14 SC arrests in raids targeting Mexican cartel

[Captain Worley]

http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/994745.html



CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Federal authorities say 14 people have been arrested in South Carolina as part of the largest single strike at Mexican drug operations in the U.S.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin McDonald said Thursday the defendants will be detained until a hearing Tuesday in federal court in Charleston.
Attorney General Eric Holder says that more than 300 people had been arrested nationwide in raids aimed at La Familia, the newest and most violent Mexican cartel.

McDonald says authorities searching three homes and a storage facility in southern South Carolina also confiscated drug paraphernalia, a gun, and $30,000 in cash, as well methamphetamine, crack and powdered cocaine.

McDonald refused to give details about how the gang operated or moved drugs into the country.

[JDidGirl]

I'm glad they got these guys off the street, but it's like the plague... you remove 300 and 400 will be back to take their place.

[RPWeed]

These Mexican Cartels have gotten so far out of hand that you will start seeing more and more of this in the news in the coming year.

[anti-babble]

These are the same people that John McCain and his democratic allies want to reward with citizenship. The same people that the Dalai-Obama has said that we won't perform work place immigration sweeps so that we can deport them. The lunatics are running the asylum.

[Sarge]

I must have missed the part where Senator McCain stated that we needed to give criminals and members of drug cartels asylum or citizenship.

Oh wait must have been on Rush Limbo

[anti-babble]

He has been an advocate of amnesty for illegals for some time now.

[General Jack Ripper]

At some point in the near future, we will see the type of gun battle on some American street similar to the ones that happen weekly in Mexico. Then the American people will say with one voice, "Close that border!"

[Sarge]

General I am afraid you are right.

The people have been saying that for years, there are even laws on the books requiring it. We just don't enforce them. But as long as we continue to let businesses get away with hiring undocumented workers, they will keep coming. The only way to stem the tide is to stop the source of work. However I don't think that will happen. There is to much money being made in construction argiculture and such for business to allow govt to do anything.

But we are, and possibly me, are mixing Apples and Oranges, the drug cartel folks are not in the same class as the undocumented worker. The only thing they have in common is the fact they are here illegally.

[Sarge]

AB

If you look at the plan Senator McCain supports it makes sense.

I understand you want all illegals rounded up and shipped out. All, what is, it 15 million.

Our current Law Enforcement and Judicial system cannot or will not attempt to control the no-illegal, non-alien law breakers in our country.

You and I have had a discussion regarding Driving Under Suspension. Last stastic I saw was that over 20% of persons driving automobiles in this country are doing so either without insurance or on a suspended license. We cannot stem tis tide how in the He!! are we going to round up 15 million people.

Regarding Senator McCains so called amnesty bill, it requires the illegals to become documented, receive guest worker status, pay taxes on their earnings, and forces the employers to start paying payroll taxes. Anyone who does not do so then becomes a target for deportation and employers face stiff penalties for employing undocumented workers.

[swampfox]

I think these battles are already taking place in Texas and other border states. This is not an immigration issue, but a criminal one. The sooner we start treating gangs like any other terrorists the better off we'll be.

[Sarge]

Agree but mexican drug gangs are not the same as illegal lettuce pickers.

[swampfox]

I know. I didn't mean to say I disagreed with that. I'd just like to see ALL gangs regarded as terrorists, for certainly that's what they are.

[Sarge]

I concur and am my wits end trying to understand why we are not doing more to eradicate this scum.

[Captain Worley]

Concur.

[General Jack Ripper]

I concur and am my wits end trying to understand why we are not doing more to eradicate this scum.


There is a growing schism in our American society that is becoming a political headache for some leaders. The no snitch culture in the inner cities of our nation allows the gangs to intimidate the honest citizens that live in these thug-controlled neighborhoods.

Look at Chicago as example. If the violence is allowed to continue, the streets there will resemble Bagdad more than streets in the Land of the Free. The gang members are being protected by elements of the society that believe they are at war with the "haves" in our society. They see themselves as "have-nots" and the entitlements that they receive from the various government entities as a type of reparations that is due to them.

