Jamiel Shaw, Sr. Appears on Full Disclosure
Mayor Sam Blogger and public safety reform activist Jamiel Shaw, Sr. appeared on a recent episode of the public affairs cable program, Full Disclosure. You can view an extended excerpt of the program by clicking here.It's a fascinating program and shows that Shaw is an articulate spokesman for the movement he represents.
Among the more interesting revelations is that City Councilman Herb Wesson attempted to talk the Shaws out of their protest movement and that during their appearance before the City Council 8th District Councilman and candidate for LA County Supervisor Bernard Parks - whose own granddaughter was an innocent victim of gang violence when she was murdered in 2000 - left the room and would not hear the Shaw's case.
In a related story Jamiel, Sr. himself reports on the petition drive to get Jamiel's Law on the ballot and his meeting with Councilman Dennis Zine where Shaw says that the 3rd District Councilman has declared his support for Jamiel's Law.
Labels: bernard parks, dennis zine, herb wesson, jamiel shaw sr., Jamiel's Law
Posted by Michael Higby @ 6/11/2008 04:00:00 AM
16 Comments:
Neighborhood councils needs to take a position on Jamiel's law. This will put it on the front burner. Then city councilmembers will know the community is interested in doing something and supporting this law.
Crap I wish I would have thought of that. Well maybe next month.
That was a great interview on the show, i hope we get jamiel's law passed.Who would be against getting illegal criminals deported.
Sorry to take away some of your glory on the "news" of Mr. Shaw's revelations that you mentioned, but he had talked about that on the radio interviews soon after the City Hall visit.
But I can see that many didn't hear about that. He is a very clear and direct speaker, able to convey his message while encountering so many doubters and detractors.
I am in CD-14 and doubt that Huizar gives two-hoots about supporting Zine's motion, and even less interest in Jamiel's Law in it's original form. I have e-mailed his office about this periodically and the only thing that happened was to get on his monthly bulletin list for email p.r. This as close to a personal touch as you get there. Very good. I've been told by staffers that the E.R. office is fully staffed now. Maybe next time they will read my messages to him.
I would expect even less- if that's possible- from Reyes office. He's on the Weiss committee and looks to this as racially based, like most things to him. I have sent email on this and other topics and get nothing back- but maybe that's a good thing, considering the office.
Support Jamiel's Law.
As the Daily News reports, the Council shot down the Runner bill which would make it tougher for gang members to get back on the streets.
Cardenas and Alarcon of course railed against it, stacking the Council with their supporters. Kids who sadly had trouble speaking in English, and should have put more energy into school -- that's the best gang intervention program right there. Education.
Instead their host of angry speakers who were all Hispanic, demanded things like jobs for every youth on any gangmember or gang injunction list.
Demanded expensive programs to "save" 14-15 year olds, even if they're felons and active gangmembers. Although even those on the street know that's too late for huggy-feely programs, which work only before kids get into trouble.
These people were so hostile, so filled with brainwashing from their MEChA leaders and schools, against "anglos" they clearly blamed for everything. When clearly they're not the kinds of employees most people want or could invest in for higher tech jobs. They can't even speak English and seem hostile.
Alarcon of course, got off topic and demanded more high tech jobs for these people -- making it clear they're not talking $10/hr jobs. Then of course he and Reyes demand subsidized housing for these people in the poshest parts of town.
Alarcon was the worst, yelling that this was a Republican scam for more power, that Californians know better and that the "conservative talk show hosts" (his favorite bogeymen) don't have the clout of one Spanish-language tv or radio commenter. THAT shows who he cares about -- pandering to the illegals, who increases this base.
Rosendahl and Garcetti opposed the measure, Garcetti making some valid points like that it's a bad idea to jail youths with adults. That's the one issue I agree with -- this bill should be rewritten to exclude that before it's on the Nov. ballot. Under 18's should be in separate facilities where they're treated tough, a last chance effort to shape them up. But not subjected to hardened adults, who just abuse them and train them.
