Originally Posted By: CabriniGreen
I'll say it again, what exactly is the argument? If they are a family at all' or if they are powerful?

Cause again, to me it's seems clear cut, they ARE a family, but not very powerful or big. However, they don't seem to need to be a Iarge sized family, I do see them as VERY capable...

We need a definition for " Viable Family", some sort of guidelines that takes the confusion out.


How about this, can we debate and come up with an acceptable agreement as to what constitues a viable family?




Let's use Philly vs Detroit, as they are in a similar situation, (state of decline)why would one consider Philly viable and vice versa? Why would they not be viable and vice versa, it just occurred to me this might need another thread, but ehh... Any thoughts?


When it comes to the definition of "viable," I go with the two parts of RICO - "ongoing criminal activity in behalf of an enterprise." In other words, is there ongoing activity (most clearly scene through indictments)? And is there an enterprise or structure?

People look at Scott's charts and say, "Hell, yes there's a structure!" While I do believe there is some semblance of a hierarchy in what's left of the Detroit mob, I don't think it's remotely close to those charts. And I've repeatedly outlined my good reasons for why that is.

Then it comes to ongoing activity. You bring up Philadelphia. You can compare the cases in Detroit to Philadelphia, New England and Chicago and it's not even close. Like I said, the level of activity seen through indictments is closer to Buffalo. People can bring up the odd gambling case here or there, which I'm already aware of, but we see the same thing in Pittsburgh or Kanasas City. So that's not necessarily indicative of anything.

In response to your second post above -

Membership is a very important factor in judging a family. Otherwise you're essentially saying there's no difference between a 200 member family and a 20 member family. Numbers stave off the #1 biggest killer of mob families - attrition. It's why the tiny families in places like San Jose, Denver, and Dallas were among the first to go. Detroit could be the tightest-knit, most blood-related, most smooth running family of them all. But if it doesn't have the numbers to go much beyond a gambling operation, to say nothing of replenishing itself, it doesn't matter in the long run. And, no, I don't think Detroit has 30-40 members. It may have been intentional before, in order to maintain quality and solidarity, but now it's due even more to attrition. Eventually it gets to the point like we've seen in other families where the remaining top guys have their money and don't want to risk things by making new members in a futile effort to prolong a family.

As for the Bonannos, the current hierarchy isn't completely clear as far as what previous captains remain, who have been replaced, who's acting for who, so I wouldn't jump the gun and say they have "too many captains." Furthermore, and this goes to my point above, the Bonannos could be the sloppiest and most inept family of them all but they make what's left of the mob in Detroit look like the minor leagues and will be around long after the Detroit mob is gone.

I question your pie analogy because the idea, at least in theory, is a guy gets made because he's an earner (more important today than anything else) and so it's his reward for enlarging the pie. What you're saying is more something we've seen with the Outfit, where reports have said it has intentionally downsized itself as well as streamlined it's operations in order to have a "smaller core." In the short term, this may provide a bigger piece of a shrunken pie for the remaining members, as well as make a smaller target for law enforcement, but it makes them vulnerable to attrition. People were surprised when the feds had the family at only 28 members a decade ago.

Originally Posted By: gangstereport
Ivy this whole time i have said the Detroit mob is a gambling operation and hardly a big and powerful family. Not once have i said that. What i have argued is the family has a hierarchy and is viable and you said yourself there is a argument for both points


i competly disagree with you on scott and i dont understand where you got these dates for where scott got these made guys from maybe your right maybe i have not looked far enough and your right not everything he says is gospel truth anyone who is believes that is wrong (you could say that for all mob journalists) but i still personally and many others on this board enjoy his articles and we believe most of what he says. He has also written for gangland before and if capeci values his opinion then that must mean something

i respect your opinion on most of the mob familys but i disagree with you on scott and certain things in the Detroit mob


i have said my opinion we all have our own views



For the record, those were the dates he posted his charts on the RD forum.


Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.