Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sacramento Appeasers Pay Gang Members To Not Kill People

Sacramento Appeasers Pay Gang Members To Not Kill People

“If you want more of something, subsidize it…” Ronald Reagan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2FvL1f180s

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Winston Churchill

While President Donald Trump has vowed that United States authorities will “destroy” the gang MS-13 as part of his crackdown on crime, the Sacramento City Council voted unanimously last week to pay gang members $1.5 Million to not kill people.

The controversial program the city plans to adopt, Advance Peace, claims it “interrupts gun violence in U.S. urban neighborhoods by providing transformational opportunities” to gang members involved in weapons offenses… paying them not to terrorize and kill people. The program, backed by the mega-Draper, Richards, Kaplan Foundation, was only founded in 2016 and first implemented by DeVone Boggan, a “Social Justice” warrior. His bio says he was the founding Director of Richmond’s Office of Neighborhood Safety from 2007 to 2016. Richmond has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, and earned the reputation as one of the most dangerous cities in America during that time. “The program is funded through combination of government money and private donation,” Fox40 reported. “A third of the program’s costs, which goes toward evaluations and training, comes from the government.”

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, the former Democrat Senate President Pro Tem of the California State Legislature, requested the vote in response to a shooting in Sacramento’s Meadowview park, which left one person dead and four injured, Fox 40 reported. The city council vote was scheduled to take place in two weeks, but Steinberg moved it up. “Let’s get going on doing everything we can to save innocent lives,” Steinberg told Fox 40. The City Council voted unanimously to approve the scheme, rather than spending the $1.5 million to beef up Sacramento Police Department gang units.

Steinberg has an extraordinary record and has done more to harm Sacramento and its residents during his tenure as Senate Pro Tem than perhaps any legislator in history. He’s in the pockets of the unions, actively hostile towards democratic rights and open government, and is a doctrinaire hard-core left-winger.  He is proving to be an utter catastrophe for Sacramento. Steinberg supported all of the gun control measures while in the Legislature, including increasing the depth of background checks on gun purchasers and all ammunition purchases, outlawing “assault rifles,” which aren’t actual assault rifles, and all of the other anti-gun bills violating our Second Amendment rights. Yet Steinberg thinks it’s a good idea to pay gang members not to kill people.

It’ll Never Work…

Office of Neighborhood Safety is “kind of on their own track and we’re on ours,” Richmond Police Officer Ben Therriault told ABC News in 2016. “I don’t know what they’re doing on the street level.” The ABC News story featured gang member Dawaun Rice who had “earned” the maximum amount available under the Advance Peace program for “choosing not to shoot,” but updated the article after Rice was charged with the murder of 29-year-old Javonte Prothro.

Compounding the issue, if the gang members involved are MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), a trans-national criminal gang that originated in El Salvador and has expanded to the United States, Canada and Mexico, this strategy will fail.  These El Salvador imports are in the U.S. thanks to former President Barack Obama’s disastrous open borders immigration policy during his second term. They are brutal and violent, and should not be paid to not kill; they should be imprisoned or deported. There is no compromise with these violent domestic terrorists.

“Advance Peace may also soon find its way to Sacramento,” Fox40 reported August 22, ahead of the city council vote. “Boggan says Sacramento city officials have been “assertive” in their pursuit of the program, showing that Steinberg already had this scheme in the works. “How bad has gun violence gotten in Sacramento, Calif.?” Fox40 asked. “City leaders now plan to pay gang members $1.5 million for a cease-fire.”

Sacramento’s Surge in Violence

But first let’s explore why gun violence has increased so dramatically in California, and why Sacramento is undergoing a surge.

We have Gov. Jerry Brown to thank for Assembly Bill 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57, which have undermined the rule of law in California.

AB 109, signed into law in 2011 by Brown, ordered the realignment or shifting of thousands of inmates from state prison to county jails.

The 2014 Proposition 47 ballot measure, pushed by Brown, reclassified many felonies as misdemeanors. California voters were sold on reforming the state’s drug laws with Prop. 47. However, the measure covered more crimes than non-violent drug offenders. Moreover, drug addicts are likely to get less treatment in the state’s drug courts because prosecutors have lost a bargaining chip in the plea process. Add to it the court-ordered prisoner releases as a part of the state’s prison realignment under the 2011 AB 109 law, and you have a state ripe for a surge in crime; such as in Richmond and Oakland, which even after Jerry Brown’s eight years on-the-scene as Mayor, the FBI still considers one of the most dangerous cities in America.

The 2014 measure’s backers and supporters told Californians that savings from releasing state inmates would free up  “hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which would be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services. “Prosecutors and police chiefs across California say it is behind a wave of petty crimes as offenders who previously were locked away now quickly get back on the street,” Chris Reed wrote in 2016. “Statistics released by the FBI and the California Police Chiefs Association back up their assertions.”

Proposition 57, “The California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative,” rounded out the undermining of law enforcement in California. The proposition was poorly written and allows criminals convicted of rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking to be released early from prison. Prop. 57 allows career criminals to be treated as first offenders, and it overturned provisions of victims’ rights legislation like Marsy’s Law, “three strikes,” Victim’s Bill of Rights, and the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act.

