Mexico gang killings getting more gruesome

[Zarathustra]

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_bloody_michoacan)



Mexico gangs displaying severed heads


By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 21, 6:33 PM ET


VILLA MADERO, Mexico - The drug lords at war in central Mexico are no longer content with simply killing their enemies. They are putting their severed heads on public display.
ADVERTISEMENT


In Michoacan, the home state of President-elect Felipe Calderon, 17 heads have turned up this year, many with bloodstained notes like the one found in the highlands town of Tepalcatepec in August: "See. Hear. Shut Up. If you want to stay alive."

Many in Michoacan's mountains and colonial cities are doing just that: They are tightlipped, their newspapers are censoring themselves and in one town, 18 out of 32 police officers quit saying they had received death threats from drug smugglers.
In the most gruesome case, gunmen burst into a nightclub and rolled five heads onto the dance floor. In another, a pair of heads were planted in front of a car dealership in Zitacuaro, a town best known until now as a nesting ground for monarch butterflies.

By a highway outside Tepalcatepec, suspected drug smuggler Hector Eduardo Bautista's tortured body was dumped on July 10. Near a black metal cross put up by his family at the spot, killers apparently avenging his death have been leaving severed heads — five so far — each with a threatening message.

Beheadings and accompanying notes in sometimes cryptic and misspelled Spanish are becoming a ghoulish vogue among the gangs that grow marijuana, cook methamphetamine and run cocaine in Michoacan. There have been 420 homicides in the state this year, including 19 police chiefs and commanders, and Juan Antonio Magana, the state's attorney general, says well over half the killings were drug-related — the work of smuggling gangs reorganizing after authorities captured some of their top leaders.
"These are groups that are very big, very strong and are out to dominate territory," Magana said in an interview.

Drug smuggling in Michoacan has traditionally been controlled by a syndicate known as Los Valencia. Police arrested its leader, Armando Valencia, in August 2003 and one of his lieutenants, Carlos Alberto Rosales Mendoza, a year later.

Now, anti-narcotics investigators say, the Gulf cartel based in northern Mexico is battling its way into Los Valencia territory, relying on "Los Zetas," ex-Mexican army operatives-turned hit men. Los Valencia loyalists have fought back fiercely.
Many notes attached to slaying victims are signed "The Family," a possible reference to Los Valencia. Some mention "La Chata," a known alias for a top reputed Gulf cartel hit man.

"They don't need to leave written messages. The mere fact that they are using such high levels of violence is sending messages of intimidation, causing fear," Magana said. "But doing it shows other gangs they can act in even more gruesome and violent ways than their rivals."
With a vast and sparsely populated Pacific coast and the rugged Sierra Madre del Sur Mountains, Michoacan is good territory for producing and smuggling drugs.

Many farmers have abandoned avocado, coffee and corn in favor of marijuana in the highlands, where roads are few and police can't easily penetrate. Smuggling gangs have cleared forests for airstrips. Small planes crammed with Colombian cocaine streak in, leaving loads that are ferried to the coast and stowed on fast boats that speed north toward the U.S. border.

Michoacan also has become a den for hidden meth labs.
Journalists statewide have covered the murders but some have avoided digging further after receiving death threats. On Oct. 13, police recovered the body of an unidentified man who had been shot 38 times and dumped outside the town of Tacambaro. An attached note in fluorescent yellow marker appeared to directly threaten the media: "The family and the ZZs are the same thing. Media outlets, don't sell out."

Calderon, who will be sworn in as president on Dec. 1, wants a new, better trained federal police force to investigate drug smuggling, longer prison terms for drug convicts and more extraditions of kingpins wanted in the U.S.

He says Mexico also needs more help from U.S. law enforcement, since Mexican smugglers are serving American drug users.
Attorney General Magana denies Calderon's contention that Mexican law enforcement is overwhelmed. But in Villa Madero, a logging town of crowing roosters and stray dogs asleep on cracked asphalt streets, the abrupt mass departure of police officers suggests a different picture.
"There's an enormous pressure here," said former officer Reyes Alberto Gamino, now retired at 21. "It's very dangerous."

Mayor Alberto Villasenor has said the police were fired for failing to show up to guard a municipal dance Sept. 16. The former officers claim they quit because gunmen were waiting to kill them for arresting a reputed drug boss.

One of the officers who resigned is Gildardo Villa. Interviewed in front of his home, Villa seemed nervous, looking over his shoulder constantly and answering questions in hushed tones.
"The threats had been coming for a long time," he said. "That's why we left."

