# Are we really prepared to defend ourselves against gangs?



## Carol (Feb 1, 2008)

Meet the street gangs of the late 2000s.

Trained by the U.S. Department of Defense, financed by the American taxpayer, hardened on the Arab street.

[yt]dgwfVJIoBNM[/yt]

Other related stories:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/05/04/gangstas-in-the-military/ 


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4140211 


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/28/eveningnews/main3107316.shtml


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2008)

Damn.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

Yep. I've been predicting this since we went into Iraq. Guys who would never have been permitted in the military are being snapped up to provide bullet sponges.

Of course, there have always been criminals in the military. "You've got a choice, son. Show up on Monday with your enlistment papers or go to jail." But there are other things at work here. First and most important soldiers and Marines today have become specialists in urban warfare. That makes them much better at urban crime and more of a danger for police. Second, gangs are more mobile and have access to better communications, transportation and technology than they did in the past. And there are fewer jobs for returning vets than there were after the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War. 

The Washington bank robbery carried out with dare I say military precision by a group of Rangers last year is just the first of a whole series of headaches for law enforcement.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Feb 2, 2008)

tellner said:


> Yep. I've been predicting this since we went into Iraq. Guys who would never have been permitted in the military are being snapped up to provide bullet sponges.
> 
> Of course, there have always been criminals in the military. "You've got a choice, son. Show up on Monday with your enlistment papers or go to jail." But there are other things at work here. First and most important soldiers and Marines today have become specialists in urban warfare. That makes them much better at urban crime and more of a danger for police. Second, gangs are more mobile and have access to better communications, transportation and technology than they did in the past. And there are fewer jobs for returning vets than there were after the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War.
> 
> The Washington bank robbery carried out with dare I say military precision by a group of Rangers last year is just the first of a whole series of headaches for law enforcement.



Man, we were dealing with this when I first went in ('92) and I'm sure before. When I first got with SOTG we had briefings on this kind of thing along with our counter/anti-terrorist briefs. 

Hey, you know what? I have little to no sympathy. It's just one more monster that the U.S. has made, one more of our Frankenstein monsters that we'll have to take down. Hell, we knew about Ho Chi Minh *YEARS* before he was ever a threat. Our leaders were told by our intel guys, experts we sent in to assess the situation: make him an ally, or kill him now. He wanted to side with us first, we blew him off. He need help, so guess who he ran to? 

One more chump move for the U.S. Government, & it has no one to blame but itself.


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 2, 2008)

What do you expect? This is not new and this woll always happen, when the US needs troops.


----------



## stone_dragone (Feb 2, 2008)

Doc_Jude said:


> Hell, we knew about Ho Chi Minh *YEARS* before he was ever a threat. Our leaders were told by our intel guys, experts we sent in to assess the situation: make him an ally, or kill him now. He wanted to side with us first, we blew him off. He need help, so guess who he ran to?



Although our previous century and our current one is riddled with these kind of decisions that come back to bite us in the ***, I'm having a little trouble understanding where this particular decision and others like it have to do with the problem being discussed here.

The United States military is a cross-section of America, albeit a rather lopsided one.  The number of Urban Gang members joining the military to learn killing skills is most likely proportionate to the number of people joining the military to learn other skills.  One of the major differences is that these folks who harbor their allegiances to their criminal brethren and not to their Nation are a greater concern to the LEO community than the Iowa farm boys who join the Air Force to learn about Information Technology.


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 2, 2008)

My only question is, Why are we so surprised? In my day (USN 71-75) gangs as we know them today were at an inchoate state. So we had race riots instead ('being down for yours' meant being divided by color, rather than turf)--kind of a predecessor to formalized, ritualized gang behavior which grew out of it. What did I witness the military do? Mop up _after _the violence. I was involved in some of that mop up. Very ugly. This problem has been brewing a long time.


----------



## TKDJUDO (Feb 2, 2008)

Doesn't the military do back-ground checks first ?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 2, 2008)

This is the same thing that happened after Vietnam as well, it's generational.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2008)

If it is any consolation some of the LEOs have received the same military training.


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 2, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> This is the same thing that happened after Vietnam as well, it's generational.


Well, kind of. This series of media reports is specifically about returning vets intensifying the lethality of gangs as we know them today. These gangs didn't exist in this form on any large scale directly post-Vietnam, so those (very few) vets who went off the res. didn't intensify the activity or effectiveness of any violent mobs or gangs that I'm aware of. A few may have acted out their PTSD in antisocial ways, but not nearly as many as the movies would have us think. 



			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> If it is any consolation some of the LEOs have received the same military training.


Yes, it is consolation, in that many/most of the returning vets become what they were before the service: law-abiding citizens who contribute to society. I also think it's important to distinguish between those who return with bad intentions (such as gangsters) and those with good intentions who just need more help than is currently (ever?) available.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Feb 2, 2008)

I am horrified, but not surprised. They send the poor to fight, and then they bring them back and still refuse to give them any sort of truly sustainable employment (working poor, anyone?). What are they going to do? Starve and die in the very streets that they risked their lives to protect, or take whatever they have and use it to survive by whatever means necessary? You could make the argument that our system is the very thing that spawns these super ciminals. You could also make the argument that our system, exported to the international community, is what is spawning a lot of the terrorists and insurgents that we are fighting to this very day. We let people fight for us, but then we don't have the common decency to provide them with the means to survive after the fighting has ended, we just blow them off whenever they are no longer useful to us (sound familiar? Afghanistan after the cold war?). Well, it will all eventually come back to bite us in the ***. Now we are being hunted by the very monsters that our racism, elitism, and greed has spawned in the first place. We force a bunch of starving people to help us prepare a full course meal. We kick them out of the kitchen when the meal is ready, then we wonder why there are a bunch of starving people angrily storming the dinner table by force . As you have sewn, so to shall you reap. This sucks. I am depressed. Incoherent rant over.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Feb 2, 2008)

stone_dragone said:


> Although our previous century and our current one is riddled with these kind of decisions that come back to bite us in the ***, I'm having a little trouble understanding where this particular decision and others like it have to do with the problem being discussed here.



It's just another bone-head decision in a long line of bone-headedness.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Feb 2, 2008)

TKDJUDO said:


> Doesn't the military do back-ground checks first ?



Many gangs keep their smart kid's clean, no convictions, no records, for just this reason.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2008)

Doc_Jude said:


> Many gangs keep their smart kid's clean, no convictions, no records, for just this reason.


 
Absolutely.  You cannot underestimate the sophistication in today's gangs.  They are not the groups of thugs that roam the streets as the movies portray.  Todays gangs are criminal syndicates that are on the fast track to becoming the American Mafia.


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2008)

The Army has been lowering standards drastically for this war. Now over twenty percent of recruits score in the lowest segment of the aptitude tests where it used to be around four percent. Misdemeanors, drug use and quite a few felonies which would have been automatic disqualifications are now passed. A local pair of recruiters caused a scandal by taking a severely autistic kid and signing him up as a Cavalry Scout. 

In short, they'll take just about anyone as a bullet sponge these days.


----------



## kidswarrior (Feb 2, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Absolutely.  You cannot underestimate the sophistication in today's gangs.  They are not the groups of thugs that roam the streets as the movies portray.  Todays gangs are criminal syndicates that are on the fast track to becoming the American Mafia.


Unfortunately, I believe this is absolutely true. When you have 50-60 year olds who are still active (of course as the shot callers, not running the streets throwing up signs or 'putting in work' on graffiti), it gives some idea of the depth and thought involved to empire building. These are not stupid people.



			
				tellner said:
			
		

> In short, they'll take just about anyone as a bullet sponge these days.


This is a sad state of affairs, but they have to keep meeting the all-volunteer quota somehow.  Wouldn't it just be easier to go the old route and re-invoke the draft? Just kidding. Bad joke. It's a horrible dilemma, and there are parallels to Vietnam. Back then if you had some semblance of a pulse, you were in.


----------



## chinto (Feb 2, 2008)

look a few soldiers and others have always gone bad.. one of the first special service force from WWII turned out to be what was referred to as the "purple gang" and blew himself up rather then surrender when caught blowing his way into a vault.  there were members of street gangs who went into the service in Korea and Vietnam too..  actually a lot of street gang types straiten out in the military, and some do not of course.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 3, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> If it is any consolation some of the LEOs have received the same military training.


