Currently the SF City Attorney as well as one in Sacramento are winning legal battles against Gangs. Forbidding them from congregating. In an attempt to stem the violence. They're using gov. gathered information to designate who are members.
In SF the violence committed maybe (?) from members of a particular area, but what provokes the altercations usually are silly personal issues. NOT TURF WARS, which the injunction's claim to stop.
In govs attempt to regulate behavior the theorist often miss the point (completely). The goal is always to take rights away, which history shows at best is a temporary measure, but the rights taken become permanent.
The best I can make of it is the following:
Unfortunately for the good sense of mankind, the fact of their fallibility is far from carrying the weight in their practical judgment, which is always allowed to it in theory; for while every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion, of which they feel very certain, may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.
John Stuart Mill (1806Ã???1873). On Liberty. 1869
As I'm in the process of establishing a moratorium on the (Young) black murder rate, my greatest fight is not with the youths, but with those that want 'quick stop gap measures'. Which defines the gov's approach, which never accomplishes anything...oh except, the elimination of more rights
DuPree for Mayor '08