Talk:311 Boyz

message: I want to amplify my post from last night and address your comments specifically. Your words appear in bold below.
* I KNOW FIRST HAND the facts in this case
Given the facts of this case, "first hand" means you witnessed the entire incident, and in practical terms, that leads to only one possibility: that you were part of the group of teens that chased Hansen away from the party.  I think this is highly unlikely, and since you've chosen to post anonymously, there's no way to verify it.  So I think you have, at best, "second hand" knowledge: what you heard at school from your friends.  But, for the sake of argument, let's just say you were really there and witnessed everything.  Your account would be useful as a primary source, particularly if you testified in court.  However, primary sources are likely too biased to be objective; for example, I don't think Gazlay or Hansen would be accepted as editors.
* the term GANG is a legal definition
No, it isn't.  See gang.  It has specific applications in a legal context, as in "gang enhancement" statutes that increase penalties.  But when justified by violent actions, and when the term is used by the media, the police and witnesses, it's fair to use it here.
* the group was removed from the gang profile (from your previous copy in the article)
This is uncited, and after a quick Google search, I can't find a reliable source for this. What's your source?
* you dont know the FACTS, you only know what you were told by a prejudice media
So, we should accept your account of things without question?  Where's your proof of media prejudice or bias?  Were the LVRJ's accounts of Hansen's injuries, Gazlay's assaults, or the ensuing trials biased?  How so?
* the District Attorneys office overcharging these young men... most of the families were afraid to go to trial
In collective cases like this, with lots of defendants and witnesses, it's a common prosecutorial tactic to seek the most serious charges possible.  It gives the DA leverage and forces defendants (who are sometimes the best witnesses) to consider testifying against each other.  Whether this tactic is "fair" or not is a matter of opinion, and its use is not unique to this case.  Also, it's not our place to provide commentary on why the pleas were accepted.  The relevant fact here is that they WERE accepted.  Whether a defendant is convicted by a jury or accepts a plea deal does not matter: either way, he is guilty in the eyes of the law.
Also, these were not poor families getting screwed by the system.  They had good lawyers, and they knew what they were doing.  IMHO, the plea deals they got were pretty sweet deals.  The families knew that although they probably weren't all going to jail, someone was, and they elected to remove the risk of hard time.
* maybe the driver of the truck should have used more care and not hit a parked vehical, and a human, leaving him for dead
Maybe the group of teens shouldn't have chased the driver back to his truck and surrounded it, leaving him with no other option to escape.  Under the law, this is known as duty to retreat.  The driver and his companions clearly took all reasonable measures to escape and avoid a fight.  The 311 Boyz were spoiling for a fight and tried to prevent their escape.  If the driver had been charged, he likely would have been able to claim self-defense.  And even if you don't accept that, it is no justification for what happened next.
* or better yet never engaged in a verbal altercation over a girl in the first place
Ah, so it's their fault.  They should have known better than to tread upon the 311 Boyz' turf or mess with their girls.  And you say this isn't a gang?
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear what side of this you are on. I've attempted to cover this case in an unbiased fashion using the available sources; I cannot say the same for you. Simishag 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional response to 72.193.125.45

message: I have revised the article again, this time to include proper citations and footnotes. Simishag 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe blanking the page was wrong, and maybe I am too close to the story to be totally unbias as I am a parent of a defendant in this case,but you see all I ever see is alot of the same story repeated over and over from the beginning, never a view of how the story changes as more of the facts came to light,I just want a truely unbias look at the way the artical changed,I also have actual court documents to support my beliefs, which you will never have access to because the case was sealed...as you must understand this was a very tramatic issue for every family involved,and when people like you continually rewrite old news it hits home.You seem like a very intellegent writer,why dont you look for the story within the story and tell that one ,,I think you will be very surprised at what you find ....once again I am sorry...  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.125.45 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 311 Boyz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035147/http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003/sep/26/515671878.html to http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003/sep/26/515671878.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified