After reading the TX. article of Oct. 24, "Founding Fathers should be rolling over in their graves," by Bryant Studebaker. Here is a young man who is likely not directly affected by the injunction, yet he is standing up for a people (yes, contrary to biased belief, Ogden Trece Gang members are people) that he does not even know.
Many of these gang members were my colleagues at one time. Many were and are still my friends. I've seen many of them grow up over the years and know firsthand that they are mostly good kids that are going down the wrong path. Many of them are still loving and respectful to me, calling me, "Mom," even after I first began working with the Ogden-Metro Gang Unit in my mission against the gang lifestyle.
I have been outraged by the blatant violation of rights that the injunction represented. As Mr. Studebaker discussed, I too was against, and questioned how officials could take away a group's rights. It seemed ridiculous and a little bit scary. Then, I began to work with the Ogden-Metro Gang Unit and I got some of what I though was clarity concerning the injunction. I began to see it as a useful tool for those who wanted out of the gangs. Most of the rules were already laws everyone had to abide by, and it seemed to be working because there were fewer gang members committing crimes.
I have a son who is an admitted member of Ogden Trece. One of my other son's gang membership has been questioned, although he has never actually joined or claimed any gang. My youngest son has never been involved with gangs in any way, yet he was hit with the injunction along with my other sons. My older son was pulled out of a car and harassed. Then he and my younger sons were hit with the injunction because they were together. My sons' relationships is now strained.
The injunction needs to be reconsidered or rewritten. It has had negative effects on family and close friends who have been hit with it unjustly.
Tamra R. Lucero
Ogden
Comments