June 12 2013 09:28 AM

Our readers tell us what they think

About your cover profile of rapper Mitchy Slick ["Music," May 15]: The root problem of gang violence? Which gang? The gun-toting "peace"-officer gang who commit murder and are respected and well-paid to do so?

Gangsterism didn't start with Bloods; it started with white folks in the cities of the early U.S. In those days and before, black folks did not have the freedom to choose between being a criminal or law-abiding citizen—they were criminals because they were black and because their labor as slaves was needed by the white folks. Now, immigrants do that labor, so they are no longer slaves like they were once, but because there was no punishment or reparation for the slavery, it never really ended, so they are considered just criminals and still only because they are black.

But the root problem of all crime by anyone is the law itself. As Jesus said: "The strength of the law is sin"—sin being the very crime that the law seeks to stop. More law, more crime. There are more laws in the U.S. than ever before, but crime just seems to increase year by year, does it not?

So, the root problem of gang violence is that gang injunction that seeks to stop it. As your article said, the gang injunction seeks to stop "association," but is mere association a crime, let alone a crime of violence? Two hundred years ago in the U.S., unauthorized association between black folks was considered a precursor to a slave rebellion, and since the race-based slavery never really ended, because there was no punishment or repatriation for that slavery, the real purpose of gang injunctions is to keep black folks from successfully rebelling against their position of being inferior to everyone else in the U.S.! Nothing has really changed in 200 years, amen?

So, I, as a homeless slave for 23 years, agree with Mitchy Slick: Fuck that gang-injunction shit, amen?!

Michael Lueras, Homeless

Mixed emotions

First, I'm sad that Robin Reid is stricken with such illness ["News," May 15]. It must be so uncomfortable to be that ill and be locked up in jail without the comforts of home and love around you. My heart bursts with compassion at what she's going through.

But this is only one emotion I get from this article. Another is: A so-called "friend" told her that doing hand jobs is the way to make a living! What kind of friend tells another friend that you should do something illegal? Most friends say, "Hey, take this class," or "I have a contact at such and such company; I will call for you," or say words such as "You are smart and good at what ever you do; something great will turn up for you." I love all my female friends way too much to ever suggest something scummy and seedy like that for them. Good Lord, why not just say, "Hey you should deal crystal meth for a living?" So, that part of the article makes me a bit mad.

Then I get a bit dumbfounded by Robin and start to feel guilty because I get an attitude toward her. I want to tell her she's dumb for her rationalization of what she was doing at her business: They were fat, old, ugly men, too weak to pull on it themselves. Nobody on the face of the earth would touch these men.

Well then, Robin, it's OK to break the law and receive financial compensation for it because you were helping old, ugly, fat men climax? How stupid of the rest of the country to not get with that! Of course you can give hand jobs for money. So now, even though I want her out of jail and I want her to be comfortable, I'm left feeling this woman has not learned a lesson from her jail time. She's still justifying her behavior, saying she was helping old, ugly men.

We readers are not stupid. Two hundred dollars a yank, probably took two to 10 minutes, and we all know that most likely there was no actual "full-body massage" going on. She said herself, "Nobody on the face of the earth would touch these men." Yet she's going to do so intimately for an hour? Rubbing feet and working out kinks? No. She was yanking and cranking, and some of her employees were doing full-service sex. That's what went on there, Madame. Mixed emotions yet again.

And the lawyer who advised her that she'd get a slap on the wrist? He makes me mad. How could he not realize the proper sentence for the crime? Maybe Robin was not completely truthful to him about what she was doing? The prosecutor who wants to punish her to the utmost? She pisses me off! The jail system that has to be overhauled? Puzzling!

Yep, this article ran the gambit of all emotions for me. I even feel love for Robin Reid and wish her the very best!

John Reese, Pacific Beach

Editor's note: According to our reporting, Reid's clients received full massages, and there was no evidence that full-on sex was ever involved.

Just shut up

Jim Varnadore wrote that the feds are going to come down on states and localities for legalizing weed ["Letters," May 22]. I have looked for rational arguments on the pros and cons of national legalization and state freedom to prohibit, since I suggested it in your letters and on my website several times over the past two years, with no input from you or your other readers. Why not just quit talking about it, already!

Saul Gritz, Hillcrest


See all events on Wednesday, Dec 7