Shouldn't gang members be tried as terrorists?

I've been saying to my friends for years gang members are the real terrorists. Why doesn't the government declare a war on them? Oh I know why, because the CIA provides them with the drugs which they profit off of, and by drugs being on the streets more slaves are jailed, another money making business.

reply to post by ericsnow


I agree it's a joke what they should do is bring everyone home from Afghanistan and use the military on the gangs, instead of worrying about what's going on in a third world nation they should be worried about whats happening in there own country.....the whole things a joke.

Not to poo your point, because I understand your thinking, particularly if you consider that "terrorist" means someone attempting to instill "terror".

But I'm not sure "terrorizing" is the motive of the gang member. They are more interested in money, and gaining status among the other hoodlums/group members, are they not?

Bear in mind, these are mostly kids. I've done a little research on gangs in the past, so the below is only off the top of my head.

By the time one is about 23, he's done with the gangs. He's tired of it, and ready to move on. Plus he knows, he's out of the "Juvenile Court" jurisdiction now, and does not want to go to prison.

You are all familiar with "antisocial personality". This is a disorder which may not, according to DSM, be diagnosed in a person less than 18 years of age.

So these kids are typically diagnosed with "Conduct Disorder". When they turn 18, the appropriate diagnosis is made.

However......there are two factions to Conduct Disorder.
1. Solitary Type
2. Group Type

Most gang members are "group type". As they age, they get over themselves, and much of the criminal activity.

It is the "solitary type" that typically is the sociopath/psychopath,antisocial personality disorder, who will have these traits the rest of his life. These are the ones to truly fear, as they are the ones who only see you as an object, or someone they can gain from, and do not recognize your humanity.

Would I want to see a bunch of group-type kids, from impoverished and otherwise dysfunctional homes labeled as terrorists and punished accordingly? And remember, this group is the vast majority of gangs.

Also, bear in mind, that in some cities gangs are so prevalent in some neighborhoods, that these kids almost have to join one, to survive. That is, to have protection from opposing gang members.

While gangs and "gangstas" remain a societal problem, and must be dealth with, I think Juvenile Court, Juvenile Police, and family services are best desiginated as the ones to cope with this population.

Sometimes the "heads" of the gangs, once evaluated, are determined to be "solitary type", as in really, really, messed up, and are behind the ideas of the crimes, they are transferred to adult court, to be tried as an adult. I honestly think some headway has been made in recent years with this way of managing things.

We don't have nearly the drive-by shootings we once did, (in my area) however, drugs in public schools remain a constant problem.

Just my two! But there is no arguing....that a group of kids coming at you with guns and knives can terrorize the crap out of you!

ETA: Not to say a youngster with "group-type" Conduct Disorder, won't kill you or harm you. He most certainly will. But he does so for approval within the group, and usually in front of the group. He does so to gain status with them. As he grows older, he will come to regret his actions. He will feel remorse, and wonder how he could have succumbed to such dreadful peer pressure, when he was a youngster.

The "Solitary Type", will never feel remorse for what he did. He would do it face to face with you alone in an alley or your home, with no audience.
He will always remember the incident with fondness.

This type is actually rather uncommon.







[edit on 8/21/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


It is an interesting idea, however I would not say that it would apply to most “gangsters”, it might to some. If you think what gangsters are stereotypically associated with; murder, extortion, vice, narcotics and so on. All of these are individual crimes if a gangster commits murder during a drug deal he will be trailed for committing manslaughter and drug trafficking, there are already laws in place that are designed to prosecute them for most things.

For most domestic crimes there is a law that the gangster can be tried under. The problem I have with calling these people terrorists is that it would boost their moral. Then there would also be problems with jurisdiction, as I understand it (my knowledge of US law is admittedly limited) gang relegated murder is mostly dealt with at state level however terrorism is a federal offence. This then would be a massive drain on federal resources in the FBI counter terrorism division (CTD), and would only distract from bigger domestic threats who seek to cause massive civilian casualties. Calling all gangsters terrorists would water down the meaning of terrorism.

