Gangmember snipzor (what if?)

[Gil Hamilton]

It is worse because the people expect the government to provide due process to those that break the law. Chardoks scenario is a what if that happened in this universe and in, I'm assuming here, the United States. The government couldn't legally allow the police to do that. Nobody has expectations for a vigilante besides the standards that they set. So, the social impacts would be different.

They've received due process in that scenario, it's just that the process that is due to them is not a trial by jury, but the police determining that they are a danger to society and it would benefit society that they be removed from it. This is exactly the process a vigilante gives them, except that with the police, it is actually legal, so long as the government says it is. In addition, the police have an opportunity to have set criteria to establish that an individual is sufficiently guilty to warrant summary execution and can conceivably punish police officers that make mistakes. As you say, there is no such standard for a masked vigilante, who only has his own standards and can't be held responsible for violating them.

[PeZook]

If we take all of those weirdo assumptions like that he can actually identify targets with 100% precision and stake them out every time and then add the bit where gangsters know it's some psycho vigilante, then the guy will be ambushed eventually. He needs to case his targets since he wants to know for sure they're gang members, and that means he can be spotted and taken out.

[Broomstick]

I don't know about you, but the way he phrased his question seemed to imply he can't see what's wrong with the idea (as enumerated by everyone else in the thread), which is reason enough to blast him for it. Yeah, Broomstick got worked up pretty fast; but then again, she has seen this shit up close and personal, so it might not be so surprising she would take offense to the suggestion that it was somehow "worth it".

I disagree. He asked a question. Allowing emotions to project implications into a question is not good for discussion. How about everyone just answers the questions and explains why instead of trying to give commentary on what they think Chardok is really saying. For the most part people have been doing that...just I find the emotional rage over a hypothetical scenario just wasteful.

Except - people sniping each other and gang warfare is NOT a hypothetical. There are real-world examples.

I used to be able to hear gunfire from the desk I worked at. I used to see people walk through our doors all shot up. I used to have to process the paperwork for our folks who died, and some of them died from this shit. People I knew by name and face. It's not hypothetical to me.

Excuse me if I get just a bit worked up about the cold-blood murder of people I actually knew, most of whom were NOT gang members but innocent "collateral damage".

[Broomstick]

Plus, there is the socio-economic problems I mentioned-- as soon as the sniper retires from vigilante justice for whatever reason (arrest, return fire, taking a vacation, getting too old, etc.) the gangs will spring back to life. And if he's going after organized crime of the more mafioso type, they can just take their operations someplace else.

I think he's talking gangs like the Bloods and Crips. I wonder if the behavior of these gangs would be changed due to the actions of the sniper. If the sniper did this for years that would leave a psychological impact. I just don't know what the result would be. Would the gangs take on a different role...perhaps stop their violence for fear of this vigilante returning? Would they become more violent?

Maybe you should look into the case of "Girl X", which occurred in Cabrini Green in 1997. The project's controlling gang, the Gangster Disciples, basically put a price on the rapist's head because they didn't appreciate someone else committing mayhem on their territory. Basically, the gang itself went vigilante - the leaders ordered the rank and file to find the rapist and assault him, basically teach him a lesson.*

If such a sniper showed up the gangs would go after him, specifically. And they might not worry too much who they had to go through to get him, or who might accidentally get hurt.



* As it happens, an anonymous tipster gave key information to the police, leading to an arrest in the case.

[Broomstick]

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to incite. I actually do wonder what sort of psychological impact there would be if all gangmembers knew they were a potential target and could get hit any time, any where, and it didn't matter if they were a low level toadie, or a big-time vato.

So... what makes you think that isn't pretty much how gang members live NOW? At least in some areas.

Just for funsies - let's also say it's widely circulated that it is known that these hits are *not* being peformed by rival gangmembers. How they arrive at that conclusive is irrelevant, let's just say that they have, and it's widely known within 2 weeks of the spree.

