Gangmember snipzor (what if?)

[Zaune]

The populace would rise up against it because as others have repeatedly stated...innocents will likely die even if their innocence is just perceived (just look at how many feel that Lovell Mixon was innocent)...

... Another consequence to consider by the police would be an all time low of public mistrust thanks to the perception that the police are allowing these killings because the victims just happen to be gang members.

I wouldn't bet too hard on these two points, actually. For one thing, the bystanders killed in this are going to be from the same demographic as the gang members themselves; dirt-poor, coloured, illegal aliens or some combination thereof. A depressing number of people outside said demographic are going to think, "well, that's one less welfare cheque coming out of my taxes" and wish this sniper all the best; just look at some of the reactions to what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes, or Ian Tomlinson.
I wouldn't be enormously surprised if factions within the local police felt that way too, to the point where they started feeding this guy information; I'm sure it's not unheard of for inner-city precincts to play gangs off against each other, so how would that be any different? They can always tip the gangs off about him if he becomes inconvenient. (I have incidentally heard ugly rumours of the British security forces playing these kinds of tricks with the Ulster Loyalists, who are themselves a shining example of how concerned citizens doing their own law-enforcement can and usually does go horribly, horribly wrong.)

Also, there's another factor that deserves a mention. From a pure body-count perspective, especially of bystanders, it's debateable which is worse; a short period of all-out war and then a somewhat longer period of relative calm before another faction gears up to fill the resulting power vacuum, or the continuous low-level skirmishing that constitutes the status quo. That this solution would require significantly less effort and cost significantly less money than doing anything to actually give inner-city kids some upward social mobility options besides music, sport and organised crime would be the icing on the cake... if one happens to be ruthless and utilitarian in outlook to the point of sociopathy. I personally would consider that a drawback in a candidate for public office, but... well, there's other schools of thought.

And hey, at least it'd mean someone was trying, right? (There is no emoticon that could begin to describe my expression as I type these words.)

[Purple]

So this is like Death Note but with a sniper rifle? (For those not familiar, it's an anime about a kid who gets a magical notebook and uses it to cull crime from the world by exterminating all the criminals. By the end when he looses the implication is that he would have eventually came to murdering pick pockets and jaywalkers and lazy people.)


It will newer work and as others have said would only make things worse for a while before returning to the current state. The only way this could possibly work is if the guy somehow magically changed the system to discourage crime or alternatively if he simply went on a rampage and destroyed the entire demographic that spawns gang members the guilty and innocent alike. You know, the no recruits = no gangs logic.

And while the thought of killing all the poor, undereducated colored illegal aliens in order to destroy the gangs does sound somewhat logical it also sounds a lot (and by a lot I mean a hell of a lot, like say the size of Jupiter compared to an amoeba) more insane. Hence, that is not going to happen (Well at least we can hope not, history has shown that humans did try from time to time. Tells you something about us as a species.)

The gang issue is due to deep problems within the system that just can't be solved through murder.

[PeZook]

Actually they could be solved through murder if we make the assumptions Chardok made: that the murderer will be perfect, never kill an innocent and never get caught. However, if that was at all attainable, we could use these magical capabilities in proper law enforcement to just round up and instantly convict all gang members everywhere (and, indeed, all criminals), without the need to murder them, since the officers would also be able to attain perfect knowledge and perfect judgement.

[K. A. Pital]

It's like DEXTER with a sniper rifle, not "Death Note".

[Kamakazie Sith]

I wouldn't bet too hard on these two points, actually. For one thing, the bystanders killed in this are going to be from the same demographic as the gang members themselves; dirt-poor, coloured, illegal aliens or some combination thereof. A depressing number of people outside said demographic are going to think, "well, that's one less welfare cheque coming out of my taxes" and wish this sniper all the best; just look at some of the reactions to what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes, or Ian Tomlinson.

A depressing number? Do you have any figures? I can also cite examples such as the massive support for Lovell Mixon. I think you're assuming that people who are not dirt poor, coloured, or illegal are bigots and aren't concerned with the liberties of others.