Janice Hahn proved what a moron and openly shameless panderer she is to the lowest common denominator in the peanut gallery -- joining with Alarcon, and reminding about her proposed ballot measure (on this same ballot) to tax homeowners AGAIN for gang programs. I hope Ron Kaye, who's fed up with the trash tax, leads a rebellion on THAT one, a real fraud which isn't even pretending to give services.
When the gallery applauded Hahn and Perry asked them not to interrupt, Hahn said she liked the applause -- proving what a pretentious phony she is. Not a bone of integrity in her body -- just whatever it takes to get votes from the majority we have in this city, the gimme-gimmes who are often Hispanic. There weren't even any black speakers there today -- this seemed to be very much of an ethnic movement.
Smith got booed, as the only one who spoke for it. He said it was a shame that Parks didn't side with him. He said the bill would NOT put away youths for minor crimes, as Cardenas claimed, not even drug dealing, just violent offenses.
Cardenas and gang also lied that this would be too expensive and take money away from existing gang intervention programs. Sure prison is expensive, but harsher sentences deter crime. Right now, gangmembers use these young kids as their soldiers, knowing they won't pay a serious price.
It's overdue to have a state database for gangmembers, and not to let illegal ones back into our community.
It's outrageous that Cardenas, Alarcon and these others sided with the audience member who said it's OUR responsibility to keep these illegal gangmembers here and in expensive programs, and give them jobs. NO bail for them is right.
Maybe the Jamiel's Law people could work with the Runner bill people -- their agenda is part of the Runner bill.
The one wrong part of this bill, jailing youths with adults, wouldn't have applied to Espinoza. Both bills agree, no bail or street release and expensive huggy programs for illegal gangmembers in jail for felonies, regardless of age.
The fact their parents brought them here illegally and turned them into vicious hazards in our country, doesn't mean they're "our" problem now. It's bad enough we have all their anchor babies.
I saw most of the Council meeting commenter giving "testimony" (no one is ever sworn in, but what difference would it make in the entire circus atmmosphere council creates there?)
I agree with most of the observations, but the idea of most of them not being able to SPEAK English really is about not being able to EXPRESS themselves and their ideas well, with public speaking itself a challenge to most newcomers to city hall- except for non-newcomer Reyes (who leaves me often mystified by his starts and stops and word that he spurts, but I digress.)
Many of the speakers were latino members of social organizations and activists, so they were routinely incorporating the expected pleas for leniency.
There WERE some Black speakers, not just latinos. Most of the morning comments were cumulative, repeating the same ideas as other speakers. The whole thing was obviously stacked to get the Council to oppose the bill.
I kept hearing "second chance", and "too young", sprinkled in with the comments. What I want to know is WHAT did the one kid do to get 8 years in prison? NO ONE EVER said what got them into jail. NO ONE ever acted as if any punishment was deserved. I find that what people leave OUT is often more revealing about themselves than what they disclose.
One latina woman listed lots of things EXPECTED to be supplied by the government in referring to a Reyes visit and being told "There's no money" in reply her request for building a community center. She was one of the "entitlement" people, as opposed to the "personal responsibility" people.
The crime-stopping ideas most speakers omitted was the responsibility of PARENTS for raising their children to do RIGHT. Intervention programs were pushed as alternatives to incarceration, but WHAT GOT THINGS THIS WAY parents? Do you now give up and blame others?
Too many teen pregnancies, too many biological-only fathers, and too much ignorance in the picture.
I agree that Hahn came across as a hack and Greg Smith started off his time really on fire. Very refreshing to hear something ringing of sincerity from that bunch. It was such a contrast from Cardenas' "cross-exam" of the cable tv rep on 5-30-08 that on the city video logs. His grandstanding, rhetorical questions that he answered himself, and leading questions would not even have worked in court, but he panders ALL THE TIME.
ALARCON talking about "talk show" HOSTS and Spanish Language newsmen, what's his problem? Always getting to diviseness under the preparatory segways of diversity.
(He is on a mission to find ways to victimize resident with more taxes and fees to "generate revenue", as today in emphasizing Animal Regulation's role in getting door to door for licensing dogs, but yet not seeing benefits of spaying and neutering.)
Garcetti was pretty good at trying to emphasize that reasonable mind may differ, and is less robotic than he used to be.
