West Baltimore gang takedown: 33 indicted on drug, gun and attempted murder charges, police say

cbsnews.com

Submitted by Dr_Midnight t3_125zdlz in baltimore

BALTIMORE -- Top city and state leaders and law enforcement officials on Tuesday announced the takedown of a West Baltimore gang and the subsequent indictment of 33 defendants.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, joined by Baltimore Police Chief Michael Harrison and Mayor Brandon Scott, said the gang ran a drug enterprise distributing mainly fentanyl, heroin and cocaine.

The gang allegedly used violence and the threat of violence to enforce their territory in south, southwest and west Baltimore, Brown said, namely in the areas of West Baltimore Street and North Bentalou Street, South Calverton Road and Frederick Avenue and South Franklintown Road and Hollins Street.

"Don't let this be you," Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said. "We are implementing the group violence reduction strategy in the way that it should be. We want you to change your life. We want you to stay alive. We don't want you to go to jail, but if you choose to do this that's what's going to happen to you."

(Read more in the attached linked article.)

217

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dcfb2360 t1_je7iu22 wrote

This is good. I'm not totally celebrating till we actually get convictions, but this is progress. Gotta crack down on the gangs. It's really the prosecutors that need to step up, you can arrest all the people you want but unless they're convicted they're still on the streets doing crime. But at least they're doing it right and going after the gangs, which is progress

47

Nolubrication t1_je7y5k4 wrote

And round and round we go. Enforcement is pointless. We need Hamsterdam. Legalize all of it.

EDIT: To whoever is downvoting this comment, when was the last time you saw a drive-by shooting over bootleg liquor in the news? Prohibition doesn't work. Period. Full stop.

So long as there is a black market ruled by violence, you can give a life sentence to every gang-banger operating today, and there will be a fresh crop of replacements lined up to take their place, ad infinitum.

13

pk10534 t1_je83i7s wrote

Remember when we pretty much did hand out opioids to anyone who asked for them, and even though it was literal doctors and pharmacists handing them out it resulted in an opioid epidemic that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and ruined families across the country? But yeah the problem is that we didn’t give people easy enough access to heroin

25

Nolubrication t1_je85xmk wrote

First off, the gray market pill mills did not come with the same level of violence associated with the black market drug trade.

Second, the actual root of the issue you're referring to is that Purdue conned medical professionals into believing their product was safe and non-addictive, thus turning millions of straight-laced, law-abiding, unwitting patients into hardcore drug addicts.

Lastly, cutting off their cheap "legal" supply drove all of those new addicts to turn to street heroin.

Purdue being scumbags is an entirely different issue that does nothing to change the fact that prohibition is not an effective policy.

EDIT: Decriminalization works. Addiction needs to be addressed as a health issue, not a criminal issue. Just look at Portugal. They're leading the way in drug policy.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=portugal+decriminalization+of+drugs&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

34

JonWilso t1_je86szo wrote

Pretty sure plenty of addicts also started with over the counter opioids and progressed to things like heroin because they needed and wanted more.

Edit.

I meant legally prescribed opioids. Not over the counter.

9

MazelTough t1_je9ct9l wrote

OTC opioids aren’t a thing. You mean legally prescribed opioids? OTC means it’s actually not behind the counter.

3

JonWilso t1_je9cy9e wrote

Oops, yes, that's right. I shouldn't post comments when I'm about to sleep.

1

pk10534 t1_je86suc wrote

And you think companies would market their product ethically if heroin was to be even less regulated and more widely available?

3

Nolubrication t1_je88vod wrote

The problem was that Purdue was marketing their "heroin" as safe. Nobody thinks actual heroin is safe. And nobody is suggesting it shouldn't be regulated. Just not illegal. We shouldn't be locking up addicts, and there shouldn't be a black market ruled by violence.

Seriously, read up on how successful Portugal has been with their drug policy. The results speak for themselves.

8

Bmorewiser t1_jeb6lg2 wrote

People would think heroin you can get from a pharmacy is “safe” as compared to shit you get in the street because, comparatively, it would be. And addicts typically don’t start using with the belief they’ll get addicted. Don’t you remember the “i never said I wanted to a junkie when I grow up” PSAs back in the 80s/90’s. Even as regulated as Oxy is, people still end up hooked. Legalizing drugs would make that problem worse and unless it was unlimited supply, you’d still have a black market issue

1

Dr_Midnight OP t1_jec6y1y wrote

> People would think heroin you can get from a pharmacy is “safe” as compared to shit you get in the street because, comparatively, it would be.

Far less likely of a chance of it being cut with fentanyl -- that's for certain.

