Posted by Barton Lorimor
This story has been everywhere. I think it’s time the CapFax commenters take a crack at it…
Reputed gang members are the latest to come out against top Chicago police and federal prosecutors’ so-called “gang summit” strategy to curb gang violence in the nation’s third-largest city.
Chicago police Superintendent Jody Weis is facing mounting criticism for holding the meeting last month, even though several police departments across the country have relied on that approach for decades to help reduce crime.
Weis held a meeting with the reputed leaders of several West Side gangs over the weekend. At the meeting, prosecutors warned that gang members could be charged under federal racketeering laws if killings were traced back to gangs with members attending the meeting.
Question: Do you have a quarrel with the ‘Gang Summit’? If you were Weis, would you have met with the crime syndicates? If not, what would you have done differently?
LIVE session coverage...
- Bill - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
If I were Weis, God forbid, I would have called the meeting, waited until those scumbags were all inside and then had my men open fire on the building with bazookas.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 1:39 pm:
No I would not have met with them, I just would have done it. Just opened the can of ‘Whoop A–’ not said one more time and I am going to get very, very angry….
- Wumpus - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 1:46 pm:
Inovative, outside the box, Proactive and letting them know what is coming, Good job Weis!
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 1:50 pm:
I have no quarrel, sir.
The Sun-Times coverage yesterday was pretty good. The idea comes from some hippy-looking professor at the John Jay School in New York.
According to the articles, the approach has had a dramatic effect in a short time in a number of places, with Cincinatti held up as a model.
Weis has been taking the heat on this, but the federales were a big part of the meeting, too. Obviously, if you’re threatening RICO charges, they’re the guys.
I don’t have a problem laying it down to anyone. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened before.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
How can you tell the difference between a gang summit and a meeting of the Cook County Dems?
- 'Cause they all look alike - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
Right, Cincinnatus?
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:02 pm:
I was upset to hear about this meeting at first. I then read that the thugs were expecting a “routine parole meeting” and that the gang leaders were not actually invited to some type of “summit meeting”. That would have offended me as it would appear to give some status to these street scum.
My first thought is still strong that it would have been better to just go after them with what they threatened rather than talking to them. No harm in doing what they did if, in fact, the bad guys were sandbagged.
It doesn’t appear that anyone thought much of the thugs “press conference” held later.
Now that the meeting has occured - the can of whoop-a$$ should be on a hair trigger. To pull any punches at this point would be beyond stupid.
- Pat Collins - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:06 pm:
Well, I dont see how it can hurt. It’s not like you can arrest them for being gang members.
Prevention is worth a lot, even if just a little prevention happens. Problem is, you can never show what didn’t happen.
- sal-says - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:15 pm:
Something needs to change with Chi violence and ‘gangs’. A new look/approach can’t be all bad.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:17 pm:
- ‘Cause they all look alike - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
“Right, Cincinnatus?”
Wrong, fool. They’re all crooks.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:18 pm:
I don’t mind the talking so much. What frustrates me is the years of inaction, mainly by the feds.
If this warning does indeed lead to RICO charges - and soon - then fine. If not, it’s just empty rhetoric. Trying to jawbone down the murder rate is no substitute for action.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:18 pm:
No objection to it — he and the prosecutors just have to follow through on the massive civil rico threats, both to show their threats at the meeting were real and to provide incentive for decreasing violence (worst offending gangs get most civil rico smackdown).
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:21 pm:
You’re supposed to be on vacation, Rich, aren’t you? Just checking in I suppose. I hope you notice how well Mr Lorimor is doing. Bang up job IMO.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:31 pm:
I couldn’t agree more with Rich Miller. If RICO was an option why wait all these years and if talking was an option why are they just starting to talk now.
I think it’s because an election is coming which really makes me sick.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
No, it’s a stupid idea. (1) It gives these thugs a microphone and props them up. (2) Giving the gang leaders a stern warning/talking to is supposed to set them straight?! Get real. How about, instead of warning them that if they don’t get their act together the cops will crack down hardcore….we just start cracking down hardcore. No warning or second chance should be given. They’re not community leaders or “activists”, they’re criminals keeping neighborhoods in virtual lockdown.
- Responsa - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:43 pm:
When things are in crisis, and nothing else has worked, looking for solutions and/or amelioration outside the box takes courage– but sometimes it works really well. Look at Macgyver. I am stunned that Weis is getting so much flak for trying something different in an attempt to stop the violence. It is also fascinating to see who is supporting him and who are his critics. A few surprises there, but mostly it looks to us regular folk like stopping the violence is only a popular “cause” if it’s done in a politically correct manner and with a single politically motivated solution in mind (hire more cops).
- Dan Bureaucrat - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:48 pm:
There is nothing wrong with police talking to these groups or anyone else in the community–in fact, they should do A LOT more of that. But, they only talked to people on parole because those are the only people who they could force to talk to them. That’s okay too, but the gang member who says he can’t control these random groups of fools is….actually right. Plus, he is on parole so he is more likely to get himself in trouble messing around in other people’s business. Still worth a try, as long as we understand that it won’t even approach the scope of the problem.
They did not talk to former gang leaders who are not on parole. Yet, there are a lot of former gang members working to end violence and talk these kids out of violence. Some of them really go back and take on the worst of the worst. They are not supported in any way and are often kicked out of public spaces.
No matter what you think about them, they are experts in this problem. We have to believe that there are a lot of factors that go into someone’s decision to join a gang, and a lot of factors that would cause someone to step out. A guy like me, and a guy like Jody Weis, are not going to be effective. Many former gang leaders want to help and they have the credentials. We should let them.