Then there is the bigger problem of terrorism and jurisprudence, some of the other people on here have just gone right to an online dictionary to find a definition of terrorism. Your definition is wrong, terrorism is always defined by the state (federal) as it is stipulated under law, therefore for a ganger to be considered as a terrorist they would have to meet the definitions as set out under said law. It would always be more convent, simpler, cost effective and so on to try a murder as a murder other than a terrorist. Terrorist cases are very complex in comparison to other legal cases of murder, legally to call all gangsters terrorists, would be very problematic.

Then were does one stop, if all gangsters who commit murder are prosecuted under terrorist legislation then what about cases of domestic murder were a man kills his wife, what is the difference. Pretty soon you would have everybody being changed as being a terrorist, everybody would have huge potential to become a terrorist, it might even lead to de facto state of martial law in an extreme case. Remember that this would open up all sorts of restrictions on civil liberties.

I can envisage a scenario were a domestic gangster group or individual is tried under terrorism legislation, if for example they were to bomb a building however this would be a extreme case.

I understand what you are saying gangsters are scum, right down there with terrorists however does not make them terrorists. Legally declaring them as terrorists I think would only increase their notoriety whilst reducing that of real terrorists. It would also drain federal recourses, and cause present massive legal problems. We also have to ask if they would receive a harsher sentence if they were prosecuted as a gangster or as a terrorist and if this change would be worth it in the face of the problems it could potentially cause.

Terrorist, terrorism and terror almost seem like unrelated words these days. The government has changed the connotations of these words. Terror used to be like horror and associated with the thrills and chills of a B-rated horror film. I guess that from of "terror" is now replaced by "gore" and considered humorous entertainment rather than scary. From that point of view, Dracula was a terrorist and terrorism was running around in a scary costume at Halloween. To get that same effect today, just dress-up in a loose robe and wear a turban. A wide long sash would look nice too.

Alot of kids stay in gangs when they become adults heck alot of the heads of the gangs are calling the shots from jail, like i said bring in the military and put it to good use for a change instead of fighting a endless war in Afghanistan i mean it's obvious we need the military on our borders to stop the drug cartels.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by King Seesar]

It has actually already been done.

N.Y. Using Terrorism Law To Prosecute Street Gang

Bronx Man First Punished Under Anti-Terrorism

Edgar Morales, 25, was sentenced Monday to at least 40 years behind bars for a Bronx gang attack designated as an act of terrorism. Some say the state is overreaching, but the surviving victims don’t think so.

I can't say I agree with terrorism charges. Using the shear definition of terror, anyone who causes intense fear would be a terrorist, right? I think that opens the door for some questionable calls, and if you steal someones iPhone they could experience intense fear due to missed calls, the unability to update their facebook, or the naked pictures on the phone and now you're a terrorist.

While that may be an extreme circumstance, I think going to the lengths of charging someone as a terrorist, even in a gang shooting, is extreme also. The fact that he is a terrorizer, does not make him a terrorist. He is just a criminal and there are plenty of laws they can use to prosecute him.

But, this opens another door or is part of a bigger problem/question/situation in America.

This is a side of life that for years we have romanticised and glorified. How can you begin to prosecute a guy for being in a gang and terrorism, when you have no end of people on MTV saying to bust a cap in a nigga, rape his wife in front of his kids, then thank god when you recieve your Grammy. You cannot begin to prosecute people unless you start with those, if gangs are terrorism, wouldn't rappers be the Osama Bin Ladens?

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Excellent post. Good information, and interesting thinking.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Intresting take on the subject, however the rap game has changed some for good and some for bad...the some for good part is that alot of hip hop nowadays isn't singing about killing each other selling drugs ect ect, it's evolved but i do understand your point about the artists, you could say the same thing about actors if they play a bad guy in a movie does that make them a terrorist....of course not.

But to me it's cut and dry if your a gang member you should be treated like a terrorist and again i'll say the military should get involved especially on our borders were drug cartels are running rampant.