I wouldn't be enormously surprised if factions within the local police felt that way too, to the point where they started feeding this guy information; I'm sure it's not unheard of for inner-city precincts to play gangs off against each other, so how would that be any different? They can always tip the gangs off about him if he becomes inconvenient. (I have incidentally heard ugly rumours of the British security forces playing these kinds of tricks with the Ulster Loyalists, who are themselves a shining example of how concerned citizens doing their own law-enforcement can and usually does go horribly, horribly wrong.)

It probably isn't unheard of. It is stupid, however, because the increase in violence during a gang war is not worth whatever gains you get by playing two gangs off each other. So, as a rule of gang supression gang related shootings are investigated heavily and the suspects brought to justice to try and curb any fallout or at least prevent the violence from opening into a full scale gang war. In short. The police do not want full scale war.

Also, there's another factor that deserves a mention. From a pure body-count perspective, especially of bystanders, it's debateable which is worse; a short period of all-out war and then a somewhat longer period of relative calm before another faction gears up to fill the resulting power vacuum, or the continuous low-level skirmishing that constitutes the status quo. That this solution would require significantly less effort and cost significantly less money than doing anything to actually give inner-city kids some upward social mobility options besides music, sport and organised crime would be the icing on the cake... if one happens to be ruthless and utilitarian in outlook to the point of sociopathy. I personally would consider that a drawback in a candidate for public office, but... well, there's other schools of thought.

And hey, at least it'd mean someone was trying, right? (There is no emoticon that could begin to describe my expression as I type these words.)

Again, as it has already been stated numerous times in this thread. Even if the snipers were perfect...the gangs would not be. It might come down to the gangs shooting anyone that looks out of place in their territory...

[LaCroix]

Why don't they do it?

Because they don't want open warfare between gangs and police?

Most gang members aren't violent towards police because they don't have much to fear. The moment the cops can arrest you for being member of a gang and lock you away for years, people will draw guns if officers are approaching. After all if you can get jailed for accessory to a murder you didn't commit, just because you wear a certain bandana, you can as well do the deed.

The moment RICO is used on gangs, the cops would become a rival gang to the established ones, fighting for turf. There would be Robocop-like gang districts where the police can't enter without heavy gear and a fight for their life. Police recruiting would drop to an all time low, making the situation even worse.

[PeZook]

Oh, come on. It's not like the gangs would be able to win an ALL OUT WAR against police (and by extension the government - if things get really bad, it will begin to involve heavier and heavier reponse).

In Poland you can be charged and jailed for 3 months to 5 years for being part of an organized criminal group. You don't have to actually do any other crime than be part of a criminal gang (though if it can be proven that you did, well, the worse for you) - and officers aren't gunned down in some sort of perverse Robocop shootouts.

Your point is valid, though, in that it's generally a bad idea to slap people with extreme charges just for being part of a gang, just like it's a bad idea to have the death penalty for every crime.

[Rabid]

Oh, come on. It's not like the gangs would be able to win an ALL OUT WAR against police (and by extension the government - if things get really bad, it will begin to involve heavier and heavier reponse).

The situation in Mexico would seem to contradict you on that particular point.

You'd maybe be interested in looking up the particular situation of the region of Ciudad Juarez

TL;DR : Gangs CAN win against the government, and when it happen it's really ugly for the innocent bystanders caught between the hammer and the anvil.

[someone_else]

It's not like the gangs would be able to win an ALL OUT WAR against police

That depends from what is a "gang" in the sentence quoted. If we are talking of 20-30 poor guys thring to look cooler than they are shooting gangsta' style and doing petty crimes, then yes.
If we are talking about anything vaguely resembling organized crime (like narcos in mexico), that's a big NO.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why don't they do it?

Because they don't want open warfare between gangs and police?

No, they don't. However, not for the reasons you think.