In the end, the whole block of time was spent for a city's "resolution" that has not any force of law on the state legislators, at least the last time I checked.
Huizar's non-fan constituent.
Lately, I have been following the efforts of Mr and Mrs. Jamiel Shaw Sr. to have Los Angeles Special Rule 40 amended so that LAPD officers could take action on the streets against known gang members who are in the country illegally. The Shaw's son, Jamiel Jr., was gunned down in March. Pedro Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street Gang and illegal alien is charged with the crime.
Mr Shaw was recently interviewed on Full Disclosure, a public affairs cable program. During the interview, Shaw claimed that LA City Council Member, Herb Wesson had tried to convince the Shaws to drop their efforts to have Special Rule 40 amended. Mr Shaw also claimed that during his appearance before the LA City Council to plead his case, City Council Member Bernard Parks (formerly LAPD's Chief of Police) left the room.
Shaw has also claimed that Asst DA, Michelle Hanisee, told him and his wife that the position of the DA's Office was that Jamiel was the victim of a gang murder as opposed to a hate crime (Shaw was black.), and that the DA would attempt to show that Jamiel was a gang member himself, a charge Mr and Mrs Shaw vehemently deny. (Jamiel was a star high school football player.)
As for action to amend SO 40, at this point, the Shaws are still waiting for their petition to return from the City Clerk's Office. They need 76,000 signatures within 120 days that would qualify it to be placed on the March 3, 2009 election ballot.
In addition, LA Council Member, Dennis Zine, who is supporting the measure, has stated that once on the ballot, he will write a resolution of support (which would open the door for the City Council to discuss Jamiel's Law).
In his latest posting, Mr Shaw states,"We truly miss Jas, and we will never stop fighting to get Jamiel's Law passed. Please fight with us."
The interview of Mr Shaw on Full Disclosure can be found on:
www.fulldisclosure.net.
It is a two-part interview to be featured on 45 cable systems. A preview can be found on: www.youtube.com/FullDisclosureNetwork.
It should also be pointed out that City Council Member Jack Weiss controls the passage of Mr Zine's resolution through the City Council bureaucracy. Mr Shaw is urging supporters to call Weiss' office to urge him to support the measure (which he currently does not). Weiss' phone number is (213) 473-7005.
Speaking of Mr Weiss, who some regard as the worst of the cast of Disney characters that is the LA City Council, he is currently jockeying for the position of LA City Attorney, currently held by another empty suit named Rocky Delgadillo. Mr Weiss may be too busy to care about the grief being endured by the Shaws, but he is not too busy to attend a big fund raiser June 10 on his behalf held in Santa Monica by a certain Steve Sugerman. Mr Sugerman, who is considered a fixture at City Hall, pleaded to a felony charge a few years back for his role in the Fleishman-Hillard scandal.* However, that apparently did not make him persona non grata at City Hall, nor does it concern Jack Weiss.
So, as things stand now, Mr and Mrs Shaw struggle literally against City Hall while said institution just goes on feathering its nest.
And where might you ask is LA Mayor's mayor, Antonio (Viajero)Villaraigosa? Well, now that he is no longer on Hillary Clinton's campaign trail, he is getting ready to go on a junket next month to Israel with half a plane load of his horseholders to study that country's security procedures and "green technology". The cost is being paid for by the mayor's budget, LA Airport, Harbor Commission, and the Department of Water and Power. (Yes, their bosses are all going as well.) And if you can figure that one out, drop me a line.
* Fleishman-Hillard was a PR firm hired by the ever-questionable Department of Water and Power, which also became enmeshed with former mayor, James Hahn-just one of his many scandals.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
Gary Fouse, your "news" is a month old, and all aspects discussed in all the media and other threads here, pro and con. Clearly you're posting blind, to blame Jack Weiss for things after what people have posted here about the posturings and shennanigans of Mssrs. Alarcon, Cardenas, etc., and Madame Hahn. Give me a break -- thank goodness he's one guy who says and does what he believes and doesn't beat his chest. Maybe that's his mistake -- this bunch of fawning grandstanders takes up way too much time trying to sound important and relevant, when they're not even educated and have no idea of the law. Maybe it's a case of when you know too much to do that, you tread more carefully and thoughtfully. While I'm not even a constituent of Weiss I'd happily trade my Alarcon for your Weiss -- I'm a block outside of Greuel's district, unfortunately. Still, it's clear who the educated and articulate ones are: Garcetti, Greuel, Weiss, and that's about it. Garcetti and Weiss just speak a lot more often.
Maybe that's what's wrong with the Shaw bill: someone like Walter Moore can rant on because he doesn't know the law. Mr. Shaw for all his anguish we all sympathize with, is second-guessing and filing grievances against a top DA/ Michelle Hanisee; Zine's paparazzi bill shows he doesn't know the law or constitution, and had the goal all wrong, too. At least Malibu's proposed pap law is designed to protect the RIGHT people: neighbors of these pap magnets, whose safety and property values are compromised while the Airhead Celebs often relish the publicity. There are even odder bedfellows and genuine racists and xenophobes attached to this law, so I wouldn't expect ANY lawyer to endorse it and get "behind" the Shaws.
And it's already a law to deport illegal gangbangers or report them to ICE: what's needed is better cooperation and data sharing between depts. To ONLY focus on this one aspect and individuals like the Shaws and Moore (a one- note "candidate") would be to stir up negative elements. Even black critics of the system like Earl Ofari Hutchinson aren't for it for these reasons. Sorry.
Why is it that MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Drivers) only focuses on drunk drivers? Because a Drunk Driver killed one of their/our Children!
Why are The Shaws going after Illegal Alien gangbangers? Because an illegal alien gang banger is accused of killing their/our Son!
You can't blame them on that one...
9:39 don why don't you use your name coward.
10:12/ previous poster: I'm not Don Whatever, but your calling anyone who won't go along with your "program" shows why you're not ready for prime time and deserve to fail on this. Your group is NOT one mainstream people want to or will rally behind.
Walter Moore has also gotten more and more unhinged -- in his Daily News comments (he has to be on everything to do with gangs or violence) he now not only accuses the entire Council and Mayor of siding with illegal gangmembers, but accuses his one potential ally, Zine of trying to ride on HIS and the Shaws' coattails with his "watered down" version that he makes fun of. (Doesn't even mention Greig Smith, who was the lone vote for the Runner bill, which does what the Shaw bill wants but goes a lot further and isn't aimed just at LA's illegals, but against all illegals and non-illegal gangmember repeat felons.) No one will get behind Walter Moore.
To Anonymous (9:39)
What I wrote may be a month old, but it doesn't make it any less true. In your eagerness to defend Weiss, you seem to imply that I am sticking up for the other empty suits on the LACC. I am not. It appears to me that only Zine is finally trying to do the right thing.
I was born and raised in LA, but thank God I live in OC now. The city has become a cesspool, and the people who run the city are equally responsible for the decline of a once-great city. Want names?
Villaraigosa
Hahn
Delgadillo
Bratton
Most of the City Council
DA's Office
So go on and protect your empty suits and the illegal alien gang-bangers. I will continue to support decent people like the Shaws.
gary fouse
Fouse, if you think Zine is "the onlh one trying to do the right thing," the Moore/Shaw camp denigrating him, an elected Councilman, as trying to "ride on the coattails" of themselves shows how ignorant and naive they are. Zine is among the least legally savvy of the bunch, as demonstrated by his backwards take on the paparazzi law and many other issues, which is why he was willing to stick his neck out for this misguided mess.
Yet instead of being grateful, the arrogance and absolute naivite of Moore comes through. And his inability to speak articulately came out in the "debate" with Newton, where he came off as the one-note simpleton his critics say he is. You people who deride those not making fools of themselves by saying things that are legally indefensible just because they get him two minutes of fame -- which includes Moore, as well as some electeds -- are really encouraging the kinds of self-serving, empty talk you claim to dislike. If policies and forces are in place that you don't like, it's because YOU people all live in the shallow perception, and can't see the forest for the trees. Which includes you, Mr. Fouse.
To you people, the one "right" view is to jump onboard with a simplistic, emotion-based bill, backed by someone so inarticulate he can't even hold his own when given a chance to think about his responses in writing. And then he's dumb and egotistical enough, as a nobody, to insult even the one guy, Zine, who you all claim is doing "the right thing." (Zine comes off a fool for having given this Moore any credence.)
