Full Version: Which street gang to join?
I came across this very strange story in the Denver Post. It's about a domestic dispute between two "parents" (a term I use loosely) over which street gang their FOUR year old son should join. I'm not making this up, folks, from the article......
And what happened? From the article.......
That'll teach him!
Ok, on to the issue at hand. We've had debates here over children being removed from their parents for what the authorities believe is in the best interest of the child. There have been varied views on what constitutes "best interest". So, let's debate this case with the following question......
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Aquilla
QUOTE
The mother of the child told police they have been involved in ongoing domestic disputes regarding their son.
The victim said she is a "Crip" gang member and Manzanares is a "Baller" gang member and "they have different ideas on how the baby should be raised," said Sandoval.
"Basically she said they cannot agree on which gang the baby would 'claim'," Sandoval said.
Sandoval said the "Ballers" were formerly known as the "Westside Ballers." He said the father is Hispanic; the mother, African-American.
The victim said she is a "Crip" gang member and Manzanares is a "Baller" gang member and "they have different ideas on how the baby should be raised," said Sandoval.
"Basically she said they cannot agree on which gang the baby would 'claim'," Sandoval said.
Sandoval said the "Ballers" were formerly known as the "Westside Ballers." He said the father is Hispanic; the mother, African-American.
And what happened? From the article.......
QUOTE
On Tuesday, Manzanares pled guilty to disorderly conduct, a class 1 petty offense. A charge of harassment, a class three misdemeanor, was dismissed.
Adams County Judge Simon Mole sentenced Manzanares to 12 months probation and imposed $835 in court costs and fees.
Adams County Judge Simon Mole sentenced Manzanares to 12 months probation and imposed $835 in court costs and fees.
That'll teach him!
Ok, on to the issue at hand. We've had debates here over children being removed from their parents for what the authorities believe is in the best interest of the child. There have been varied views on what constitutes "best interest". So, let's debate this case with the following question......
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Aquilla
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
What judge did this come before, who did not consider that two "parents" who argue over which gang the kid should pledge to be a danger to the child's well being?
If I'm a family judge and you mention gang activity in your home, the kid is gone. This country is going to the dogs...
Let me amend: some part of this country are going to the dogs.
What judge did this come before, who did not consider that two "parents" who argue over which gang the kid should pledge to be a danger to the child's well being?
If I'm a family judge and you mention gang activity in your home, the kid is gone. This country is going to the dogs...
Let me amend: some part of this country are going to the dogs.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 10 2008, 04:33 PM) 
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
What judge did this come before, who did not consider that two "parents" who argue over which gang the kid should pledge to be a danger to the child's well being?
If I'm a family judge and you mention gang activity in your home, the kid is gone. This country is going to the dogs...
Let me amend: some part of this country are going to the dogs.
What judge did this come before, who did not consider that two "parents" who argue over which gang the kid should pledge to be a danger to the child's well being?
If I'm a family judge and you mention gang activity in your home, the kid is gone. This country is going to the dogs...
Let me amend: some part of this country are going to the dogs.
That's a good point in terms of the judge and what his assignment was. Sounds like he was a criminal court judge and thus would probably not have the jurisdiction to much with regard to custodial matters. He could however refer the case to the Childrens' Services (or whatever they call it in Colorado) for review and further action. Normally, they would be the ones to file the formal complaint which would end up in a different court. In California they call it "Dependancy Court" which has a Superior Court Judge running the show there. Perhaps there will be further action taken on this.
Aquilla
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Depends upon what kind of removal you are talking about. If you are talking about temporary, then I think you're on track. If you are talking permanent, then I think it would be a huge mistake. At this point in time, the child does need to be out of the house so that the parents can grow up and hopefully, get some counseling and job training. They had the child when they were 15, they aren't folks of means, and that action could spur them to improving their lives for their child. If they enroll in counseling and try to better themselves, then yes, the child should be returned as returning children to their families is the best option if and when the parents are ready and able. They might be better people overall at 21 or 24 than 19. I'm not certain you just shut them off at 19 from their child. If you do that, then you better be prepared to shell out a lot of dough to health and human services.
The kid will bounce around from foster home to foster home and I'm not certain that's any better in all reality. 
I'm not certain what hte timeline is for custody to be permanently severed, but I would imagine it would take a few years. Perhaps the parents still affiliating with gangs, running into trouble with the law, or being unsafe should they have visits with the child. In that instance where you do give them a chance, then yes, severing ties is best. Though best isn't ideal for two stable people who care for their child. Sad story. 