Inside his cramped City Hall office, Justice of the Peace Apolinar Yanez acknowledged that police are afraid of the gangs, whom he described as "very well armed and very dangerous."
"I'm not going to tell you who they are, not going to give you names or tell you what kinds of activities they are involved in. I don't want problems," Yanez said. "But they were threatening the police."
Since the police officers quit, many in Villa Madero say they are afraid to leave their homes.

"There's a fear that affects everyone," said Enrique Acerra, 70, who runs a used-clothing store. "It's hard to feel safe."

[Zarathustra]

Kay, I messed up with the B button, it shouldn't be all bold. Sorry.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

yep and guess where the final destination of those drugs is and the unaccountable cost in lives, money, law enforcement, judicial systems, penal systems...then guess who pays for all of that!

[8thidpathfinderpower]

yep and guess where the final destination of those drugs is and the unaccountable cost in lives, money, law enforcement, judicial systems, penal systems...then guess who pays for all of that!
It surely is not the american taxpayer, because they may pay for the so called enforcement of drug law, but they no longer care that the problem is so rampant and accecpted. The reason why the drug gangs are so successful in Mexico, is because of the massive demand for street level narcotics here in the US. And with the demand so high, and not enough money being pumped into education and prevention,the problem only gets worse. Instead, the money is being pumped into an already over loaded judicial and penal sysyem, while we keep fueling these drug gangs and killing more and more innocent people with the politicians and corrupt law enforcement sitting idley by.


There was a proposal a few years ago in that the US legalize certain street level drugs. And there would be a tax applied to the sales of the narcotics that would go into education and prevention simular to the tabacco thing. But that was knocked down because of the resulting out cry from christian conservatives,and dealers over lost profits. So, as a result, the demand remains high, and the drug gangs keep on a killing and dealing.

[XShipRider]

But that was knocked down because of the resulting out cry from christian conservatives,and dealers over lost profits. So, as a result, the demand remains high, and the drug gangs keep on a killing and dealing.

I think it was more than "christian" conservatives not wanting drugs legalized.

What is a "street level" drug anyway? Coke? LSD? Meth'? Therein lies
a problem, they're all street level drugs these days. Where do you draw
the line?

And you can forget about all the tax money being earmarked, set aside,
or otherwise going directly to any treatment or education programs. The
money, like all taxes, would go into the general fund to be pissed away
like so many Sunday afternoon beers.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

all im saying is that the "war on drugs" has proven itself to not be quite as effective as it was thought out to be. im all for drug education but from my own experience it seems drugs are a "lifestyle" of choice among certain people. unfortunately there are very few ways to "teach" someone to not use drugs, for reference just check out the revolving door rehab programs and the prison system that is full of drug users/dealers.

as for any law in favor or legalising "street level drugs" it would be a joke. im going to have to pose the same question as the poster above...what is a "street level drug?" only because i am unsure as to which drugs those entail, the only thing i could think could possibly go under heading like that would be marijuana. anything other than that i would consider to be a hard drug...my qualm with that is we would have legalised street drugs and far less harsh pain killers and other prescription drugs regulated.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Hmmm...street level drugs,heroin,cocain,meth,pcp,methodone,marijuana,and lsd,ecstascy,and other drugs.

Why legalize?
1.stop the spread of disease(like aids,hepC, and others) (purchase meth,heroin legally,get a free needle.)Add mandatory testing for all needle users. place used needle bins in parks and by dumpsters(would help prevent those who do not use from getting stuck and getting sick.)

2.take the crime out of the sales and distrubution. Less crime means less arrests,less street level crime to pay for drugs. And on the international front, money from drug sales would stop funding terrorists and other orginized criminal groups. And, our prison population would drop by half, eliminating the abuse and over crowding in our prisons, saving taxpayer money.

3.manufacture and sales of illegal narcotics are taxable. Money can go into general fund, or anything the government wants. people would be able to access more treatment options. And the money earned from the taxes are added income for the government, and could be used to cut the trade deficit in half.

4. set up dedicated areas inside and outside of public places for those who want to use narcotics.(simular to smoking areas in some states) this would control where users go and would keep crime down. And, it would be a safe haven for those who want to kill their selves.


So, see take the crime out of illegal drugs. That would stop alot of the major crime associated with it. But the only people who fear change are those who profit from the killing and petty crime associated with dope being illegal.