 
Not nearly enough. Most LEO's I see are 5 foot nothing dweebs in platform shoes with an attitude bigger than thier training justifies. Hows that gonna pan when they come across a 2-tour vet of the the sandbox?


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 3, 2008)

Advance warning:  There will be ranting in what follows.  And many folks will disagree with me.

So... before I begin, let me set a few things out.  First -- I'm a cop.  To be specific, I'm a gang detective.  I've had more than 100 hours of gang training, participated in numerous interviews, arrests, search warrants, and prosecutions, and convictions of gang members.   And I still wouldn't consider myself an expert.  (In fact, the guys I call experts don't consider themselves experts, generally, either.)  I've dealt with Latino gangs (MS13, 18th Street, SSL, and more), black gangs (Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and more), white supremacists (Aryan Nation, Peckerheads, Skinheads, and more), hybrid gangs, organized criminal enterprises, and neighborhood gangs.

As much as gangs have spread nationally -- they are also regional phenomena.   Their is national (and international!) coordination and communication, and some gangs (especially prison gangs) have very strong national organization.  But the "rules" for a gang in one area are not always the same in another.  MS is big in my area; in parts of California -- it's barely noticed.  You don't see gang neighborhoods in my area anymore; we've worked hard to stomp them down, with combined local, state, federal, and regional approaches.  They still control neighborhoods just a few miles away...



Carol Kaur said:


> Meet the street gangs of the late 2000s.
> 
> Trained by the U.S. Department of Defense, financed by the American taxpayer, hardened on the Arab street.



Let me steal from a colleague whom I've had the privilige to meet and discuss gangs in the military with, Hunter Glass.  He's a former Army soldier and retired police officer from North Carolina.  He's been sounding the alarm on this issue for years.  Gangs have been in the military for decades; the military is only today beginning to barely acknowledge it.  Hunter uses the example of an elephant in this manner:  If I show you pictures of a trunk, grey hide, big ears, tusks, hanging around with other huge critters with long noses, big ears, etc. ...  Most of us would look at that, and say "elephant."  Not the military; they'd say it might be an elephant... but we'll only call it an elephant if it says it's an elephant, and acts like an elephant.
HBO did a special on Antonio Fernandez (King Tone) of the Almighty Latin Kings; one thing that really bothered me was in footage of a multi-clique meeting -- several people were present in military dress uniforms.

Bangers are in the military.  They're learning military urban warfare tactics.  And they're bringing them home when they get out -- whether they're kicked out or get an honorable discharge.  

And you're not going to change them.  People don't join the services and become Baptists or Catholic or Hindu or whatever; they (generally) maintain the religious choice they had when they joined.  Well... bangers aren't going to stop being bangers just 'cause you change their uniform, either.



tellner said:


> The Washington bank robbery carried out with dare I say military precision by a group of Rangers last year is just the first of a whole series of headaches for law enforcement.



It's not the first.  It's nowhere near the first.  Andres Raya, a Norteno banger, killed one and wounded another police officer in Ceres, CA, in 2005 using military tactics he'd learned and practiced in service in Iraq as a US Marine.  And I'm sure if I did some research I could probably find some others, even earlier.

We in law enforcement are doing our best to prepare for the reality that bangers and other criminals are coming back from military service with experience under fire.  I'm not going to detail everything we do; let it suffice to say that we have cops who are vets returning, and we are always improving our training methods.  But there's still nothing like real world experience.  So -- yes, we're very worried.



kidswarrior said:


> My only question is, Why are we so surprised? In my day (USN 71-75) gangs as we know them today were at an inchoate state. So we had race riots instead ('being down for yours' meant being divided by color, rather than turf)--kind of a predecessor to formalized, ritualized gang behavior which grew out of it. What did I witness the military do? Mop up _after _the violence. I was involved in some of that mop up. Very ugly. This problem has been brewing a long time.



Gangs have been around a lot longer than is generally realized.  Chicago street gang culture goes back, easily traceably, into the early Fifties, at least.  The Gangster Disciples were formed in the late Sixties; the Bloods and Crips formed not much later.  MS is a relative newcomer, having been formed in the Eighties.  The Zoot Suit Riots were in 1942; they involved gangs.



TKDJUDO said:


> Doesn't the military do back-ground checks first ?



No -- they don't.  And only "active gang membership" is a disqualifier, and my understanding is that even that isn't an automatic disqualifier!  Funny thing...  I've participated in the interview of quite a few bangers; many of them consistently deny current membership -- even when we catch them in groups, in "uniform", flying their colors.  The military denies "current gang activity" even when soldiers tag up their areas, and even acquire new gang tats!  I've seen video of soldiers throwing up their gang signs outside of Fort Bragg, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Europe...  and more.  



upnorthkyosa said:


> Absolutely.  You cannot underestimate the sophistication in today's gangs.  They are not the groups of thugs that roam the streets as the movies portray.  Todays gangs are criminal syndicates that are on the fast track to becoming the American Mafia.



The popular media has glorified the "gangsta lifestyle."  It's ********.  Bovine excrement, since I know the filter will catch that.  Gangsters are thugs.  Some are smarter than others; some are more organized than others.  But, as the saying goes... the white stuff that floats on top of chicken crap is still crap.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Not nearly enough. Most LEO's I see are 5 foot nothing dweebs in platform shoes with an attitude bigger than thier training justifies. Hows that gonna pan when they come across a 2-tour vet of the the sandbox?


 

Really?

http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/When-Good-Cops-Go-to-War/1$36967


http://www.govtech.com/gt/44372?topic=117680


----------



## kailat (Feb 3, 2008)

I want to agree completly with JKS99.  

Myself having prior military background as well work in Law Enforcement.  

Here are some of what I see today.

Gangsters have been in the military even when I was in there.  In fact I remember in my barracks there were a few guys from way back that took pictures throwing up gang signs.  that was back in 90-91.  Way back then I was a young pup of around 18-19yrs old, the only gang training I had was of a few of my aquaintences that I ran with that claimed they were this or that.. GD, VL etc.. but most of them were just wannabee's.. LOL  they thought they were the real deal but honestly it was stupid.  

 Many years later I landed a job in corrections and I started training on Gangs.  I had first hand experience w/ many of the OG's that landed in prison etc...I talked w/ many and yes several had military background believe it or not.  But as someone else mentioned earlier in this forum post that these guys served in our US MILITARY and when they come back home, what else where they supposed to do?  For those that could they got good jobs, for those that stayed in the streets and that crowd they came back to what they left.  "GANG LIFE"...

 Many youth join the Military to get out of the streets and to give them something positive to look for.  But truth is many don't make that 20yr life out of the military because they cant take the discipline factor.  So for many Military is temporary.

 As I got into police work I've had numerous classes on and about Gang's had dealings with them, ran into and had to arrest several.  Gangs are a fashion of our US heritage.  Gangs go further back then the 50's and 60's of the Ethnical street gangs ie. GD's VL's BD's Crips, Bloods, Etc... we can take it further to the turn of the 20th century and further with Irish Gangs, Asian Gangs, that run the city streets of NYC, San Fransico.  The Chicago era gangsters, mobsters were running streets of the midwest since the early 20's and before.  So lets bet that these gangsters were probably ex military as well.  

 So as it was said, many of us EX Military, Current Police we train in the same tactics and we have many officers who are still currently serving in the armed forces over seas.  So our training is constantly training and bettering for the best of our safety of public and service.

THE SWAT teams and other tactical weapons teams are paramilitary groups with great military expertise, made up of many EX Seals, Rangers, and the SPEC OPS of military.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

I dont think this is anything new, or really anything to set your hair on fire over. 

I do think the military should be screening them out, by all means, keep them out. However some basic trained teenager isnt some killing machine.  Id be interested to see the MOS most of these bangers get into and how much advanced training most of them get (Ranger School, SpecOps and so on).

Im not going to get into my awsome Rambo training and notches on my gunbelt, but believe me, most military training isnt the "lightening bolt of Zeus" the movies lead you to believe. Military tactics at the soldier level isnt nuclear physics and can be found on the net with ease. The willingness to pull the trigger? Id say some of these bangers are probably bringing more of that INTO the service than they are taking OUT of it.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2008)

You will become a supreme expert in floor polishing, painting rocks, picking up trash and cleaning things though LOL!