Progressive radio personalities instill and strengthen this idea in some people and are aided and abetted by the current administration's rhetoric. The ready cry of "racism" by many of the leftist speakers continues to define this "war" against the so-called "haves".

Some will read my comment and declare that my attitude is racist. To those I say that one does not defend against a bear as one would defend against a shark. If you are fighting a bear, you must call it a bear.

[Sarge]

Good points General:

Ina an effort not to argue but to discuss, would you agree that the conservative talk radio folks also contribute to this, he!! lets call it what it is, war.

My reason for this statement is that I doubt the the inner city thugs are listening to talk radio. What they do listen to is 3rd and 4th hand comments that say Obama said this, Maddow said that , Rush Limbaugh said this, someone said Limbaugh said this about Donovan McNabb.

Much like many of the poster on this board who rely on blogs as their source of information.

[swampfox]

Exactly! Except that I doubt the inner-city thugs listen to anything other than ultra-violent rap. The "no-snitch" policy has more to do with getting killed if they do snitch more than with any political or social movement.

The prison sentences are just not nearly long enough for the ones that do get caught, and there's not enough arrests being made re: gangs. I am still in favor of mandatory life sentences, without parole, for almost all violent crimes.

[General Jack Ripper]

Sarge, thank you for your invitation to a discussion.

Yes, Sir, I agree that conservative and liberal media is equally corrosive. Rush Limbaugh has little substance to offer and Al Sharpton the same. Neither, imho, has any more important agenda than their own self-aggrandizement and personal riches.

The observation that many in the inner-cities hear distorted versions of what is said on conservative radio is astute. I hadn't thought about it myself, but I think the train of thought is valid. I think it probably holds true as well that the progressive/liberal POV which they hear is also second-hand. Not much fresh information in your average rap song.

[General Jack Ripper]

The "no-snitch" policy has more to do with getting killed if they do snitch more than with any political or social movement.

Mr. Swampfox, I believe you are right. Wouldn't you agree, Sir, that the "no-snitch" phenomenon is more of a non-social movement. By that I mean that it is contrary to society and therefore is not organized or driven by ideology. And that it is non-social in that its ultimate evolution would be the absense of what we think of as society.



The prison sentences are just not nearly long enough for the ones that do get caught, and there's not enough arrests being made re: gangs. I am still in favor of mandatory life sentences, without parole, for almost all violent crimes.

I have to say that I would not be in favor of such draconian measures. Situational violence must be considered in situ.

I do, however, agree that more must be done to stem the growing power of gangs in particular. If you or I began training an "army" out on the back acres, we would be raided by the ATF in days. Why is the inner city and the recruitment/training of gangs treated differently?

[swampfox]

As you may know, I was a teacher for several years. The notion that ANY politically oriented media is a part of these kids' lives is mistaken. The only politics that matters to them is what goes on in their immediated surroundings. Unfortunately these days it has a lot to do with extreme violence, not only in the actual events around them but also in the music and all other media that they do listen to.

Note that I'm not talking about ALL young people in the inner cities, or even in small rural communities, these days. Just the gang members and gang wannabes. I curse whatever it was that made them violent, but at this point there is little alternative to separating them from the rest of society, usually forever.

It hurts to say this, but based on my experience I don't see an alternative.

[swampfox]

I was writing as you were posting, General.

The no-snitch thing is mostly out of practicality. For the most part the kids who won't snitch on the gangsters are not doing so out of solidarity with the gangsters. It is done for fear of getting killed by them and their associates if they do tell.

Courts have always recognized some mitigating factors in violent crime. The "crime of passion", especially under duress (such as finding one's spouse in the act with somebody else) has usually been enough to at least avoid captial punishment. But pre-meditated violence, such as in using a gun in a robbery or seeking out a "snitch", brutal violence without remorse such as gang wars, any violence toward children or anybody even just in part motivated by the fact that the victim is weaker and/or helpless, these must be mitigated only by the most extreme factors, and pity over one's upbringing must not enter the picture. Again it has to do with what one thinks that prison is for. Not for punishment (doesn't work), not for rehabilitation (almost never works), not for revenge (that's crazy), but rather to separate the violent ones from the rest of us.