2

Nolubrication t1_jeb8ifx wrote

What's your solution, then? Because after 50+ years of the war on drugs, we have more addicts and more drug gang activity than ever before.

Also, last I checked, the entire U.S. population did not turn into alcoholics when the Volstead Act was repealed.

1

Bmorewiser t1_jebxlh4 wrote

just because your ideas are overly simplistic and unlikely to work in real life doesn’t mean I’m suddenly obligated to solve some intractable problem that’s plagued us for a half century.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeceat5 wrote

Not my idea. Also demonstrably proven to work. But you do you. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jedu4os wrote

>What's your solution, then?

Rehabilitate anyone involved in narcotics criminal charge that can be defined as "victimless"

Throw the fucking book at anyone whose charges involve anything else.

>Because after 50+ years of the war on drugs, we have more addicts and more drug gang activity than ever before.

The national reduction of crime in the 90's has been attributed to many things, including the "stop and frisk" policies as well as keeping violent repeat offenders actually locked up.

We have more addicts because now progressive policies advocate for "safe use" spaces.

And we have more drug gang activity because of corrupt pieces of shit like Marilyn Mosby not doing their jobs to prosecute obvious offenders.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeeepnm wrote

> Throw the fucking book at anyone...

We're not going to incarcerate our way out of this. So long as there is money to be made, the black market will thrive.

> progressive policies

"You know that new needle exchange program is pretty cool. Maybe I'll try heroin now!"

You think that's how it works, huh?

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeegn88 wrote

>You think that's how it works, huh?

I work with addicts and alcoholics.

Literally both active and sober folks say that they give exactly 0 shits about what anyone else thinks they should or shouldn't do.

It's called enabling. Which is something you're doing when you make a space that says "we don't care if you use or not, feel free to get better at getting high with the things we give you"

Anyone going to a needle exchange is already on heroin. You're just another fool advocating for an easier way for people to kill themselves.

Bartenders can get in legal trouble if they over serve someone. Progressives like you should be charged the same for working safe space zones.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeehcvh wrote

> I work with addicts and alcoholics.

Doing what? Clearly not treatment, because you have no clue if you still view addiction as solvable through punitive measures.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeeijep wrote

>you have no clue if you still view addiction as solvable through punitive measures

Multiple people over multiple years have straight up told me and told their peers in AA and NA that they only got their shit together once they were brought before a judge and made to answer for the fucked up shit they did while in active addiction.

You're completely ignorant if you think that's not true.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeekp71 wrote

You're an addict? That's your expertise here?

You're arguing against a strawman, either intentionally or simply because you haven't bothered to educate yourself on what is happening in places like Portugal. Nobody is suggesting that we simply eliminate enforcement and call it a day.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeel9r6 wrote

>You're an addict?

Nope

>That's your expertise here?

I'm involved in counseling for people with addictions. I've also spent personal time with these folks, on the streets of Baltimore.

>Nobody is suggesting that we simply eliminate enforcement and call it a day.

You literally said that punishing people for drug crimes doesn't work.

If you ever actually cared about this issue you might actually do some volunteering or work to help people.

But you're talking about some magical solution of "safe spaces" and "national hamsterdam."

And you clearly didn't watch the wire because you'd know that Hamsterdam was an enormous shithole.

1

Nolubrication t1_jef1la6 wrote

> You literally said that punishing people for drug crimes doesn't work.

And it doesn't. All 33 of the gangbangers in the OP article will be replaced by new participants in the drug game within a week. There is no way we will incarcerate our way out of our national drug epidemic.

And you're not arguing against the alternative; you are arguing against the strawman you're building, "make everything legal and do nothing else about the problem". Any viable path to reducing addiction and overdose rates also has to include a myriad of social services. The $50k/yr it costs to lock someone up and throw away the key can be better spent on counseling, education, rehabilitation, and "housing first" programs.

We should be taking our cues from nations whose policy is actually reducing drug use among adolescents (new addicts) and opioid deaths overall.

Have a look at the chart here. Does that indicate to you that America's less liberal national drug policy is more or less effective than that of its OECD peer nations?

1

motorola_phone t1_je9jlk4 wrote

as someone whose hometown has arguably the worst drug and homeless problem in the nation (and we actually did decriminalize all drugs), decriminalization here isn't as easy or simple as it is in Portugal and imo it's more of a band aid fix

3

Nolubrication t1_je9jyo1 wrote

Sure it is. You take all that money being wasted on enforcement and incarceration and divert it to health services. You're telling me your "hometown" did this, and it was an abysmal failure? I find that hard to believe.