The Shaws are articulate when it comes to their personal story, but way out of their league in trying to tackle legal and political issues with the help of this simpleton Moore.
Sadly, whether or not their son was in a gang, his MySpace postings and some attire make him less than totally innocent -- although I'd argue that he was just trying to look "cool," not a gangmember. In the last two months, the situation has become a lot more confusing, and perceptions tangle with reality.
If you want to get a bill passed on the name of one child, like Megan's Law, that victim has to be purely a victim: that was a little girl in her own bedroom. (Yet even that law, putting pedophiles so far from communities and anyplace with schools that it hurts their ability to hold jobs and makes them more of a burden on society, wasn't well thought-out. What happens when you try to pass a law based just on emotions.) I was very moved by their initial appearance in Council and the whole story, but the more one sees of this issue, it's clear those behind it are outclassed in intellect and understanding of our legal and political systems.
To anonymous,
Look, I don't care what you have against Moore and Zine, because I really don't know much about them. I have not mentioned Moore, and I only said that Zine was finally trying to do the right thing since he is at least trying to support the Shaws and amend SO 40.
What I really find disturbing is that you join others in denigrating the Shaw family and implying that the victim was something "less than totally innocent". I now see why you sign your posts as "Anonymous". Good idea.
gary fouse
Gary Fouse, you have trouble reading, and are the kind of simple-minded defenders that have grouped around this issue. And you're in denial and hostile to those who try to explain their reasoning, which is a BAD approach to trying to influence public opinion.
I'm not the one who criticized Zine, you idiot, except that he knows zero about the law, or the Constitution, as in the paparazzi case he tried to push. His bill was intended to protect celebrities without thinking out the limits of "press" freedoms -- while the anti- paparazzi law in Malibu, under the study of an influential attorney/ professor of law, is intended to protect the public from paparazzi in pursuit of celebrities, which is the right and legal way to go. No one with any knowledge of the law would have approached the issue as he did. It's the naive and ignorant who plunge right in anyway == and he's gotten his 15 minutes of fame over that bill.
And for your information, he made the nonsensical statement that most illegals come in legally and then their papers expire -- the opposite is true; most of the legalized Hispanics came in illegally and received amnesty in 86. The Times even ran a recent story affirming this, as though it were news to anyone but Zine.
BUT what I said is, it's Walter who's making negative comments about Zine in the Daily News and elsewhere, Mr. Reading Challenged. Walter's accusing Zine of riding HIS and the Shaws' coattails on the issue == the nerve, of a nobody like Walter to make such a claim, about the one person (ignorant about the law of not) who he NEEDS for credibility and to place the motion.
And your making an implied threat against anyone who says Jamiel was less than innocent -- like you all did to DA Michelle Hanisee -- has cost you much of the support you all had. I said as most people do, I do NOT believe he was in a gang, but his MySpace hand signals etc., show gang signs. No, not the Star Trek sign, as claimed. That does NOT mean he should have been targeted, of course, and yes, if Espinoza should not have been let out on the streets -- as in the more comprehensive Runner bill, he should not have received bail at all, as an illegal gangmember.
But your threatening stance with those who don't buy your side's arguments, your inability to understand issues, the way you people attach all sorts of other issues to this one, and the zuma- like ego Walter Moore is exhibiting, have turned many like me from sympathizers to saying too bad, you've done it the totally wrong way.
Many of us would like to see the enforcement of NO bail and deportation of illegal gangmembers, but NOT with this group, this way.
To anonymous,
My delayed response is because I was out of the country.
I don't know why you continue to rant about Moore,Zine, and the paparazzi law, none of which concern me. I am concerned about innocent citizens like Jamiel Shaw being gunned down by illegal alien gang members while the lapd stand helplessly by when a little proactive action against these gang members could save innocent lives. That does not seem to concern you, however.
As for your name calling and insults, it sure is easy and courageous to call someone an idiot behind the moniker of "anonymous". Unlike you, I always sign my name.
Gary Fouse
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home