I've taken a real interest particularly in youth violence even after I was at DJJ. There are kids who will kill in order to steal a pair of shoes, or for fun, or because somebody dared them to. Sure this is a sickness and attempts should be made to treat it, but after a certain point such treatment is usually fruitless. There is no reason why non-violent members of society should be endangered more than what is necessary for lack of alternatives. One alternative is life without parole. If we would empty the prisons of those who are there for victimless crimes like simple possession, there would be plenty of room.

[General Jack Ripper]

Our experiences differ, therefore our outlook does as well.

I will not consider the idea that no child can be turned from violent expression, that no young adult can be rehabilitated. As long as a man breaths, he can change. It is our moral responsibilty to facilitate that chance for redemption.

How, you ask? I don't know.

I wish I did.

[Sarge]

Perhaps the way to change is to go back in time to when we were maturing as kids.

We did not do certain things because our parents and authority figures taught us not to. There were certain other things we did not do because the punishment was just to great.

[Cliff]

At one time jail was a place no one wanted to be.
Now~The best of food, medical, a/c or heat, an education, entertainment, and the list goes on.

[Captain Worley]

Well, from my experiences, attempts at rehabilitation are generally well intentioned, but useless. I would be surprised if 5% of the people in prison actually turned the vo-tech skills they learned into a career.

Lots of good points here in this thread.

Kids aren't being raised any more, at least not to take responsibility for their actions. Also, I've noticed that there is a 'don't care as long as I get what I want' mentality amongst some of them. That isn't good for society.

As for the no snitch thing, Swamp is right, it is more survival than anything else. I have a feeling a lot of the shootings in Nort Columbia are because someone snitched or someone was afraid that someone would snitch on them. Sends quite a message shooting a snitch.

Prison sentences do need to be longer. gun crimes should be an automatic life sentence (except in self defense cases). And Cliff is right, the prisons are way to soft and comfy. They are a lot like summer camp; the food sucks, you hate the counselors, but all your buddies are there.

[swampfox]

Part of our stats when I was at DJJ, and they haven't changed:

90% recidivism, either back to DJJ again or to adult prison.

Half of our "clients" (they kept changing what we were allowed to call them) would be dead or in jail for life before they were 25.

Sure, now and then there is one who can be rehabilitated and we should make the attempt, but the perp should stay behind bars as long as it takes for rehabilitation to work. If it never works, he never leaves. I have seen too many inmates released when they were obviously still dangerous (and at DJJ most sentences were indeterminate, it was a choice when to let them go) and then they go out and commit more violent crimes, often murder. There is one case that I'll never get out of my mind. We released a kid way before his guidelines (indeterminate sentence) were up, over my personal objections which were always over-ridden by the social workers. He was perpetrating much violence in DJJ, even up to the night before he was released. Within a few days he had killed a young man leaving work at DHEC, on his way to his car. The man had a family. He was stabbed to death with a screwdriver. The kid didn't even rob him or try to get away. He just wanted back in prison.

Who's to blame? I think that's something we should look into and try to do something about. But in the meantime there is no reason why we should endanger the communities by letting habitual violent offenders back on the street. That's what prisons are for. Not punishment, not rehab, not revenge. But SEPARATION from the rest of society.

When rehab works, sure, let them go (depending on what the offense was). But those instances are rare. (Note: rehab NEVER works with sex offenders. Never.)

[Captain Worley]

Sure, now and then there is one who can be rehabilitated and we should make the attempt, but the perp should stay behind bars as long as it takes for rehabilitation to work.

My problem is with allocation of resources. is it really worth it to pay all those people to give criminals skills when 1) The vast majority won't take advantage of it, and 2) There are plenty of honest people who would love to have the opportunity to get the training, but can't afford it.



(Note: rehab NEVER works with sex offenders. Never.)

Nope. Permanent removal from society for those folks.

[General Jack Ripper]

When rehab works, sure, let them go (depending on what the offense was). But those instances are rare. (Note: rehab NEVER works with sex offenders. Never.)