Government subsidies to gang members to “choose not to kill” will not do anything to help California’s gang-infested neighborhoods… it’s like paying ISIS a stipend to stop planting car bombs, suicide bombings and terror attacks.

“If you want more of something, subsidize it…” Ronald Reagan

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

OK, who do I call to get on this gravytrain? I have gunz that are too dangerous to have in Kalipornia and unless I get my extortion needs met, I might drive out there and start killing people. I am a “gang” of one, so I qualify. If any government agency is that stupid, they can be blackmailed via email.

I’d do it for half the money.

Well it is the capital of crazy land * SHRUG *

Note that these payments are to go to 50 people who are believed to be responsible for most of the gun violence in Sacramento, but against whom no case can be proven. I agree that appeasing them is not the answer, but what is?

    Look, shooters gotta shoot. And, leopards do not change their spots. The easiest way to eliminate gun violence is to target the illegal carriers of firearms. It is known as profiling. and it has worked everywhere it has been implemented.

    It is done in two ways. The first is to provide street level monitoring of people known or suspected of beig illegally armed, especially if they are engaged in other illegal activities. When circumstances present themselves to conduct a Terry stop, one is made and, if the person is armed, they go to jail. This gets the violent person out of society and into a controlled environment. It also reduces street crime in a community. The second phase is to build cases against these individuals for other criminal offenses. The vast majority of such people are career criminals and they can be brought to justice. It is a simple no nonsense, zero tolerance policy. As soon a community allows itself to tolerate these kinds of behavior, then the behavior will become more commonplace.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 7, 2017 at 7:43 am

      Following them around everywhere waiting for them to commit a crime soon becomes harassment, and they’ll get an injunction against it.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 1:08 pm

        Every LEO, with any experience, knows who the bad guys are in his area of responsibility. And, bad guys do not sit in their home 24/7. They7 venture out into the world. When they are out on the street, simply watching them is only harassment in the mind of the most liberal, criminal-loving judge. There is even a term for this practice, it is called surveillance. But, even more important is enforcing the law. It is pretty much impossible for anyone to walk around for any length of time without violating some law or ordinance. Drop a gum wrapper and you have littering. Making an enforcement stop for littering which involves a person known to carry firearms and you have grounds for a frisk. Find a gun and send the guy up the river for five years. This is called targeted policing. And it is extremely successful. It worked in NYC for years, bring street violence down considerably.

        Just as the government used Al Capone’s lack of accurate income tax returns to bring down a major bootlegger and organized criminal, violations of lesser laws can be used to bring down violent criminals who somehow manage to slip past the justice that they deserve.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 1:04 am

    It’s really not that hard to enforce the law if the obstructionist factions of our country would get out of the way and let the greater good be served according to strict interpretation of Constitutional principles. Enough of the flowery interpretation to mean whatever they decide they want it to mean for the flavor of the week.

    ‘Can’t be prosecuted’ is worthless hyperbole that only serves idiots like this and their idiot ideas. De-fund the pork, fund the police, root out the corruption, let the good guys actually do their jobs without harassment from the pinkos, and this can and will be fixed. It’s not rocket science.

      Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 7, 2017 at 7:41 am

      You mean ignore the law and the constitution and just lock people up because you believe they’re criminals. With that attitude you belong in prison, and if your proposal were implemented you would quickly find yourself there, with no recourse and no sympathy.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 9:11 am

        No that’s not what I mean…read what I said, Milly. yeesh you are reaching today.

          It’s certainly what your words mean. Without ignoring the constitution there is no way to prosecute these people. If there were, they would have been. When you write that “‘Can’t be prosecuted’ is worthless hyperbole” there is only one possible interpretation — that everyone can be prosecuted, regardless of the lack of evidence.

          @Milhouse: Read his words again.

          Here’s what I read (emphasis added): “It’s really not that hard to enforce the law if the obstructionist factions of our country would get out of the way and let the greater good be served according to strict interpretation of Constitutional principles.”

          You cannot serve “according to strict interpretation of Constitutional principles” while deliberately “ignoring the constitution [sic]”. They are mutually exclusive.

          And as I said below, there’s a difference between not being able to prove a criminal case against them, and not trying to prove such a case. I haven’t seen anyone here suggest throwing the suspected gang members in prison without full due process; what we’re suggesting (or at least, what I am) is three things:
          1. That prosecutors are opting to not bring cases against suspected gang members,
          2. That without bringing criminal cases, suspected gang members — even those actively engaged in violence — continue to have “clean” records and are (officially) “innocent” of all crimes (including “gun crimes”), and
          3. That all those prosecutorial decisions are made under political (and politicized) pressure from the city councils, mayors, and/or the governor.

          If the suspects are arrested and charged, they absolutely get their day in court; it is their right, and there’s no problem with that. The problem is, they’re not being arrested or charged, even when there’s sufficient evidence to do so, and therefore the victims are not getting their day in court.

          That’s not justice.

          Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 7, 2017 at 9:10 pm

          @Archer, “strict interpretation of Constitutional principles” is often code for ignoring everything the courts say on the fourth through eighth amendments, and even for the sort of fantasies popular in the “sovereign citizen” fringe, e.g. that the USA can’t own real estate, that treaties override the constitution, or that it only protects citizens, all the way to those crazy people who think gold fringe on a courtroom flag makes it an “admiralty court” and that spelling someone’s name in all-caps means it’s not them.

          healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 7, 2017 at 10:52 pm

          You’ve done lost it now…up is down if 1. the words actually in the Constitution are not the Constitution according to you and 2. you can assign your own meanings to statements that not only went unsaid but were stated in the exact opposite of your interpretive diatribe.

      herm2416 in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 7, 2017 at 8:22 am

      “Defund the pork”
      Hah! Good one!

    Prison.

    These monsters are manufactured in the welfare factories of democrat cities. There is no cure except to remove them from the streets.

    The only answer is to cease the policies creating new monsters. But then, the democrats would not have a base, nor would the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world have an income, nor would the likes of maxine waters, shiela jackson lee, hal johnson, etc etc be elected to high office.

      Prison?! Without proving beyond reasonable doubt that they’ve committed a crime?! If you were to do that it would make you a worse criminal than them.

        Just follow them for a day or two, and you’ll watch them commit a handful of felonies.

          healthguyfsu in reply to TheFineReport.com. | September 7, 2017 at 10:54 pm

          This is what I was trying to say above…this ranting lunatic is of the option that these are criminal masterminds with an expert grasp of dodging the law in plain sight.

          The truth is they aren’t scrutinized enough; they are left alone for PC reasons and for corrupt reasons. These are not exactly geniuses, but I will grant them that they are looking relatively smart compared to the idiots that just want to pay the bullies lunch money to be nice.

    Jackie in reply to Milhouse. | September 7, 2017 at 6:26 am

    The solution is if they commit a gun crime, put them in jail for the rest of their lives. If they are here illegally, instead of protecting them, deport them. Bribing them won’t change their behavior. It’s typical leftist self destructive behavior.

      Milhouse in reply to Jackie. | September 7, 2017 at 7:38 am

      Idiot. No case can be proven against them so how are you going to put them in jail?

        No case can be proven against them….

        Wrong. No case has been proven, but that is not the same as “no case can be proven”.

        Part of the problem — a huge part, IMO — is that the prosecutors in CA are political hacks who take their orders from leftist mayors and governors … who have a political interest in not arresting, prosecuting, or imprisoning/deporting violent gang members.

        They choose not to bring cases and call it “prosecutorial discretion”. In no way does it mean that no case could be brought or proven; just that they choose not to.

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

– Rudyard Kipling

4th armored div | September 7, 2017 at 12:09 am

guv moonbeam gotz lotsa cash –
whatta you mean he doan ?
natational guard needs calling out to patrol
this town that has no ICE pickeruppers.
Boss tells state workers: Kick ICE out of California labor offices
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article165111922.html

How long before the gangs get full benefits? They all could use some free housing, food stamps, possibly some transportation. Obama phones are already in use. How much will it cost to have them as reliable Dem voters? Never mind, it’s not their money, only taxes.

Great idea, now pay PP not to kill black babies and you save a lot more black lives.

Hey, Katy, could we avoid the split infinitive? Or don’t they teach that in journalism school?

    Milhouse in reply to sdharms. | September 7, 2017 at 7:52 am

    We could avoid it, but why should we? And no, they don’t. English has never had such a rule. Some bossy grammarians in the 19th century made it up for no valid reason, and convinced gullible people that following it would make them sound more edumacated.

    Many respected writers have made use of split infinitives, including Lord Byron, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Thomas Cromwell, Daniel Defoe, Elizabeth Gaskell, Benjamin Franklin, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

    My choice was deliberate.

I am a member of the “Gang of Old White Guys”. So far I am the only member, but I am considering taking applications so I can be impressive enough to apply to be paid not to kill anyone. I don’t have any real life experience killing anyone, even though I spent 22 years in the military (active & reserve). But I think that if they are going to pay bad guys not to kill people, they should also pay good guys not to kill people. (end sarcasm)

I get $25 per month from the Possum Holler (NC) Town Council not to litter, and another $15 not to jaywalk. It’s a start.

The Washington, D.C. city council had intended to implement a similarly idiotic scheme several years ago, proposing to give cash handouts to convicted criminals who refrained from committing additional crimes. In essence, this was nothing more than a self-imposed extortion racket, paying criminals “protection” money to ensure that they do what every law-abiding citizen in society manages to do every day, without pecuniary incentives.

What makes this scheme so stupefyingly moronic is that, in a rational society, freedom from incarceration and related penalties are supposed to be the incentives that motivate against recidivist urges — not cash payments.

This should be a movie

Hmmm anyone want to bet this may be the only legal income most of these folks will have ever earned

I wonder how many hoods from 51 to say 100 are going to be thinking … Huh wait just a sec are you saying if i had more bodies i would be getting paid right now… Any ideas as to their solution to this dilemma

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend