Are DC "crews" real gangs?

[Silencioso]

DC people claim their crews aren't gangs, specifically because they aren't as organised as L.A. gangs. Is this a valid argument? Is a named group that gang bangs not a "gang" simply because the group structure is loose? And how organised are L.A. gangs anyway. Many L.A. black gangs have no official leaders, just a casual system of shot callers and OG's that have weight in their sets. Maybe L.A. sets aren't "real" gangs because their not as organised as Chicago or some NY street gangs.

Simple City Crew "members": Gangbangers or just thugs?
http://s714.photobucket.com/albums/ww14 ... g&newest=1

[jeff]

good thread. it's the same way up in oakland and the bay area. some would argue that there are no black gangs in oakland just because they don't claim colors or write graffiti l.a. style. i think they are gangs, but more like drug gangs. it seems like most people are so influenced by the media that they think in order to be a gang it has be blood, crip, x3, x4, or some variation of those, and affiliate with a color. the gangs or crews in cities like dc, new orleans, or oakland still have their designated turf that they fight over, hand signs, tattoos, etc. one difference is they don't have an official initiation process, no getting jumped in or courted on, it's just where you live is what you represent. that's not too different from l.a. black gangs though either. there was even a gang injunction in oakland and still i find there's a divided opinion on whether or not the city has a gang problem
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS ... %20(Redact).pdf