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 2:58 pm:
DB,
There have been a few high visibility cases where folk brought in so called former gang members to help out with gang issues in neighborhoods. Some actually were ex-gang members and have done some good. Then there were the few who put up a few candidates for office and supported some others. Not so good - I think people are wary of those purporting to be former gang members who offer to help. Gang members infiltrating the CPD also have been alleged. Hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, sometimes.
- Third Generation Chicago Native - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 3:13 pm:
Meeting with Gang leaders is like recognizing them as important members of society, in leadership roles in their community.
Not the message you want to send. In the past leaders of churches met with members of the Police and were viewed as community leaders, and discussed gang problems etc in these meetings.
- Levois - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 3:14 pm:
One can only wonder if going after the gang leaders can force the ones on the streets to get back in line and follow the gang hierarchy.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 3:26 pm:
dupage dan and TGCN,
There is certainly truth in what you say. However, there are programs all over the country (like Ceasefire) with proven results. Many ex gang leaders do become the strongest and most effective advocates against violence. That’s just a fact. We can shun them or make use of them. If they are infiltrating the CPD, then do we wipe out the CPD? No, there are bad apples everywhere. Seems to me that this is the ideal fate of a gang leader.
Church leaders are great, but police meeting with church leaders doesn’t help end violence b/c kids in gangs don’t respect them.
- North of I-80 - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 3:46 pm:
No. Meeting with your adversary is out of weakness or to negotiate a surrender. The cops should be out there arresting & protecting the public from the savages. Perhaps if we weren’t 2000 CPD officers down, the savages would be calling CPD asking for a meeting. Our leaders act like it’s bean bag or some school yard tiff where they can talk big [fed RICO] and look tough. While they flounder & fail, violence & insurance rates & fear rise…. safety & property values drop.
- North of I-80 - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 3:51 pm:
#2 - if CPD is now going to ‘get tough’, that in the he&& have they been doing up to now? Playing softball? Are we telling killers to “shape up” or else we’re going to kick their butts, why have they NOT been doing so up to now? Are we the only ones noticing the murder rate & violence? Has CPD or the Cook Co court system or Corrections been EASY on the savages up to now?
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:03 pm:
“No. Meeting with your adversary is out of weakness or to negotiate a surrender.”
Straight from the “George Bush School of External Relations.” They are bad so we won’t talk to them. That is the worst approach you could ever take. You should talk to your enemies as frequently as you can. You don’t have to “negotiate” with them, but you can have discussions that may lead to something eventually. Not exactly an even comparison, but for goodness sakes, Reagan met with the “Evil Empire” eventually.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:07 pm:
By the way, to answer the question, I don’t have any problems with Chief Weis meeting with these gang members.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:14 pm:
Demoralized,
“Straight from the “George Bush School of External Relations.”
That is an extremely unsophisticated comment. Bush had relationships with all of our “enemies” either through back-channel or other indirect means. What Bush would not do is openly negotiate with our “enemies” because as TGCN rightly points out, it is a sign of weakness to negotiate in the open.
I applaud Weis for his efforts, just not his tactics. He should not have publicized his meeting, one reason being the heat he is taking, another being elevating the stature of the gang members, and a third being that if he fails he will look like a fool.
A coordinated effort by some serious neighborhood leaders in the affected communities, the gangs, local beat cops and the top cops should take place in very informal settings. No publicity. This effort, along with a task force approach to the crimes may yield results. This effort looks like a publicity stunt at election time, whether it is a good faith attempt or not.
- Justice - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:15 pm:
This gives the gangs credibility and establishes a bad president. Arrest them, put them in the slammer, then meet with them and tell them just how long they’re gonna be there.
You are either the law or you’re giving the citizens lip service. Do your job, get tough on crime, and stop with this “out of the box” crap. Here’s something out of the box…”put your hands where we can see them, you’re under arrest.”
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:17 pm:
It provides a small window into the world where CPD has ceded certain city territories to the gangs where the open drug markets have existed for years.
If the Superintendent has to call parolees together to tell them that there will be a law enforcement speaks volumes about their coexistence strategy.
The police should be using all available avenues to stop crime in all parts of the city without asking for permission from the gang leadership.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:25 pm:
@Cinci:
Forgive me for not being as “sophisticated” as you might like. I don’t agree with you so I must be a simple-minded person.
I don’t happen to agree that what happened indicates any kind of weakness. Nothing was negotiated. It was the “we talk, you listen” kind of meeting. I also don’t subscribe to this conservative notion that you and so many others espouse about meeting with “certain” people. It’s just nonsense.
- Wensicia - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:26 pm:
Talk is cheap unless you follow up with action. To me, this just looks like a publicity stunt.
- cassandra - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:30 pm:
I don’t think Weis is the only one talking to the gangs, although it’s fine with me if he does. Chicago Tonight had a panel of aldermen (plus one Ceasefire exec) recently and the impression I got was the everybody was talking to these guys all the time. A real gabfest. It doesn’t seem to have done much good.
I think Plutocrat03 is right. I live on the border with Chicago’s West Side, and those open drug markets have indeed existed for years.
The police need to do whatever is necessary.
But do something more than talk.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:35 pm:
I do believe, like Cassandra says, that talking has obviously done no good. Still doesn’t hurt. I don’t think the problem ever gets solved unless the leaders in the neighborhoods (clergy or otherwise) can convice theys guys to stop killing innocents, let alone each other. Or, unless a massive force invades these neighborhoods to take down these guys once and for all.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 3, 10 @ 4:37 pm:
Excuse me — “these guys”.
I just created “theys” as a new word. Jeez.