Friday, May 4, 2012

South San Francisco - good riddance to 2 street gangs taken down


Federal government (Homeland Security) and local law agencies war on gang crime.  

The Daily Journal, San Mateo/Bill Silverfarb, 5/4/12. "South San Francisco murder suspect facing death penalty."

"Got room with a view, got LIFE with my hommes."
"Four alleged Norteño gang members face the death penalty for their parts in a triple homicide in South San Francisco in late 2010, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag said yesterday.  In all, 13 suspects were arrested yesterday across the Bay Area on racketeering charges related to their roles in two South San Francisco gangs, the 500 Block and C Street gangs, Haag said."  ...Others arrested include Armando Acosta, aka “Savage,” 27, of Pacifica...

"They are charged with racketeering conspiracy; conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering; and conspiracy to commit assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, arising from their participation in the racketeering enterprise...  Many of the suspects are facing life sentences. The lightest sentence for any defendant is 40 years."

“The charges ... are a result of the tireless efforts of several law enforcement agencies who are working together to keep the community safe,” Haag said. “For the victims and their families, there is nothing we can do to erase their pain and sorrow. I hope, however, that these charges begin to provide some closure for them.” Read Article. 

Related - CBS San Francisco/Chris Filippi, article  5/4/12. "South San Francisco leaders see progress in curbing gang activity" And,  CBS San Francisco, 5/3/12. "3 ICE agents shot in Petaluma gang sweep connected to 2010 triple killing."

Posted by Kathy Meeh

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

The war at home.

Anonymous said...

Run that gang trash out of Pacifica. Once they get a foothold this town will be a cesspool in no time at all.

Anonymous said...

The police started a real street war arrestting innocent men will have severe ripple effect just watch.... The fun just begun

Anonymous said...

Innocent? From the TV news, two claimed they were innocent. But the police probably had reason to book them along with the others Hence, innocent until proven guilty, then probably guilty.

Anonymous said...

Not one was innocent. All are connected and in their own way participated. LOCK THEM UP.

Good job, PD. Tired of this gang bullshit.

Anonymous said...

It's coming our way.

AP said...

I think the insensitive person that wrote this article should be shot. I am not at all saying anyone is innocent and God forbid my children had been caught in the cross fire, but live are destroyed, namely the street gang whose members were shot and killed and the title of this article is "good riddance to 2 street gangs taken down," are you kidding me. A mother lost her son to either a bullet or the system. That beings fault, maybe so, but society and the way the system is run has a lot to do with it. You don't hardly see rich kids getting involoved in the likes. This is a poor mans gang. So good riddance to you, as I am sure you will not make it as a writer, for your own ignorance.

Kathy Meeh said...

"... lives are destroyed, namely the street gang whose members were shot and killed and the title of this article is "good riddance to 2 street gangs taken down.." AH, 343.

At the time of the 5/4/12 article, San Mateo County was busy breaking up gangs. The concern for the victims and their families is expressed by the author, highlighted by me in the reprint framing. The blog title was my choice, not to be confused by the author's title, "South San Francisco murder suspect facing death penalty". One person arrested was a Pacifican, which is probably the reason the article reprint was posted.

Keeping your children out of gangs is your job. Your job is not to be confused with your projected view that the professional journalist and the blog reprint poster are "ignorant". In other words, when you have something important and valid to say, you should be able to do that without attempting to trash other contributors. Got it?

Anonymous said...

343 Sorry, but I find your first sentence rather insensitive. You may have exaggerated for effect, but there are many who either can't or will refuse to make the distinction. Not lecturing, just saying...

Scotty said...

It's very valid for 3:43 to say that "good riddance" is not an enlightened response to people dying, whatever the circumstances (although saying "they should be shot" is equally childish on their part).

Got it?