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Well, the violence in the home is one thing, the choice of which street gang to join is another. You see, we have this little obstacle here called... what's it called? Oh yeah, the freedom of association... I think it's, like, protected under the Constitution... or something.
Well, the violence in the home is one thing, the choice of which street gang to join is another. You see, we have this little obstacle here called... what's it called? Oh yeah, the freedom of association... I think it's, like, protected under the Constitution... or something.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Apr 12 2008, 10:19 AM)
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Well, the violence in the home is one thing, the choice of which street gang to join is another. You see, we have this little obstacle here called... what's it called? Oh yeah, the freedom of association... I think it's, like, protected under the Constitution... or something.
Well, the violence in the home is one thing, the choice of which street gang to join is another. You see, we have this little obstacle here called... what's it called? Oh yeah, the freedom of association... I think it's, like, protected under the Constitution... or something.
You've brought up something of a sticky wicket here haven't you?
On one hand Freedom of Association is pretty important or I'm sure someone would have made one of the political parties illegal at some point. On the other if the association is criminal should you be allowed to freely associate with it?
The Communists come to mind immediately. I mean what were they after all? Just fun loving people looking to undermine the United States of America. Despite the mania and the near illegality of being even being associated with a Communist I don't think they took any children away from Communist parents. Mafia? No, I don't think they did. Freemasons? Well the judge was prolly one of "them" anyway so...
I guess some will immediately see this as a racial thing, and they might have something here. If we simply take this from gangbangers to the mob I doubt we'd have the same outcome. If Tony and Tina members of different families couldn't decide which family little Anthony was going to join would a judge intervene?
Ultimately someone should explain to these parents that maybe this isn't the best life possible. Then bring the kid back.
QUOTE
On one hand Freedom of Association is pretty important or I'm sure someone would have made one of the political parties illegal at some point. On the other if the association is criminal should you be allowed to freely associate with it?
An excellent point. Not to mention that if drugs or guns are found at the home, that it would be grounds enough for temporary removal.
QUOTE
The Communists come to mind immediately. I mean what were they after all? Just fun loving people looking to undermine the United States of America. Despite the mania and the near illegality of being even being associated with a Communist I don't think they took any children away from Communist parents. Mafia? No, I don't think they did. Freemasons? Well the judge was prolly one of "them" anyway so...
Other than toxic ideas, a communist wouldn't have guns or drugs in their home. They would just have The Communist Manifesto. Bad writing I'll grant you, but nothing that is a danger to the kiddo. As for children of mafia members, I would imagine that bribery of judges and intimidation probably held sway in areas like Chicago. Not that it's right.
QUOTE
I guess some will immediately see this as a racial thing, and they might have something here. If we simply take this from gangbangers to the mob I doubt we'd have the same outcome. If Tony and Tina members of different families couldn't decide which family little Anthony was going to join would a judge intervene?
I don't know, depends whether or not the judge got a horse's head at the foot of his bed when he woke up.
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
The state of Colorado cannot do anything until someone breaks a law. The guy in question threw a temper tantrum, knocked over some displays and a computer. Apparently nothing was broken.
Is encouraging your child to join an urban gang early child abuse? Seems we're assuming that, but take another look. You're the kid of two minorities living on the mean streets of Commerce City (excuse me, can't help it but . . .
). Might the joining of a gang early be actually a protective move? Then you don't get the tar beat out of you when going to kindergarten. Might even have some big kids around to ensure you get to keep your lunch money.
The Denver area has had gangs for decades. When's the last time there's been any gang activity that made the news? I don't remember, but can't say that I've been paying much attention.
Can I remind the members here that Westside Story is about street gangs in the 1950s? What about the Gangs of New York? Ganging is as American as mom's apple pie.
Ganging isn't necessarily good or bad. We've got plenty of official gangs, from religions to military outfits. Seems to me that an automatic condemnation of ganging behavior is to condemn being human.
(pssst, rumble tonight between ADers and UPDers . . . pass it on)
The state of Colorado cannot do anything until someone breaks a law. The guy in question threw a temper tantrum, knocked over some displays and a computer. Apparently nothing was broken.
Is encouraging your child to join an urban gang early child abuse? Seems we're assuming that, but take another look. You're the kid of two minorities living on the mean streets of Commerce City (excuse me, can't help it but . . .