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> You will become a supreme expert in floor polishing, painting rocks, picking up trash and cleaning things though LOL!


 
Aint that the truth: Some days 11bravo = Janitor.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 3, 2008)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> Not nearly enough. Most LEO's I see are 5 foot nothing dweebs in platform shoes with an attitude bigger than thier training justifies. Hows that gonna pan when they come across a 2-tour vet of the the sandbox?


 
Actually I was referring to the LEOs that had been in the military or are in the military like my neighbor that has been a 1 tour vet in Iraq already. But there are others. 

But I also have a close friend that is an LEO that has never been in the military but is one of the best martial artists I have ever seen and a graduate of SWAT and Sniper school; I would have faith in him as well. But then I know a lot of LEOs I would trust if need be.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I dont think this is anything new, or really anything to set your hair on fire over.
> 
> I do think the military should be screening them out, by all means, keep them out. However some basic trained teenager isnt some killing machine.  Id be interested to see the MOS most of these bangers get into and how much advanced training most of them get (Ranger School, SpecOps and so on).
> 
> Im not going to get into my awsome Rambo training and notches on my gunbelt, but believe me, most military training isnt the "lightening bolt of Zeus" the movies lead you to believe. Military tactics at the soldier level isnt nuclear physics and can be found on the net with ease. The willingness to pull the trigger? Id say some of these bangers are probably bringing more of that INTO the service than they are taking OUT of it.



From my training -- many bangers are going into the infantry, MPs, or a similar line MOS.  Others go into support positions, like mechanics.  In short -- they're going into the normal MOSes based on their abilities and the needs of the services.  Not surprisingly, few of them have the combination of characteristics to move into any special warfare or elite unit.  (After all, that's why they're called elite units!)  That does leave some that do -- just like some bangers go to college, but they're the minority.  And, I suspect, you'll find that more of that subset are the ones who are using the military to get out of the gangster life.  (Yes, there are people who manage to use the military to turn themselves around; I'm not at all saying that none do.)

But it's not the high-speed stuff that's the concern.  It's not even the training in and of itself; as you said, there's plenty of places to learn much of that outside of the military.  The real concern, and what's kind of new about it, is that these guys are going into Iraq or Afghanistan or some of the other places we've got troops in harm's way, and they're being blooded in fire.  They're making that trained to experienced transition; they're using the tactics under pressure -- and bringing that experience back to the streets of the USA.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 27, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> From my training -- many bangers are going into the infantry, MPs, or a similar line MOS. Others go into support positions, like mechanics. In short -- they're going into the normal MOSes based on their abilities and the needs of the services. Not surprisingly, few of them have the combination of characteristics to move into any special warfare or elite unit. (After all, that's why they're called elite units!) That does leave some that do -- just like some bangers go to college, but they're the minority. And, I suspect, you'll find that more of that subset are the ones who are using the military to get out of the gangster life. (Yes, there are people who manage to use the military to turn themselves around; I'm not at all saying that none do.)
> 
> But it's not the high-speed stuff that's the concern. It's not even the training in and of itself; as you said, there's plenty of places to learn much of that outside of the military. The real concern, and what's kind of new about it, is that these guys are going into Iraq or Afghanistan or some of the other places we've got troops in harm's way, and they're being blooded in fire. They're making that trained to experienced transition; they're using the tactics under pressure -- and bringing that experience back to the streets of the USA.


  I'd say that's probably right....I see a disproportionate number going toward support units, because that's what their level of education and abilities likely equal.  I seriously doubt the average gang member is going to go Special Forces, for one lack of motivation, but even more, it requires a much higher security clearance than their backgrounds are going to support. 

But yes, you are right....combat experience matters.  Of course, if they're gang members of south central Los Angeles, Detroit or Washington DC many of those neighborhoods aren't that removed as a combat zone from Iraq.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 27, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Absolutely. You cannot underestimate the sophistication in today's gangs. They are not the groups of thugs that roam the streets as the movies portray. Todays gangs are criminal syndicates that are on the fast track to becoming the American Mafia.


