I think it calms people's fears somewhat when a violent act is determined to be gang related. Nevertheless, gang membership and behavior have nothing to with "bad genes" IMHO. As long the conditions exist that lead to the existence of gangs, gangs will exist.

Last fall a white guy who was cycling to his friend's house at about 10 pm never got there. It was a routine trip he made all the time. He was found the next morning nearly dead and eventually did die. He had been severely beaten. Fears were heightened. It was a huge story, and the search for his killer(s) was given to the top local detective.

Eventually one of the people involved (not the killer) confessed and fingered the guy who had clubbed him to death. The police claim the cyclist approached the guys to inquire about buying drugs. The guys beat him and took the $40 he was carrying.

The family cried foul saying that while the cyclist years ago had drug a problem he had been clean for a long time and was now a typical family man in his 40's. The family said the police were publicly smearing the cyclist because the incident had damaged the image of the city and the police.

Anyway, it's an interesting peak into our society. I seriously doubt the case of one gang member killing another would be given to the top local detective or that it would have been in the news for days on end. The guy who confessed did so because he felt that because it was white middle class guy that was killed the killers would be pursued relentlessly and he didn't want the crime pinned on him.

A huge debate raged over whether or not the cyclist was in fact engaging in risky behavior or was just a random target. Also debated was whether it was appropriate or not to taint the memory of guy who'd just been killed in order to salvage the image of the city/neighborhood/police.