they are hanging out in front of Bushrod Park. Your grandson or nephew is then asked for his identification, asked a few questions and then released. A few months later he is detained again because he fits the profile of being in a gang: he is wearing a white t-shirt, has dreads and was making furtive movements. He then finds out that he is in violation of a gang injunction and is subsequently arrested! Now it easy to make the postulation that your grandson or nephew knows better and is not going to be involved in any "nonsense"; but my own parents believed that I could not be involved in such meaningless and "senseless" activity. I strongly urge the readers to read an op-ed from a columnist with the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02herbert.html
I am not here to question your grandson's, or nephew’s gang affiliation. I just want to denote that it is easy to assume that we will never have to personally deal with our own children, family members or close friends' children being involved in any "gang" activity. Unfortunately, we cannot predict the future. But since this economy has hit everyone hard, particularly low-income communities, people have been forced to create and sustain themselves from alternative incomes that may be "senseless" to many, but not to the ones who are helping mom, grandma or themselves make ends meet, in the absence of any caregiver or positive role models. Now of course, like in any economy, competition is always in the forefront, but since we do not understand the informal economy, we automatically assume that any violence committed by people or groups of people we don't understand is meaningless and perpetrated by “gang members.” It behooves communities in Oakland to look for other alternatives to address violence, whether at the hands of individuals or groups of individuals. Even Chief Batts made a statement that these efforts to make Oakland safer by the police are “Band-Aids” and that the community needs to come together to make changes. We must demand that we divest from police and put the $400,000+ (which I believe is an underestimation) to better use. Let’s build and fund community centers. Let’s help create accessible, comprehensive re-entry services for those returning from incarceration. Let’s pay educators equitable and sustainable salaries. Let’s give our young men and women of color alternatives to survive instead of arresting them, chasing them and removing them from the great City of Oakland. The reason for my transformation was that I had an entire community behind me. Let’s defend our youth, our young men and women of color and not allow the “slave-catchers” to implement injunctions that resemble modern-day “black codes”. We need to promote a new generation of leadership, not continue to fill prisons with young African-American and Latino men and women.