 
*Very true, look at the bike gangs for the most part, they have sophisticated themselves, gone into businesses, sure some still ride and fight, but for the most part, most do business whether illegal or legal, it's about the money which equals power, gangs are no different, their evolving as with anything else as not to die off (in a sense).*


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 27, 2008)

Guardian said:


> *Very true, look at the bike gangs for the most part, they have sophisticated themselves, gone into businesses, sure some still ride and fight, but for the most part, most do business whether illegal or legal, it's about the money which equals power, gangs are no different, their evolving as with anything else as not to die off (in a sense).*


The 1%er clubs all still ride & fight.  Some have managed to create a parallel, semi-legitimate front, like the Hells Angels -- but their heart and core is still the outlaw, 1%er mindset.  Street gangs actually were ahead of them; look at the Growth & Development movement of the Gangster's Disciples.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 28, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> The 1%er clubs all still ride & fight. Some have managed to create a parallel, semi-legitimate front, like the Hells Angels -- but their heart and core is still the outlaw, 1%er mindset. Street gangs actually were ahead of them; look at the Growth & Development movement of the Gangster's Disciples.


  All true....American gangs have attempted to develop mainstream access as semi-legitimate business interests.  

Fortunately for us we do not have a criminal underworld as sophisticated as, say, the Russian mafia, which permeates every layer of society in Russia, from street level crime, right up to multi-billion dollar buisness ventures and even the Russian government itself.  It is estimated that Russia has over 100,000 committed mobsters operating presently at various layers of it's underworld.

And when you consider that quite a few Russian mafiosos come from the ranks of the former KGB and other state apparatuses, as well as the ranks of the Russian military, including the Spetsnaz....well, that's kind of scary.  As I understand it, if you do business in Russia....you had better count on paying the Russian mob a royalty.  Assassinations of business men, including Canadian and American millionaires, isn't uncommon.   Ken Rowe could attest to that....as could Paul Tatum, if he were still alive.  http://gangstersinc.tripod.com/PaulTatum.html

Which actually have it pretty good in America.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 12, 2008)

Sorry to interrupt the current convo. I haven't read it all admittedly. (Too much school work to do) So, my answer to the question is honestly no. Fighting is hard enough one to one, let alone 2 or 10 to one. Plus all the other factors....nah, no way to prepare for it really. If it goes down, try and get the jump before they position themselves and just let it fly. Usually, not all memebers of the group will be "about it". There will be a few "definites", who, if succesful will get the others into being definites too. Dispatching the definites or definites might be enough to cause the phenomanom to be reversed, where the panic and hesitation will shoot through the group. Fear spreads through groups faster than with individuals. That might be your only edge.


----------



## searcher (Mar 12, 2008)

Going back to the OP question, I would love to be able to say yes, but I am not sure.   I havemy CCH and have, of late, been relying heavily on my gun skills.   Don't get me wrong, I still train my empty hand like a wild man, but man there is nothing like a firearm to level the field.


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

In every generation there's a new sort of gangster who is completely unlike the old sort. He's a vicious, crazy thrill-killing monster who represents the greatest threat yet to law enforcement. Just going back a century or so we go from the Irish to the Chinese, then Jews and the Italians. There were the Blacks, the Chicanos, the Jamaicans, the Southeast Asians, the Skinheads, the Russians, then the Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Mexicans (as opposed to Chicanos). I lose track. Whose day is it in the barrel now?

Once it was Murder Incorporated. Then La Cosa Nostra. The Latin Kings. The Crips. M-13. The dancers change. The tune stays the same.

The thing that characterizes most of these is their immigrant status. It's a classic progression. The first immigrants generally take **** jobs for lousy wages or become criminals. The crime and scut work raise enough capital to open stores and start other small businesses. Others join the police or the Army to get a stake and become American. Their kids go to college and join Rotary. The next generation goes to better colleges and moves to the higher-priced neighborhoods.

A well-off first generation immigrant might well have gotten that way selling drugs, running a protection racket or owning a brothel. His grandkids only speak the old family language slowly with a bad accent. Their parents are happy, and their grandparents are thrilled. Grandpa ran with the gangs or was a Made Man because that was where the biggest opportunities were to make a stake. That's where the best and brightest tended to go. But when you can make more as an electrician let alone a lawyer or doctor or owning a chain of stores being a mobster loses a lot of its appeal.