Most gang members aren't violent towards police because they don't have much to fear. The moment the cops can arrest you for being member of a gang and lock you away for years, people will draw guns if officers are approaching. After all if you can get jailed for accessory to a murder you didn't commit, just because you wear a certain bandana, you can as well do the deed.

Wrong. Most gang members aren't violent towards police because most aren't suicidal.

The moment RICO is used on gangs, the cops would become a rival gang to the established ones, fighting for turf. There would be Robocop-like gang districts where the police can't enter without heavy gear and a fight for their life. Police recruiting would drop to an all time low, making the situation even worse.

RICO is used on gangs. If a case can be built against a gang under RICO then it will be built. The reason you don't see it all the time is because it is also very hard to meet the standard for beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in the eyes of a jury.

The situation in Mexico would seem to contradict you on that particular point.

You'd maybe be interested in looking up the particular situation of the region of Ciudad Juarez

TL;DR : Gangs CAN win against the government, and when it happen it's really ugly for the innocent bystanders caught between the hammer and the anvil.

Sure, but that doesn't really apply for US gangs. The gangs in Mexico are the drug cartels, and they are backed by drug money. For example, Pablo Escobar ranked 7th, when he was still alive, among the richest people alive and was worth an estimated 10 billion. The gangs in the United States don't have anywhere near that kind of financial muscle.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's not like the gangs would be able to win an ALL OUT WAR against police

That depends from what is a "gang" in the sentence quoted. If we are talking of 20-30 poor guys thring to look cooler than they are shooting gangsta' style and doing petty crimes, then yes.
If we are talking about anything vaguely resembling organized crime (like narcos in mexico), that's a big NO.

Why do you think that? The drug gangs in Mexico routinely get their asses kicked by the government. The media just doesn't tell those stories. The drug cartels are most effective via the use of terror type attacks such as kidnapping. In direct conflict they usually don't fair so well.

Don't get me wrong though. It is certainly extremely dangerous because these people are crazy, but they're hardly Delta Force...

[PeZook]

The article on Ciudad Juarez also flat-out states the city's police force only has 1/3rd of the manpower required to police the city. AND that the military began to move people in once the situation started getting bad enough, which is exactly my point. Annoy a government, even a crappy government, enough and it will simply crush you.

Drug cartels are only doing as well as they are in Ciudad Juarez because of the corrupt government, absurdly understaffed police force and their piles upon piles of drug money. Even then, they don't run the city (well, not through force, anyway).

I did, of course, assume the government is somewhat functional (like, you know, the US one is), otherwise you could point to Somalia and say that it's ruled by what is essentially criminal gangs and thus they can win against the US one. At worst, any semi-functioning government can always declare martial law and post troops at every corner with orders to shoot/arrest anyone out after curfew, then systematically search every house.

In short, Mexico's problems stem from other factors than "laws criminalizing gang membership are in effect". Which is kinda obvious, since I'm somehow not living in a warzone despite pretty harsh punishments for gang membership here.

[Zaune]

A depressing number? Do you have any figures? I can also cite examples such as the massive support for Lovell Mixon. I think you're assuming that people who are not dirt poor, coloured, or illegal are bigots and aren't concerned with the liberties of others.

Yeah, I kind of was. Living in rural Dorset for a couple of years will do that to a guy. I can look up the sales figures for the Sun, the Star, Express and Mail though; I imagine all four of those statistics added together would be a depressing number by anyone's standards.

[mr friendly guy]

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.

Actually when I first read the OP I was wondering whether he was trying to write a story or something centred around this premise, although to be successful in this endeavour, his sniper would have to be like you say, a Gary Stu. To elaborate, people have said in this thread in a war between the gangs and a properly funded police force, the gangs will lose. Thus this guy despite being an army of one must somehow be able to either match the resources of the police or compensate for it if he expects to "win". Or unless the gang is tiny.

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.

This is playing Devil's advocate here, because I think Chardok is trying to generate discussion on this matter. Wouldn't success in the short term, ie suppressing gang activity while he is active, depend on factors like how big the gang is, how long it takes rival gangs to clue in that this is some vigilante hunting them and not a rival gang etc.