I know a man who has a sex offense in his past. So I looked up some of the statistics.

Seems that an offender with an adult victim is highly likely to succeed in society upon release. In fact, according to the Dept. of Justice, the only offender with a better success rate is a first degree murderer.


Released prisoners with the lowest
rearrest rates were those in prison for
homicide (40.7%), rape (46.0%), other
sexual assault (41.4%), and driving
under the influence (51.5%).
<NOBR>• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released
rapists were arrested for another rape,
and 1.2% of those who had served
time for homicide were arrested for
homocide.

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=usdoj+recidivism+study&icp=1&w=usdoj+recidivism+study+studies&u=www.ojp.usdoj.gov%2Fbjs%2Fpub%2Fpdf%2Frpr94.pdf&d=Tv1lVN29Tqi6&_intl=us&type=page

I'm just saying...</NOBR>

[swampfox]

I doubt those numbers. I worked closely with the teachers who taught the sex offenders at DJJ. (They had their own special classes, could not go to class with the other "clients".) These teachers were experts, and not just with juveniles. We talked about it and I read articles that they gave me where the numbers were much much higher, nearing 100&#37;.

Now there are always some that do not re-offend (and we have to subtract the juvenile statutory rape offenders before we start, not the same thing, unless they're also violent). But those that do not re-offend, it's not because they were rehabilitated. It's usually because of severe restrictions on their freedom, sometimes including mandatory chemical castration and ankle bracelets that show where they are all the time.

I know a lot of people that do this kind of work, and it's just working knowledge that violent sex offenders are not rehabilitated.

[General Jack Ripper]

I doubt those numbers. I worked closely with the teachers who taught the sex offenders at DJJ. (They had their own special classes, could not go to class with the other "clients".) These teachers were experts, and not just with juveniles. We talked about it and I read articles that they gave me where the numbers were much much higher, nearing 100%.

Now there are always some that do not re-offend (and we have to subtract the juvenile statutory rape offenders before we start, not the same thing, unless they're also violent). But those that do not re-offend, it's not because they were rehabilitated. It's usually because of severe restrictions on their freedom, sometimes including mandatory chemical castration and ankle bracelets that show where they are all the time.

I know a lot of people that do this kind of work, and it's just working knowledge that violent sex offenders are not rehabilitated.

Well, there you are.

As usual, on this subject as with most others, you, Sir, fail Debate 101.

I wanted to touch base on this subject because I knew that you were uninformed and mistaken. That's okay. So... I quote the United States Department of Justice from the largest recidivism study ever conducted. I give you a direct link to the study (It's the Internet!!!) so you could see the information from a .gov website. No Glenn Beck. No Keith Olbermann, just the plain facts as reported by the top law enforcement organization in the country.

You then argue in absolutes citing sources as "we talked about it and I read articles".

Convince me, Sir. Show me the numbers from a legitimate source. Put some effort into your position rather than some omniscient confidence that I may not be so ready to accept on its face.

[anti-babble]

Nice debunking, General.

[swampfox]

"...uninformed and mistaken..."?

The same DOJ info source told us that juvenile crime was in a steep decline for several years when almost every local jurisdiction was reporting increases, and our numbers at DJJ were swelling on a daily basis.

You debase yourself on this one. Professionals working in the field might know something that you don't, or that the DOJ doesn't want to admit. Or maybe they don't want to admit that their statistical prowess is sometimes faulty.

And you fault ME for calling others names? Jump back, Jack!

[General Jack Ripper]

You haven't noticed, but we were dabating debating. Yet, you go forward with a rebuttal that is as insubstantial as water vapor.

I quote facts from the "professionals" at the federal DOJ, a practically unimpeachable source. You reply that they either don't know, don't know how to gather statistics, or are lying.

You are saying that you, personally are a more reliable source than the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

How can I rebutt that?

[swampfox]

You can't. Finally we get that out of the way.

[Captain Worley]

You are saying that you, personally are a more reliable source than the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

How can I rebutt that?


You can't. Finally we get that out of the way.

Wow. Just...wow.