Remember that line from _The Godfather_? "Be a lawyer. You can steal more with a briefcase than I ever could with a machine gun."

In other words, historically it's about making a stake.

In 1911 the debate around the Sullivan Act included phrases like "Jews, Italians and other criminals". Now it's about the police being outgunned by "gang bangers" (read "Black") and Salvadorans. 

In a generation the Russian Mafia will be solid citizens. In two everyone will have forgotten about M-13. 

Odds are that Blacks will still be carrying a heavy load, but that has more to do with the weird twists and turns of early American history starting with the Great Compromise and "three fifths of a man for purposes of apportionment". The Romany will probably not have assimilated. They resist it unless you take a firm but enlightened approach like Spain has in recent years. 

The Native tribes are beginning to make a stake with vice in the approved fashion, but this time it's out-in-the-open casinos and legal whiskey. It's just as well. They've been screwed like a two dollar hooker by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's about time they got something back.

So no. It's not surprising that gangs evolve and eventually wink out of existence. And it's completely natural that many of them have community functions. A lot of their purpose was always mutual aid and making illegal money in a world where it was damned hard to make significant quantities legally as a new immigrant. In my father's days in Chicago the Syndicate had a hand in every pie. But it provided money, jobs and sometimes rough justice of a sort for people who could expect little of any of those from the larger society.

Groups like the Hell's Angels and Sons of Silence are a little different. They are the self-described 1%ers for whom there isn't a place in normal society. They are outcasts by temperament. Every group has people like that. But even there you see signs of organized if not exactly legitimate business. The Angels own and run a huge chunk of the meth trade, and they do it very efficiently from all reports. Sonny Barger may be an outlaw. But he's not a twenty year old outlaw any more.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 13, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> I am horrified, but not surprised.


me too


SageGhost83 said:


> As you have sewn, so to shall you reap. This sucks. I am depressed. Incoherent rant over.



What goes around comes around, that's for sure.

Can anyone here who is familiar with military vehicles confirm to me if this is US property pictured here:


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 13, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> me too
> 
> 
> What goes around comes around, that's for sure.
> ...


Of course not! It's claimed by East Side LA; 323 area code in case there's still any doubt.  (Don't know if MENES is the actual gang or the actual fool who did the work). And then off to the right, there's the roll call of the whole clique so we'll all know whom to credit with this act of bravery. :angry:


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 13, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Of course not! It's claimed by East Side LA; 323 area code in case there's still any doubt.  (Don't know if MENES is the actual gang or the actual fool who did the work). And then off to the right, there's the roll call of the whole clique so we'll all know whom to credit with this act of bravery. :angry:



Now, I'm very naive about military culture, and gang culture.  I don't know anything about it.  But it seems to me to be pretty far out that anyone could spray paint up some kind of military vehicle in this way without getting in trouble -- even in the field.  Lets hope that whoever did this was addressed for it.


----------



## matt.m (Mar 13, 2008)

Yes and absolutely.  I am not trying to be arrogant but I have done hand to hand with everything from fist, pistols, squad automatic weapon, K-Bar, Shaini, Cane.....whatever.

So after combat on 4 continents and 1 island I would have to say yes.  In fact, I enjoy training in multiple attacker flow drills most of all.  Since Haiti, that has been my training of choice....multiple attackers.  However, I was a Sgt. in the U.S.M.C. so yeah, I could defend myself.  I am most a Yudo, Hapkidoist.  I am practicing Tae Kwon Do.  I have cane, Knife defense, so yes I feel very comfortable.

It is all about confidence and the acceptance to take and give pain right back.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 16, 2008)

searcher said:


> Going back to the OP question, I would love to be able to say yes, but I am not sure. I havemy CCH and have, of late, been relying heavily on my gun skills. Don't get me wrong, I still train my empty hand like a wild man, but man there is nothing like a firearm to level the field.


  Absolutely!  A mass-attack by several gang members is a LETHAL FORCE situation!  Fighting Man to Man (to man to man to man to man...etc.) isn't advantageous to someone who likes their body intact!  God gave man the opposable thumb and the ability to use tools for a reason!


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 18, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Fighting *Man to Man (to man to man to man to man*...etc.) isn't advantageous to someone who likes their body intact!  God gave man the opposable thumb and the ability to use tools for a reason!