A significant number of gangs declare truce long enough to go after the snipers and eliminate him.

Meta-alliances between gangs are far from unknown - Chicago has had the Folk Alliance and the People Nation since the late 1970's, two separate groups of individual street gangs (think the Horde vs. the Alliance from World of Warcraft, except death isn't temporary and nobody is a good guy).

Relatives of dead gang members may become easy to recruit into the gangs out of feelings of revenge.

You're talking about one guy taking on high odds against him. You really thing one guy is going to make much of a dent in gangs whose members number in the thousands?

[Kamakazie Sith]

They've received due process in that scenario, it's just that the process that is due to them is not a trial by jury, but the police determining that they are a danger to society and it would benefit society that they be removed from it. This is exactly the process a vigilante gives them, except that with the police, it is actually legal, so long as the government says it is. In addition, the police have an opportunity to have set criteria to establish that an individual is sufficiently guilty to warrant summary execution and can conceivably punish police officers that make mistakes. As you say, there is no such standard for a masked vigilante, who only has his own standards and can't be held responsible for violating them.

I'm pretty sure due process isn't defined as being identified as a suspect by the police. Anyway, I think you agree that the social impacts would be different.

Maybe you should look into the case of "Girl X", which occurred in Cabrini Green in 1997. The project's controlling gang, the Gangster Disciples, basically put a price on the rapist's head because they didn't appreciate someone else committing mayhem on their territory. Basically, the gang itself went vigilante - the leaders ordered the rank and file to find the rapist and assault him, basically teach him a lesson.*

If such a sniper showed up the gangs would go after him, specifically. And they might not worry too much who they had to go through to get him, or who might accidentally get hurt.

Well, in the case of Girl X the gangs weren't directly threatened. Was there an increase in violence to catch this rapist?

Except - people sniping each other and gang warfare is NOT a hypothetical. There are real-world examples.

I used to be able to hear gunfire from the desk I worked at. I used to see people walk through our doors all shot up. I used to have to process the paperwork for our folks who died, and some of them died from this shit. People I knew by name and face. It's not hypothetical to me.

Excuse me if I get just a bit worked up about the cold-blood murder of people I actually knew, most of whom were NOT gang members but innocent "collateral damage".

Yes, there are real world examples. How does this change that fact that this scenario is hypothetical? It doesn't. Don't make excuses for emotional venting. I understand this scenario touched a nerve but don't pretend that suddenly makes your assumptions regarding Chardoks unstated personal opinion on this scenario suddenly valid. It doesn't. Your emotions got the better of you and compromised your thinking.

That being said I am sorry for your losses. Losing someone to gang violence is horrible. I see it all the time and I know that it can destroy entire communities.

[Broomstick]

Maybe you should look into the case of "Girl X", which occurred in Cabrini Green in 1997. The project's controlling gang, the Gangster Disciples, basically put a price on the rapist's head because they didn't appreciate someone else committing mayhem on their territory. Basically, the gang itself went vigilante - the leaders ordered the rank and file to find the rapist and assault him, basically teach him a lesson.*

If such a sniper showed up the gangs would go after him, specifically. And they might not worry too much who they had to go through to get him, or who might accidentally get hurt.

Well, in the case of Girl X the gangs weren't directly threatened. Was there an increase in violence to catch this rapist?

Remember, her identity was never made public.

There's no way to know if the gangs were or weren't "threatened" unless you know who she was. For all the general public knows, she might have been the sister, daughter, or some other relative to a major gang figure. I always wondered about that, given the gang reaction of "hunt the bastard down" since it's not like the gangsters are "nice people". They rob, rape, steal, murder, con, swindle, beat, and otherwise generate mayhem on a regular, if not daily, basis. So why did they start hunting Girl X's attacker?

There was a situation in Gary, Indiana a few years back when, in retaliation for the death of a gang member's relative, the retaliations escalated to the point of burning down several city blocks.

