Gang members arrested for assault

September 27, 2014
Adolfo Barrera

Adolfo Barrera

San Luis Obispo County deputies arrested three people for allegedly robbing and assaulting a man in Oceano.

On Sept. 22, three alleged gang members drove a man to a field in Oceano, took his money and cell phone and beat him. The victim, who said he knew the suspects were gang members, reported the assault and robbery to law enforcement.

On Friday at 7: a.m., deputies served search warrants at the suspects homes. Officers arrested Luis Armando Ramirez, Jr.21, from Oceano; Andrea deJesus Serna Rosales, 22, from Oceano and Adolfo Barrera, Jr., 24, from Arroyo Grande for robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and promoting a street gang.


Loading...

12 Comments

  1. @knifepoint_in_AG says:

    wasn’t the first time for one of them…. http://calcoastnews.com/2014/03/four-gang-members-accused-assault-robbery/

    I was the victim last time. He just got out of jail about a month ago and now he’s done it again.

    Luckily they didn’t kill the new victim or myself. They had a knife during my attack too.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. Jorge Estrada says:

    They were here first, maybe their culture can be sustained and improved through allowing Mexican Casinos?

    (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  3. individual says:

    Throw the book at them and if they cannot read it then we will gladly translate for them.

    (8) 8 Total Votes - 8 up - 0 down
  4. pasoparent5 says:

    So, mkaney–you propose we legalize drugs but close the border, right?

    (5) 7 Total Votes - 6 up - 1 down
    • mkaney says:

      It would take a massive and immediate threat to life for me to support closing the border. At this point, it seems that the cause of those threats is the U.S. providing the world’s largest market of drug consumers while simultaneously making that activity illegal and therefore creating the black market for it. Since drugs have only been illegal for a small part of history, and we have the alcohol prohibition experience as a great case study, it would seem that the most reasonable approach would be to decriminalize the drugs. This is not some novel unprecedented thing, prior to the middle of the 20th century drugs were not illegal. I am not suggesting that legalization has no consequences, but they are more limited in my opinion.

      The border would be nearly impossible to “close” and not just one side of it experiences a loss of freedom of movement, so I think it would be a lot smarter to accept that people are going to cross and provide access to things which allow for identification and accountability, like driver’s licenses and worker permits/visas (the latter should be easy to obtain). I think this approach would also remove some disincentives for returning back to Mexico as well.

      All of this would also help to improve the economic stability and safety of Mexico, the lack of which is the primary driver for people to come to the U.S.

      Final note: I support freedom for all people, but I also do not support welfare/social services for non-citizens. I do however think we have a moral obligation for emergent healthcare for any human that is here. Currently, if you combine all state and federal receipts and expenses, there is actually a net gain from illegal immigrants, the problem is the federal govt keeps the money from the taxes paid by most illegals, and the states bear the burden of the healthcare costs.

      (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  5. ml1999 says:

    Aren’t Open Borders grand?

    It seems like the crimes committed on the central coast are committed by two groups of people: 1) Mexican gangs; and 2) meth heads. Does this sound right?

    (32) 40 Total Votes - 36 up - 4 down
    • racket says:

      Or, 3) Elected officials, and 4) civil servants.

      (36) 42 Total Votes - 39 up - 3 down
      • mkaney says:

        AMEN :) Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s right. To me, there is little difference between someone stealing money out of my wallet, and someone telling me that I need to give them money out of my wallet so they can perform a service for way more $$$ than I ever would have agreed to pay them for it.

        (22) 30 Total Votes - 26 up - 4 down
    • mkaney says:

      It only seems like that to people who are totally disconnected and don’t have some way or make any effort to validate their fairly tale perceptions against reality. And even then, you need to consider that there are a lot of police who think like you, and therefore they are on the constant lookout for people who might resemble those descriptions. Now, don’t get me wrong, if someone is in a gang they could very well be guilty of committing a crime, but if gang members are what grab police attention, and therefore they are profiling for that (and making legitimate arrests), it would seem like this group is MORE likely to be committing a crime, when in fact every single Chinese laundromat owner in town is running a prostitution ring but no one realizes it.
      So the next time you walk out your door and you see a short well-dressed asian man who politely says hello and gets into his BMW, you may want to give him a second look.

      Ok all joking aside, here is another problem with your logic. You should remember this from SAT tests… Just because every overly skinny,teeth-missing, smelly, jittery dude stealing cans out of your recycling bin is a meth head, doesn’t mean every meth head is a skinny, teeth-missing, smelly, jittery dude who steals cans out of your recycling bin. You would probably be surprised if you really knew what everyone “respectable” in your neighborhood is doing.

      Finally, are open borders the cause of drug-dealing violent Mexican gangs, or is the drug war the reason for their existence? Imagine if you could get rid of the incentive for much of their behavior, AND limit immigration, while still having a free and open border. It is possible. The consequences of our open border are a symptom of other bad policies.

      (-5) 23 Total Votes - 9 up - 14 down
  6. SuperDave says:

    They were filling the jobs most Americans won’t do…

    (0) 20 Total Votes - 10 up - 10 down
  7. choprzrul says:

    This victim could have just as easily ended up as another body being found in a field.

    It really makes me wonder what Ian Parkinson is thinking when he turns down law abiding citizen’s applications to carry a concealed weapon. Why are we left defenseless?

    (24) 32 Total Votes - 28 up - 4 down
    • Perspicacious says:

      Because Ian Parkinson does not understand CA law. Joe Cortez said that a citizen wanting a permit for self-defense is a compelling enough reason to issue a permit. Parkinson still holds to the erroneous belief that a citizen must show some sort of immediate specific threat to his life. Precisely why I voted for Cortez. I wish the appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision saying anybody who passes a background check to buy a firearm MUST be issued a permit. Unfortunately, the ruling was stayed pending the appeal. When the ruling is upheld, Parkinson will wish he had issued a few more before now because he will be swamped!

      (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.