While I'm not one to turn to the gun much (anymore), the bolded part above would bring out the beast, for sure.  And *matt.m* is one of the all-time good guys, so...  Good lookin out *sgtmac*.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 19, 2008)

Gangs never quit, they will return over and over. Think before you do.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 19, 2008)

In post #11, kidswarrior is correct. During post Nam the returning combat vets really didn't join / form gangs. True many, not most, had developed a few problems but then anyone could after living a year or so in a heavy combat situation. Back then there was a high level of the "stay out of the military" mind set.
Today it seems to be slightly different.


----------



## Kingindian (Mar 19, 2008)

in my country there are also gangs (usually youth gang, not mafia or gangster), they will bully other youth especially if the victim is alone.
I dont have any problem with them..but if they try to disturb me, of course i will call my friends to attack them.


----------



## Guardian (Mar 21, 2008)

Carol Kaur said:


> Meet the street gangs of the late 2000s.
> 
> Trained by the U.S. Department of Defense, financed by the American taxpayer, hardened on the Arab street.
> 
> ...


 
*I guess to answer the question posed in the opening.  Oh heck no, as Martial Artist in itself, we are not near capable of taking on gangs in the sense that this question is directed, even those of us with weapons experience and military training or law enforcement training as singular entities are not capable of taking them on alone.*

*Law Enforcement as a whole is capable for the gangs are just as much at war with each other as they are with Law Enforcement, so it makes it abit easier (not completely mind you, just abit).  As far as Martial Artist or Self-Defense practioners and such, maybe one or two or even 3 or 4, but gangs don't run in 3 or 4s as a rule or not for long at least.*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 24, 2008)

LawDog said:


> In post #11, kidswarrior is correct. During post Nam the returning combat vets really didn't join / form gangs. True many, not most, had developed a few problems but then anyone could after living a year or so in a heavy combat situation. Back then there was a high level of the "stay out of the military" mind set.
> Today it seems to be slightly different.


 Quite a few famous prohibition era gangsters were WW1 veterans.....Fred 'Killer' Burke, a likely suspect of the St. Valentines Massacre, is one off hand...


----------



## LawDog (Mar 24, 2008)

SgtMac46,
Yes, a few even worked for / with the infamous New England rum runners.
For the most part not all of our past returning combat vets became gangsters, the percentage was on the low side.
Society is responsable for any of the personality changes of our past returning vets. Society sent them to fight in a war then when they returned they were not the given proper re-indoctrination training that is needed for their return into a civilian society. When a person enters into a war time military they are given indoctrination training so that they will develop the proper mindset that is needed to enter into combat.
Other countries centuries ago treated their returning vets much worse.
:miffer:


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2008)

Just like the majority of the general public aren't criminals, the majority of vets aren't either.  But the original OMGs were formed as veteran's groups.  (There was a time when you had to be a veteran to join some of the clubs.)  The original founders of the KKK were Civil War vets.  

Gang life, whether OMG, street gang, or organized crime, will always attract a certain mentality.  That mentality is found in all walks of life -- but vets are recruited and may be slightly more heavily represented.  Also, today, we have bangers joining the service, and they do just what we tell them to do -- they bring their skills home when they get out.  The military remains in denial, or they have simply decided that they won't care because they need the bodies.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 25, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Just like the majority of the general public aren't criminals, the majority of vets aren't either. But the original OMGs were formed as veteran's groups. (There was a time when you had to be a veteran to join some of the clubs.) The original founders of the KKK were Civil War vets.
> 
> Gang life, whether OMG, street gang, or organized crime, will always attract a certain mentality. That mentality is found in all walks of life -- but vets are recruited and may be slightly more heavily represented. Also, today, we have bangers joining the service, and they do just what we tell them to do -- they bring their skills home when they get out. The military remains in denial, or they have simply decided that they won't care because they need the bodies.


  One need not mention the James-Younger gang, former Civil War Missouri Guerillas turned outlaw bank robbers, as a prime example of the phenomenon.

A few veterans turning their war won skills in to criminal gang is nothing new....as the Visigoths, former Roman Soldiers come Roman conquerors can attest.


----------