). Might the joining of a gang early be actually a protective move? Then you don't get the tar beat out of you when going to kindergarten. Might even have some big kids around to ensure you get to keep your lunch money.The Denver area has had gangs for decades. When's the last time there's been any gang activity that made the news? I don't remember, but can't say that I've been paying much attention.
Can I remind the members here that Westside Story is about street gangs in the 1950s? What about the Gangs of New York? Ganging is as American as mom's apple pie.
Ganging isn't necessarily good or bad. We've got plenty of official gangs, from religions to military outfits. Seems to me that an automatic condemnation of ganging behavior is to condemn being human.
(pssst, rumble tonight between ADers and UPDers . . . pass it on)
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
Well yes they should, but the parents have done nothing thus far to put the child in danger to our knowledge. So the state does not have the grounds to remove the child from their care. The system isn't perfect, the law protects the right of his parents to raise there child how they wish so long as they do not put that child into danger. Unless they have on record that the parents have put that boy into a hostile or unhealthy situation the kid has to stay in their care.
Well yes they should, but the parents have done nothing thus far to put the child in danger to our knowledge. So the state does not have the grounds to remove the child from their care. The system isn't perfect, the law protects the right of his parents to raise there child how they wish so long as they do not put that child into danger. Unless they have on record that the parents have put that boy into a hostile or unhealthy situation the kid has to stay in their care.
Should the state remove this 4 year old from custody of the parents for his "best interests", or is it proper parenting for the parents to choose which street gang he should join?
I think that should read "parent", not "parents". According to the article, anyway, the mother is Manzanares' "ex-girlfriend" and he was arrested at "his residence", so I'm assuming that the couple does not live together. Most likely, the mother and child live with her parents, but in any case, it looks as though she has custody and a job.
So... we should take this child from his single, working mother because her ex-boyfriend caused a scene at her place of employ?? I agree with Amlord: some parts of this country are going to the dogs. If the small government conservatives here are suggesting that every child whose parents are gang members should be put into the care of social services, they're advocating an alarming expansion of the nanny state. Wouldn't it be easier to just sterilize all gang members?
And, if not, why single out this parent? Because her ex-boyfriend was disorderly?
Gang membership alone is not criminal activity and not all gang members are violent street thugs. If the mother, who is apparently caring for the child, is convicted of a crime or if there's evidence of abuse or neglect, putting the child into state care should obviously be an option. Otherwise, the best course of action would probably be encouraging her to get a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend and letting her get on with going to work and raising her child. Identifying with a gang neither makes one a de facto criminal nor an unfit mother. Nor does associating with or belonging to the Bonanno family, the Wo Group Triad, the Irish mob, the Russian Mafia, the Freemasons, or the Aryan Brotherhood. Is this only an issue because it's Ballers and Crips?
As to "improper parenting", sadly perhaps, it ain't against the law unless it poses an immediate threat to a child. But if it were against the law, I expect that in excess of 90% of all parenting would be considered "improper" by someone's standards.
I think that should read "parent", not "parents". According to the article, anyway, the mother is Manzanares' "ex-girlfriend" and he was arrested at "his residence", so I'm assuming that the couple does not live together. Most likely, the mother and child live with her parents, but in any case, it looks as though she has custody and a job.
So... we should take this child from his single, working mother because her ex-boyfriend caused a scene at her place of employ?? I agree with Amlord: some parts of this country are going to the dogs. If the small government conservatives here are suggesting that every child whose parents are gang members should be put into the care of social services, they're advocating an alarming expansion of the nanny state. Wouldn't it be easier to just sterilize all gang members?
And, if not, why single out this parent? Because her ex-boyfriend was disorderly?Gang membership alone is not criminal activity and not all gang members are violent street thugs. If the mother, who is apparently caring for the child, is convicted of a crime or if there's evidence of abuse or neglect, putting the child into state care should obviously be an option. Otherwise, the best course of action would probably be encouraging her to get a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend and letting her get on with going to work and raising her child. Identifying with a gang neither makes one a de facto criminal nor an unfit mother. Nor does associating with or belonging to the Bonanno family, the Wo Group Triad, the Irish mob, the Russian Mafia, the Freemasons, or the Aryan Brotherhood. Is this only an issue because it's Ballers and Crips?
As to "improper parenting", sadly perhaps, it ain't against the law unless it poses an immediate threat to a child. But if it were against the law, I expect that in excess of 90% of all parenting would be considered "improper" by someone's standards.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.