[Broomstick]

TL;DR : Gangs CAN win against the government, and when it happen it's really ugly for the innocent bystanders caught between the hammer and the anvil.

Sure, but that doesn't really apply for US gangs. The gangs in Mexico are the drug cartels, and they are backed by drug money. For example, Pablo Escobar ranked 7th, when he was still alive, among the richest people alive and was worth an estimated 10 billion. The gangs in the United States don't have anywhere near that kind of financial muscle.

Some US gangs actually have nationwide operations and have big money. Not all of them, but you just need a few. US gangs have also been known to form larger networks (People vs. Folks). Right now, inter-gang rivalry keeps them from getting more organized but if they faced a common threat they certainly could join forces for a common interest.

[Broomstick]

I did, of course, assume the government is somewhat functional (like, you know, the US one is), otherwise you could point to Somalia and say that it's ruled by what is essentially criminal gangs and thus they can win against the US one. At worst, any semi-functioning government can always declare martial law and post troops at every corner with orders to shoot/arrest anyone out after curfew, then systematically search every house.

If you tried that in the US - the "systematically search every house" - you'd experience overwhelming push-back from the general populace, even those who have nothing to do with gangs, many of whom are armed. You'd get some citizens cooperating, but a large segment would rather put up with street gangs than let the government search their homes without due process and a warrant from a judge, which is what you're proposing. Different culture and all that. How many dead innocents are you willing to have in order to "systematically search every house"? Because in the US that's what would happen, along with finding gang members.

[Broomstick]

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.

This is playing Devil's advocate here, because I think Chardok is trying to generate discussion on this matter. Wouldn't success in the short term, ie suppressing gang activity while he is active, depend on factors like how big the gang is, how long it takes rival gangs to clue in that this is some vigilante hunting them and not a rival gang etc.

Our vigilante MIGHT be able to take out a very, very minor gang... but it's just not possible to do that for something like the Gangster Disciples (GD's), El Rukns, or Vice Lords. They're just too big. The GD's have been found in US military bases overseas. They have a branch in Toronto, Ontario. The El Rukn Eugene Hairson acquired nearly a million dollars in "development grants" via fraud all the way back in 1972 when that much went a lot further and they're considered a small gang in many ways (their strength is alliances with many others... including meeting with representatives from Libya for possible mayhem). The Vice Lords - estimated membership is usually given as around 30,000 - engage in mortgage fraud, money laundering, and credit card fraud these days, apparently finding it more profitable and/or less physically risky than drug dealing and have "branches" in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Minnesota. The Latin Kings are believed to have over 25,000 members in the city of Chicago alone and have organized chapters in various Latin American and European countries including Mexico, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Canada, Italy, Ecuador, Peru, Puerto Rico, Chile, Brazil, and Britain, as well as probably others.

OK, let's think about this - just how much damage is any one man able to do against a multi-national organization able to acquire money through multiple illegal means and with a membership in the tens of thousands? Nevermind that there are multiple such organizations in existence.

[PeZook]

If you tried that in the US - the "systematically search every house" - you'd experience overwhelming push-back from the general populace, even those who have nothing to do with gangs, many of whom are armed. You'd get some citizens cooperating, but a large segment would rather put up with street gangs than let the government search their homes without due process and a warrant from a judge, which is what you're proposing. Different culture and all that. How many dead innocents are you willing to have in order to "systematically search every house"? Because in the US that's what would happen, along with finding gang members.

Erm, I'm not proposing it as a solution to the gang problem. I'm saying that if gangs went to open war with the police, which they started to somehow win, and all the gradual escalation would be insufficient to take care of the problem, the government could always institute even more draconian measures because of its vastly superior resources. By that time, of course, cities would have become hellish warzones and the situation would be almost indistinguishable from civil war.

I'm not an idiot. OF COURSE trying that now in the US would be impossible, and not just politically.