I personally am against all illegal narcotics useage and manufacture. But you are not going to stop the useage. And if legalizing means cutting the crime associated with the useage and sales, then I am all for that. And, if drugs are legalized, the spread of disease would slow way down, or stop all together.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

yeah a guy hopped up on meth is a good thing to have on the streets! sorry man i know that type of thinking follows good intentions but ive seen too many people burned out on drugs, making bad decisions, and having others pay the consequences. plus if you make it legal, what happens? well more people try it like hey why not? then we have a derelict generation of worthless druggies, no thanks.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

yeah a guy hopped up on meth is a good thing to have on the streets! sorry man i know that type of thinking follows good intentions but ive seen too many people burned out on drugs, making bad decisions, and having others pay the consequences. plus if you make it legal, what happens? well more people try it like hey why not? then we have a derelict generation of worthless druggies, no thanks.Not necessarily true. When prohibition was in effect in the 1920's, people said the same thing about booze. But, as it turns out, crime dropped, and alcoholism dropped after a few years after it was lifted. And, today, we do not have 1/2 the problems like they had back when prohibition was in effect. You are not going to stop the use of illegal narcotics. People will always want to alter their mental state one way or another. And like I said, if you legalize the problem, there will be less crime the world over. And lastly, this is not wishful thinking. This is possibly, the truth.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Not necessarily true. When prohibition was in effect in the 1920's, people said the same thing about booze. But, as it turns out, crime dropped, and alcoholism dropped after a few years after it was lifted. And, today, we do not have 1/2 the problems like they had back when prohibition was in effect. You are not going to stop the use of illegal narcotics. People will always want to alter their mental state one way or another. And like I said, if you legalize the problem, there will be less crime the world over. And lastly, this is not wishful thinking. This is possibly, the truth.

well at this point im going to have to say that we'll have to agree to disagree...alcohol is nothing like illicit drugs even in its most abusive state. i think its going to end up being a two ****ged battle via better education for youths and a solution along the border. without this getting into a drawn out border discussion, its just too porous for drug cartels and even low level "mules" to get the stuff across. although im not blind there are domestic issues as well, especially with drugs like meth, but cocaine and narcotics (i use this in reference to opium based drugs) like heroine (yes its from SE asia but there are cartels that have capable transportation systems which lead in from the border) are obviously not home grown and get it from elsewhere.

[p$ycho+log!cal]

Hmmm...street level drugs,heroin,cocain,meth,pcp,methodone,marijuana,and lsd,ecstascy,and other drugs.

Why legalize?
1.stop the spread of disease(like aids,hepC, and others) (purchase meth,heroin legally,get a free needle.)Add mandatory testing for all needle users. place used needle bins in parks and by dumpsters(would help prevent those who do not use from getting stuck and getting sick.)

2.take the crime out of the sales and distrubution. Less crime means less arrests,less street level crime to pay for drugs. And on the international front, money from drug sales would stop funding terrorists and other orginized criminal groups. And, our prison population would drop by half, eliminating the abuse and over crowding in our prisons, saving taxpayer money.

3.manufacture and sales of illegal narcotics are taxable. Money can go into general fund, or anything the government wants. people would be able to access more treatment options. And the money earned from the taxes are added income for the government, and could be used to cut the trade deficit in half.

4. set up dedicated areas inside and outside of public places for those who want to use narcotics.(simular to smoking areas in some states) this would control where users go and would keep crime down. And, it would be a safe haven for those who want to kill their selves.


So, see take the crime out of illegal drugs. That would stop alot of the major crime associated with it. But the only people who fear change are those who profit from the killing and petty crime associated with dope being illegal.




I personally am against all illegal narcotics useage and manufacture. But you are not going to stop the useage. And if legalizing means cutting the crime associated with the useage and sales, then I am all for that. And, if drugs are legalized, the spread of disease would slow way down, or stop all together.

that was retarded.

[tuercas]

i know the region of Michoacan mentioned in the article very well and i can tell you that hangings and heads on spikes are nothing new. most of that region is made up of different indian tribes, spanish is hardly spoken in those highlands and there is a lot of bad blood between the diferent tribes , they will raid each others towns and go to war over petty arguments like logging rigths and livestock let alone marihuana and poppy cultivation

these are tribal conflict not gang activity though.

[XShipRider]

You and I will probably always disagree on the legalization of drugs issue.

Legalizing a problem doesn't make it go away, it simply shifts the burden
elsewhere. The money once spent attempting to stifle the flow is moved
to social programs and treatment programs. Me? I 'd rather have the
money go to prevention, interdiction and prosecution rather than drug
welfare programs.