−1

motorola_phone t1_je9k7a1 wrote

>You take all that money being wasted on enforcement and incarceration and divert it to health services

it's reeeeeeaaaaaally not that simple lol we have some of the worst problems in the country for drug use and homelessness and part of that is because all drugs were decriminalized. it makes sense if you really think about it haha

edit: also forgive me if I'm wrong cause I don't know a lot about baltimore yet but isn't it true that mass incarceration and overpolicing is like a REALLY big complex problem here because of the systemic racism? wouldn't that have to be dismantled too?

6

Nolubrication t1_je9le3s wrote

If you're referring to something like Portland, that is not the same as a national drug policy. Makes sense that doing it on that scale would turn the city into a "destination". Not a comparison to what is happening in Portugal at all.

2

motorola_phone t1_je9mogx wrote

so you're telling me you think it would be "easy" to nationally dismantle the law enforcement industrial complex and institute all the societal safety nets that are required of a program like this?

4

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jedtsv2 wrote

Them : "I lived through de facto legalization and it's a bad idea"

You: yeah but fuck your real life experience

1

Nolubrication t1_jeed9qm wrote

He didn't, though. Portland is not Portugal. I'm not advocating for half-measures.

1

Bmorewiser t1_je9n12s wrote

I don’t think your idea will have the outcome you think, at least not quickly. The notion that most shootings are turf battles doesn’t track with my experience, which is plentiful but limited I guess only to cases that result in convictions or trials.

Most of the shootings are drug-adjacent, but not like the movies or tv might have you think. In the 80s and 90s it was common to see one crew just shoot up another rival crew over a spot on some corner but I don’t see that now. What I see is one crew beefing with another crew over some dumb shit, that leads to a fight, and that leads to a back and forth tit for tat.

There’s certainly some reason to think that legalization would limit the draw of gangs, and that would help. But some of these beefs date back decades and are just ingrained in the streets and neighborhoods. I’m not sure you’d get the result you think you would, but I’m also certain you’d end up creating more addicts and most of the murders, robberies, and burglaries I see are committed by addicts.

4

Nolubrication t1_je9npgr wrote

Right. We just gotta keep on incarcerating our way out of this mess. Because that's totally working.

−1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jedtpgi wrote

>We need Hamsterdam. Legalize all of it.

You should start first.

Make a sign and put it in the front of your house.

"If you want to do heroin, knock on my door and you can shoot up in my living room"

2

Nolubrication t1_jeedqxp wrote

Safe zones don't work. We need Hamsterdam nationwide, a transformative shift in drug policy at the federal as well as the state level. A single city, state, or front porch, for that matter, is a destination, not a solution.

0

DfcukinLite t1_je8b2j1 wrote

It’s really up to police to gather quality evidence untainted so prosecutors can actually prosecute. You cant just throw people in jail and keep them there without evidence, to include witnesses. And juries these days want DNA and legitimate proof.

3

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jedtn6m wrote

>You cant just throw people in jail and keep them there without evidence, to include witnesses.

I agree

At the same time.

Do you believe, yes or no, that even one person who was arrested is 100% innocent? (even by accessory)

1

Umamilover77 t1_je7kz2h wrote

Sheeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttt!

35

WinkyTheFrog t1_je79nua wrote

HoLY sHiT tHE coPS DiD somEtHinG

11

YoYoMoMa t1_je7rk0k wrote

They did something... according to the cops.

−9

here4dambivalence t1_je8a65t wrote

How does someone, much less two people, get arrested over 30 (I'm guessing they included a bunch of minor infractions in those figures... Hopefully...) times and they're out? Like when they show up to court is the judge like "Oh it is you again? Same shit different day huh? See you in six months. ' /s

6

notsolittleliongirl t1_jecajye wrote

An arrest doesn’t always equal to charges. You can theoretically be arrested 30 times and never stand in front of a judge once if the DA consistently chooses not to file charges or waits until a later date to file all the charges together (as may be the case here).

So best guess is that it’s a combination of the cops deciding to pick up the same people anytime anything bad happens in that neighborhood, whether there’s evidence they’re involved or not, and the prosecutors knowing they had evidence to file charges for many, many crimes but wanting to make sure all their ducks are in a row before filing every possible charge against all the alleged gang members all at once, which would mean potentially catching and releasing some of them a few times for various suspected crimes.

2

GiLLfiltefish t1_jecrb6g wrote

Dang that’s why the block near my shop was quiet as shit today. I’m right off Franklintown. Thanks PoPo.

2

BocaRaven t1_je86lwy wrote

It’s all bull shit. Who wants to bet : under 20 years combined time served?

−1