The point is - taking out gang members is NOT going to make them back down - if anything, it's going to make the fight back and attempt to recruit more people to their side. The hypothetical super-sniper will only make things worse until he is finally ambushed and murdered by the gangs, or captured and imprisoned by the police.

[Broomstick]

That being said I am sorry for your losses. Losing someone to gang violence is horrible. I see it all the time and I know that it can destroy entire communities.

How DARE you pat me on the head and say "there, there" in the same post you take me to task for daring to have emotions about cold-blooded murder! All this bullshit about being "rational" is just a veneer to make discussing first degree murder somehow acceptable.

I say it again - this "super sniper" concept is morally repellent and nothing less than proposing murder as a means of solving a societal problem. It's as thoroughly repugnant as seriously discussing how to butcher and eat babies in a "rational" manner, and decrying as over-emotional anyone daring to bring up the fact it is a disgusting illegal, immoral, and unethical act. Discussing "collateral damage" is just glossing over the fact that innocent bystanders would get killed or maimed, but hey, it's OK because they aren't people you know or care about, right? Wouldn't want to get emotional over the loss of human life, right?

Chardok asked "What if?" and didn't like the answer I gave - Mr. Super Sniper's actions would only increase violence, not solve anything, and innocents would inevitably be killed along with the guilty, who would be executed without trial and outside the law. This makes things better... how? Answer: it doesn't. There's no way to change that answer in the real world.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Remember, her identity was never made public.

There's no way to know if the gangs were or weren't "threatened" unless you know who she was. For all the general public knows, she might have been the sister, daughter, or some other relative to a major gang figure. I always wondered about that, given the gang reaction of "hunt the bastard down" since it's not like the gangsters are "nice people". They rob, rape, steal, murder, con, swindle, beat, and otherwise generate mayhem on a regular, if not daily, basis. So why did they start hunting Girl X's attacker?

It could be just because the victim was a kid. Even gang members have kids and something as brutal as Girl X, a nine year old, would piss a lot of people off. Even if Girl X was a child of a major gang member it doesn't exactly tell us how they will react.

There was a situation in Gary, Indiana a few years back when, in retaliation for the death of a gang member's relative, the retaliations escalated to the point of burning down several city blocks.

Huh. You'd think that an entire city block being burnt down would make more of a story...

The point is - taking out gang members is NOT going to make them back down - if anything, it's going to make the fight back and attempt to recruit more people to their side. The hypothetical super-sniper will only make things worse until he is finally ambushed and murdered by the gangs, or captured and imprisoned by the police.

The only solution for gang violence is to fix the social problems that lead to the formation of gangs. A super sniper isn't going to make much of an impact on a gang of significant size even if he is never caught and the social consquences due to the operation of this super sniper will far out weigh any potential benefits, if any exist.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How DARE you pat me on the head and say "there, there" in the same post you take me to task for daring to have emotions about cold-blooded murder! All this bullshit about being "rational" is just a veneer to make discussing first degree murder somehow acceptable.

I didn't take you to task for having emotions over cold blooded murder, in fact, I acknowledged those emotions and I can understand because I've seen it first hand but they ARE misplace in this thread. I took you to task because you incorrectly read into Chardoks posts and felt he was advocating the actions of the super sniper when in fact he was looking input from others and wanting to generating discussion regarding what social consequences there would be and if there would be any benefits that made those consquences worth it. Basically, this is an opinion piece.

There are people out there that would support the super sniper even with collateral damage but I doubt any of those people are very active on this board let alone going to post in this thread.

I say it again - this "super sniper" concept is morally repellent and nothing less than proposing murder as a means of solving a societal problem. It's as thoroughly repugnant as seriously discussing how to butcher and eat babies in a "rational" manner, and decrying as over-emotional anyone daring to bring up the fact it is a disgusting illegal, immoral, and unethical act. Discussing "collateral damage" is just glossing over the fact that innocent bystanders would get killed or maimed, but hey, it's OK because they aren't people you know or care about, right? Wouldn't want to get emotional over the loss of human life, right?