Though I would concede marijuana in low quantities should just be one
helluva stiff fine with no jail time.

[SBL]

You and I will probably always disagree on the legalization of drugs issue.

Legalizing a problem doesn't make it go away, it simply shifts the burden
elsewhere. The money once spent attempting to stifle the flow is moved
to social programs and treatment programs. Me? I 'd rather have the
money go to prevention, interdiction and prosecution rather than drug
welfare programs.

Though I would concede marijuana in low quantities should just be one
helluva stiff fine with no jail time.

X2. Legalization would likely encourage more drug use if anything.

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Though I would concede marijuana in low quantities should just be one
helluva stiff fine with no jail time.

yeah up to a certain quantity is merely a ticket and a fine i believe...if you go beyond that im not quite sure what the amount is anymore then you can get into the "intent to distribute" stuff which is a substantially different punishment. so there is not really a point in legalising it b/c unless you've got a good bit on you, you're looking at just a ticket and no jail time anyhow.

[Litti]

well at this point im going to have to say that we'll have to agree to disagree...alcohol is nothing like illicit drugs even in its most abusive state.

LSD and exstacy are less harmful for your body than alcohol. So is pot.

[SBL]

LSD and exstacy are less harmful for your body than alcohol. So is pot.

Harm to the body is one thing, harm to the brain/mind is quite another.
And I suppose you have some data to back your statement up?

[Litti]

Science and Technology Comittee of Britain (under the parliament) made a comprehensive report but the pdf file is rather large. All these drugs affect the brain, that´s their primary function and why we use them after all (?).

1st being the most dangerous drug to a human :

1. Heroine
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Methadone
5. ALCOHOL
.....
8. Amphetamine
11. Cannabis
14. LSD
18. Exstacy

[CG51]

I agree with 8thid, legalize drugs, and cut out the middleman, less crime. Tax the drugs and have more funding for rehabs and education. There is a percentage of the population that will always be addicts but not enough money to reform them.

Drugs are flowing into this country like water anyway and we have been at "War on Drugs" for what? almost three decades, and it is worse now than it has ever been.

Maybe the tax money can build that wall p-)

[SBL]

Science and Technology Comittee of Britain (under the parliament) made a comprehensive report but the pdf file is rather large. All these drugs affect the brain, that´s their primary function and why we use them after all (?).

1st being the most dangerous drug to a human :

1. Heroine
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Methadone
5. ALCOHOL
.....
8. Amphetamine
11. Cannabis
14. LSD
18. Exstacy

What is the criteria on which the ranking is based?

[CG51]

Interested myself, looks like level of additiveness. How would you measure the destructiveness to the brain?

[Litti]

No it is an overall classification - all specifics combined.


Physical harm :

Acute
Chronic
Parenteral

Dependence :

Intensity of pleasure
Psychological dependence
Physical dependence

Social harms :

Intoxication
Other social harms
Healthcare costs

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

No it is an overall classification - all specifics combined.

im callin bullsh*t on this one, extacy at the bottom (minus that whole permanent seratonin damage), this list is highly suspect, and amphetamines in the right dose will make your heart explode (well not really but they can give you heart problems rather quickly) also LSD that far down...yeah i would like to see the criteria for which this list was made. even marijuana alone is several times worse per joint (within reason cause this is subjective since you can basically roll a "joint" as fat as you'd like i guess) is several times worse for your lungs than a comparable sized cigarette.

doesn't LSD make your spine bleed as well, and also if you take enough you can have LSD flashbacks for the rest of your life.

[SBL]

No it is an overall classification - all specifics combined.


Physical harm :

Acute
Chronic
Parenteral

Dependence :

Intensity of pleasure
Psychological dependence
Physical dependence

Social harms :

Intoxication
Other social harms
Healthcare costs


"Overall classification" is kind of a nebulous term. And in what fashion are these specifics combined? Again, some criteria please.

[Litti]

As I said, it is made by the Science and Technology Comittee of Britain which works directly under the parliament.

Quite a lot of respected professors and other witnesses have been working on this report I would assume. The whole report is about 200 pages if you wish to read it.

[Litti]

And if you are asking me about the matrix, how they calculate the result and what kind of formulas they use, that I do not know specifically.

Here is some info how they collect evidence.


