Combatting Gangs With Court Order in Westminster

* I was shocked by the front-page report (“Westminster Gang Gets the Word--in Writing,” July 11) regarding the temporary restraining order served on alleged members of the West Trece gang. The Times’ article noted that “it may not be constitutional, but it’s working.” Am I to suppose that our constitutional rights are now subject to expediency?

Pastor Niemoeller, a victim of the Nazi Holocaust, stated: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

I am not a gang member, but I feel compelled to speak out against this constitutional transgression being encouraged by the city of Westminster. The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that no law may be established abridging “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The Westminster restraining order abridges the right of neighbors to peaceably assemble, as noted in The Times’ article: “ . . . bans 59 young men thought to be active members from standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing anywhere in public view with any other members within a 25-square-block neighborhood.”

I find Mayor Charles Smith’s remarks: “We have the rights of the citizens in the community to be concerned about, not the rights of gangs. . . .” wholly reprehensible. The rights of citizens as expressed in our Constitution are paramount to all other rights we enjoy, and for a public official to acquiesce to any diminishment of citizens’ rights is a violation of that official’s oath of office. No crime or violation has been specifically alleged in this restraining order; this order supposes guilt by association. Such bastardization of our laws and right has no place in our society.

If law enforcement techniques have failed then the city should be looking at the root causes and solutions to the problem rather than compounding the problem by violating the law.

The Westminster restraining order does great harm in diminishing respect for the law and law enforcement in general.

*

DAVID L. KEELER

Anaheim

* I am writing to comment on the latest ploy to combat the ever-increasing gang problem. Although I am a liberal and side with most of the ACLU positions, I am in complete disagreement with their stand on the supposed violation of the gang members’ rights as proposed by the new ordinance in Westminster.

I come from the barrio in El Paso, where the presumed birth of this nefarious practice of neighborhood terrorism took place. Now this cancer has spread even to the neighborhoods where I and other law-abiding Mexican-Americans moved in order to provide our families with a better chance at the American dream.

Because of the permissiveness of some parents, the spread of this gang attitude is threatening and succeeding in pulling in otherwise decent youngsters. These street thugs do nothing but terrorize, destroy and divide the same neighborhoods that they claim to be protecting. This is nothing but a sham! The only thing these lowlifes are defending in our neighborhoods is their supposed right not to pay heed to authority--not to work, not to attend school but to be allowed to hang out and engage in crime with impunity.

I applaud the efforts of the Westminster Police Department and its pioneering efforts to rid our neighborhoods of these self-serving punks that truly infringe on decent people’s right to live in a clean, safe and friendly environment. I hope the police and their anti-gang squad are very successful and that their methods spread to other areas that are plagued by this disease.

WILLIE QUINONES

Westminster