We're talking about a fictional scenario and the social benefits versus the consequences and what psychological impact may take place among gang members, citizens, and police. You've made your position clear regarding the morality of such a concept. Also, again for the last time. Nobody has said it is "OK". Not one.

And no, I don't see why anyone would get emotional over a fictional scenario. Sorry. I don't get that. The people in this scenario aren't real. Let that thought marinate before you respond.

Chardok asked "What if?" and didn't like the answer I gave - Mr. Super Sniper's actions would only increase violence, not solve anything, and innocents would inevitably be killed along with the guilty, who would be executed without trial and outside the law. This makes things better... how? Answer: it doesn't. There's no way to change that answer in the real world.

That's an interesting recollection because from what I could tell he found your post interesting and wanted to build off it. You stated that basically two gangs wiped each other out. Chardok wanted to hear if anyone thought that would be worth it. Obviously, the answer is a clear no. However, he didn't say he thought it would be worth it but that didn't stop you from responding to him like you felt that was his position. He went on to reiterate what he was looking for and again you incorrectly attributed that to some false idea that you thought he supported the idea. You said "I vehemently disagree with your position that what you propose is somehow OK or acceptable." The only problem with that is he never proposed that it was OK or acceptable. You projected that position on to him...

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to incite. I actually do wonder what sort of psychological impact there would be if all gangmembers knew they were a potential target and could get hit any time, any where, and it didn't matter if they were a low level toadie, or a big-time vato. So if I may - I'll try to answer questions behind our guys' motivations. they're obviously nuts, of course, and obviously a criminals, but in his mind, he's completely justified and is even performing a public service, you're very welcome. note that none of the public will know this information.

The more I think about this scenario the more I'm starting to think that there would not be any psychological impact because that is the life they live now. Even without this hypothetical scenario gang members are potential targets and can get hit anytime and anywhere and their status in the gang doesn't matter.

Just for funsies - let's also say it's widely circulated that it is known that these hits are *not* being peformed by rival gangmembers. How they arrive at that conclusive is irrelevant, let's just say that they have, and it's widely known within 2 weeks of the spree.

Realistically unless you were dropping a dozen of them per day I just don't see how one every couple days would have an impact upon the way things are. That's the reality they live in right now.

[Broomstick]

Remember, her identity was never made public.

There's no way to know if the gangs were or weren't "threatened" unless you know who she was. For all the general public knows, she might have been the sister, daughter, or some other relative to a major gang figure. I always wondered about that, given the gang reaction of "hunt the bastard down" since it's not like the gangsters are "nice people". They rob, rape, steal, murder, con, swindle, beat, and otherwise generate mayhem on a regular, if not daily, basis. So why did they start hunting Girl X's attacker?

It could be just because the victim was a kid. Even gang members have kids and something as brutal as Girl X, a nine year old, would piss a lot of people off. Even if Girl X was a child of a major gang member it doesn't exactly tell us how they will react.

Funny though - they don't seem to give a shit about most of the kids that are raped, beaten, or gunned down in the area they operate in... I never could figure out the source of their reaction in this case.

There was a situation in Gary, Indiana a few years back when, in retaliation for the death of a gang member's relative, the retaliations escalated to the point of burning down several city blocks.

Huh. You'd think that an entire city block being burnt down would make more of a story...

Yes, you'd think that.... Gary is largely ignored. It's been written off as a lost cause. The city is 85% black and black people getting killed or burned out somehow just doesn't seem to make the news. Its people, by many outsiders, are seen as expendable or unimportant.

The point is - taking out gang members is NOT going to make them back down - if anything, it's going to make the fight back and attempt to recruit more people to their side. The hypothetical super-sniper will only make things worse until he is finally ambushed and murdered by the gangs, or captured and imprisoned by the police.