The sources of evidence are formal surveys undertaken for, or on behalf of, Government including the British Crime Survey, the Forensic Science Service statistics, general population surveys, school surveys as well as international/European surveys such as European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other drugs; the law enforcement agencies; voluntary sector organisations with concerns and responsibilities for those who misuse drugs; professional bodies; published and unpublished scientific literature; submissions from special interest groups and the general public.

[SBL]

As I said, it is made by the Science and Technology Comittee of Britain which works directly under the parliament.

Quite a lot of respected professors and other witnesses have been working on this report I would assume. The whole report is about 200 pages if you wish to read it.

Being under parliament only means it's more subject to politics. I would like a link, perhaps one directing me to this particular study?

[SBL]

And if you are asking me about the matrix, how they calculate the result and what kind of formulas they use, that I do not know specifically.




After making such a sweeping statement, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little back-up info. Especially concerning the source by which you came to such a conclusion.

[Litti]

Time for some corrections : Now, I if understood correctly the Science and Technology Comittee of Britain made a report and analyzed how the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (statutory and non-executive non-departmental) came to the initial conclusion. So ACMD is the source.

This classification is a direct result from various members, requirement it seems, among them representatives of the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry (other than pharmaceutical chemistry); and members who have a wide and relevant experience of social problems connected with the misuse of drugs.

These members do not receive a payment from any party but their expenses are covered.

http://www.drugs.gov.uk/

I myself have experience from cannabis, alcohol and tobacco. To me it´s clear that alcohol is most harmful eventhough that´s the only one I use - cant live without beer and tequila.

[gaijinsamurai]

I have a difficult time believing that alcohol is more dangerous than methamphetamines.
I'm not against legalizing marijuana and dealing with heroin differently (I think it ought to still be controlled-due to its highly addictive and often deadly nature), but there is no way we can legalize methamphetmines. They are just too toxic and harmful, not only to the user but to those around him/her.

[Litti]

I believe marijuana should be available as well and that´s as far as it should go. I dont really see the need for LSD or exstacy. But demand means that there´s always going to be someone who wants to profit.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

that was retarded.What is retarded about this post? Think about and forget what you have been taught for a moment....the only people winning the so called war on drugs are the cartels, and street dealers, users, and politicians. Take the crime out of illegal narcotics, and you take the majority of violent crime off of the streets. Plain and simple. Just like the therory of the little kid...tell a little kid not to do something, and they will do it just to find out what it is like. Same for adults and others. If you take the taboo away, eventually the problem will correct its self. And for those of you who think alcohol is not that dangerous....think again. Alcohol is one of the most addictive of all drugs. And one of the most dangerous. It will cause dependancy, heart,liver and brian damage, and kills people just like hard core narcotics. But we legalized that, and took the crime out, and as a result orginized crime in several major cities took a turn for the better.

[pascalywood]

that was retarded.

you have good arguments. i wish i could be a great thinker like you

[pascalywood]

What is retarded about this post? Think about and forget what you have been taught for a moment....the only people winning the so called war on drugs are the cartels, and street dealers, users, and politicians. Take the crime out of illegal narcotics, and you take the majority of violent crime off of the streets. Plain and simple. Just like the therory of the little kid...tell a little kid not to do something, and they will do it just to find out what it is like. Same for adults and others. If you take the taboo away, eventually the problem will correct its self. And for those of you who think alcohol is not that dangerous....think again. Alcohol is one of the most addictive of all drugs. And one of the most dangerous. It will cause dependancy, heart,liver and brian damage, and kills people just like hard core narcotics. But we legalized that, and took the crime out, and as a result orginized crime in several major cities took a turn for the better.

you are right. those who say that alcohol is better than narcotics are just wrong. It is as dangerous, if not more.

[CG51]

What is retarded about this post? Think about and forget what you have been taught for a moment....the only people winning the so called war on drugs are the cartels, and street dealers, users, and politicians. Take the crime out of illegal narcotics, and you take the majority of violent crime off of the streets. Plain and simple. Just like the therory of the little kid...tell a little kid not to do something, and they will do it just to find out what it is like. Same for adults and others. If you take the taboo away, eventually the problem will correct its self. And for those of you who think alcohol is not that dangerous....think again. Alcohol is one of the most addictive of all drugs. And one of the most dangerous. It will cause dependancy, heart,liver and brian damage, and kills people just like hard core narcotics. But we legalized that, and took the crime out, and as a result orginized crime in several major cities took a turn for the better.

Yep, alcohol is probably the worst out there, destroys many lives. The government makes a mint taxing that and ciggs (both which kills tens of thousands each year), but they will throw someone in jail for having a few joints on them.