The only solution for gang violence is to fix the social problems that lead to the formation of gangs. A super sniper isn't going to make much of an impact on a gang of significant size even if he is never caught and the social consquences due to the operation of this super sniper will far out weigh any potential benefits, if any exist.

Quite correct, we are in complete agreement here.

[Broomstick]

How DARE you pat me on the head and say "there, there" in the same post you take me to task for daring to have emotions about cold-blooded murder! All this bullshit about being "rational" is just a veneer to make discussing first degree murder somehow acceptable.

I didn't take you to task for having emotions over cold blooded murder, in fact, I acknowledged those emotions and I can understand because I've seen it first hand but they ARE misplace in this thread. I took you to task because you incorrectly read into Chardoks posts and felt he was advocating the actions of the super sniper when in fact he was looking input from others and wanting to generating discussion regarding what social consequences there would be and if there would be any benefits that made those consquences worth it. Basically, this is an opinion piece.

There are people out there that would support the super sniper even with collateral damage but I doubt any of those people are very active on this board let alone going to post in this thread.

I will reflect on the above. I do not entirely agree that such emotions have no place in this thread, but I will attempt to keep my expression of such disgust on a more rational level and take care not to project on others.

[dragon]

So basicily we end up with someone like the Punisher or Charles Bronson death wish movies. Some one that is hunted by bothsides. And just because he starts out with only killing gang members how long before he starts after other targets. Especially if he is alone and no support to help keep him on track.

[Chardok]

So basicily we end up with someone like the Punisher or Charles Bronson death wish movies. Some one that is hunted by bothsides. And just because he starts out with only killing gang members how long before he starts after other targets. Especially if he is alone and no support to help keep him on track.

In this scenario, there is no off-track. Our man is looking to get rid of gang members ONLY. never anyone else. he is compeltely single-minded. And he does have his spotter.

[dragon]

So basicily we end up with someone like the Punisher or Charles Bronson death wish movies. Some one that is hunted by bothsides. And just because he starts out with only killing gang members how long before he starts after other targets. Especially if he is alone and no support to help keep him on track.

In this scenario, there is no off-track. Our man is looking to get rid of gang members ONLY. never anyone else. he is compeltely single-minded. And he does have his spotter.

so no worrying about the slippery slope fallacy then. Makes things more straight forward.

[Formless]

So basically, he's no-limits, never makes mistakes, not even interesting for the fiction writer because he'll be written off as a Marty Stu, wankatron #309.

Are you going to keep trying to drag this thread away from any semblance of reality, or are we done yet? Because he's just one fucking man, even with the blessings of the author Q protecting him from human error and fallibility, there is only oh so much he can accomplish. That is, jack shit besides making the ghettos even more unpleasant to live in. Like I said, you can't solve gang problems with bullets alone.

[someone_else]

Except - people sniping each other and gang warfare is NOT a hypothetical. There are real-world examples.

As there are real world examples of war, torture, terrorism, schizoid serial killers that eat human flesh, and a cadre of other bad things. Since when talking about them is bad?

Back on topic:
Assuming this sniper ass-rapes any and all gangs of the area with 100% accuracy, those were and remain disposable pawns of the real criminal underworld, like narcos, mafia or whatever whave you for organized crime in the region and those have the men, the training and the equipment to deal with anything short of superman if pissed off enough (I think "throwing into chaos an entire city's worth of pawns" qualifies).

There is also the point of becoming overly predictable. Sniping can be countered with meat shields and by operating mostly underground or in a very cluttered environment.

Explosives, poisonings, betrayals, plunderings, sabotages, whatever. Any enemy requires a different approach, phisical violence and killings aren't always required.
Something ala Burn Notice would be cool.
Although won't save him from the pros sent from the real criminal organizations.

People will see him as a criminal, unless he expends inhuman effort to look good (something hard even for pulp comic heroes, nevermind a normal human being).

It's better if gangers don't know who he is nor how they are going to be attacked. Much more fear.

All in all, this will just give newspapers some juicy articles, and won't change really a lot.
As for most movements, the only real way to stop anything is to remove the need for it.
In this case remove poverty, racism, or whatever is the reason those guys are emarginated.

This won't eradicate the real pros, wich is mafia, narcos, or whatever kind of organized crime, since those exist for a wholly different reason.

[MKSheppard]

I've always wondered what would happen though if the police used tools available to them; such as RICO to essentially declare total war on large scale street gangs like Mara Salvatrucha.

For the uninitated; RICO means that if a member of a organization commits any of the following crimes:

Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);

Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);

Embezzlement of union funds;

Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;

Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;

Money laundering and related offenses;

Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);

Acts of terrorism.

You can then be arrested and charged for racketeering if you're a member of that Organization.

Certainly the activities of the Bloods, Crips, MS-13 et al meet the RICO statutes; so you can basically arrest every single known member of the gang, from the boss himself down to the foot solders and initatees and charge them.

Best part is, what are they going to do? Fight Johnny Law?

[Shroom Man 777]

Why don't they do it?

[Knife]

Why don't they do it?

Because nobody cares if the Mafia gets snagged by RICO, but if it went large scale, there would probably be huge lawsuits over the constitutionality of it. Basically it's a huge house of cards that nobody wants to look at because it'll fall down and let Al Capone off the hook, so nobody looks too close at it and they don't use it except for Mafia type guys nobody gives a shit about.

[Rabid]

Why don't they do it?

I don't know (not American), but maybe because of a lack of policemen, money, or most likely political will. Doing something like that would take a great number of policemen, lawyers, judge, and giant fucking balls of steels from the politician(s) ordering it ('accidents' do happen, sometime...).

Basically, it's Total War applied to law enforcement. Total War takes Money and Will in a gargantuan proportion. That and you have to mobilize the population behind your ideas or, as a politician, you're going to sign the end of your career.

Plus, the end results aren't fully guaranteed, so from an utilitarian standpoint it may not be the best course of action...

[MKSheppard]

Why don't they do it?

Because nobody cares if the Mafia gets snagged by RICO, but if it went large scale, there would probably be huge lawsuits over the constitutionality of it.

Ah, but we have precedent for making membership in certain organizations illegal and automatically assuming all of the bad things that the orgnaization does, even if you're a low ranking peon. I believe there are laws on the books that make it illegal to be a US citizen and have been a SS Mann. These have been used in deportation hearings aginst possible/former death camp guards who came here by lying on their immigration papers.

[Knife]

Why don't they do it?

Because nobody cares if the Mafia gets snagged by RICO, but if it went large scale, there would probably be huge lawsuits over the constitutionality of it.

Ah, but we have precedent for making membership in certain organizations illegal and automatically assuming all of the bad things that the orgnaization does, even if you're a low ranking peon. I believe there are laws on the books that make it illegal to be a US citizen and have been a SS Mann. These have been used in deportation hearings aginst possible/former death camp guards who came here by lying on their immigration papers.

It's a small scale precedent, and not a can of worms like taking RICO big time and throwing it at tens of thousands of people across the nation. You know as well as I do, that if they did that, ACLU and a dozen other groups would swamp the courts with lawsuits challenging it. Granted, might be a mixed bag in the end and go Federal and even SCOTUS, but it would be a huge political mess.

[aimlessgun]

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to incite. I actually do wonder what sort of psychological impact there would be if all gangmembers knew they were a potential target and could get hit any time, any where, and it didn't matter if they were a low level toadie, or a big-time vato.

While this may have been what you're looking for, it seems that the majority opinion is that it flat out wouldn't work: in any realistic scenario violence will increase temporarily and the guy will get caught/killed eventually. Maybe he could delay his end by moving constantly throughout the nation, but the level of fear to produce the psychological impact you're talking about wouldn't ever be reached.

Really the only way to instill some sort of fear/survival based mass behavior change would be if you vigilante was some sort of force of nature, like lightning strikes that targeted only gang members.