Zoo Lights Shooting and Violence

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:False equivalence. At least for speeding and parking violations we can tie a name, address, and real consequences to not paying the fine. Don't pay? Then you can't renew your driver's license and car registration. What do you do when a minor steals a fare and has no form of identification and no money on them? How exactly do you hand out a fine when they have no ID and no money on them to pay on the spot? Liberals would be outraged if minors who stole care were detained until their parents could verify their home address info and would be outraged if parents had their wages garnished until fines were paid.

Quit bullshitting us. We all know fare evasion has basically been legalized because the fines are essentially unenforceable.

Lots of speed camera and parking fines go unpaid, especially those owed by out-of-state drivers. But, have you thought your reply through? You say:

"Liberals would be outraged if minors who stole care were detained until their parents could verify their home address info and would be outraged if parents had their wages garnished until fines were paid."

So your solution is to arrest the kids instead? Don't you think "liberals" would be even more outraged by that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's worth it to pay to go to Brookside.

I love their lights!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How to end the connection between events at the zoo and this out of control youth predator segment? We have to make it unattractive or punitive for them to hang out at what is supposed to be a family friendly venue focused on species conservation.

No one under 18 admitted without parent or guardian over the age of 25, no more than 4 teenagers allowed per adult. That’s what they did way back when in my hometown to keep the a-hole teens from running amok in the mall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who made the remark last night on this thread about "people not from this neighborhood." I only meant to point out the implicit classicism/racism in some of the comments about the shooting. I wasn't endorsing violence. It's terrible that this happened at the Zoo, just as it's terrible when it happens in other areas of the city All.The.Time. It's also terrible that the racism on this thread has only gotten worse and more blatant.

Thank you for this. I"m the person that made the "people not from this neighborhood" quote, and first I'd like to apologize for it, and thank god for anonymity. I often type more quickly and more abbreviated than what I originally intended. Obviously, not from this neighborhood is dog whistle for NIMBY-ism and racism, and that was not remotely the intent.

The phrase was highlighted in my original post, however, the point I was trying to make was actually not about the perpetrators. I was looking beyond this specific incident to the possible ramifications of the incident. I was in no way talking about the specific incident or decrying the incident itself being the cause of people not from here. I was predicting that the ZOO would use this incident to push through some measures they've been advocating for a couple of years. For example, I used to be able to walk through the zoo starting as early as 6 am and lasting into the evening, and a few years ago the Zoo, citing "safety" shortened the hours the zoo was open. Only a very few people took advantage of the open grounds of the zoo at 6 am, and it was a fun place to run in the neighborhood. The zoo wants more permanent fencing and more fewer entry points, with tighter controls. I'll admit, that does make some sense during high traffic times like Zoo lights and Easter. But for the most part, it really only serves as building more walls between the neighborhood and the Zoo. Unlike the majority of the Smithsonian, the Zoo is BOTH a neighborhood AND a national resource.

So, I was aggravated last night that the Zoo would likely take the events of last night and use them to further impose further restrictions that don't actually help prevent things like last night from happening, but that do affect the way the Zoo interacts with neighbors.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish Bowser would speak out more about violence and crime. I know the city is safer than it has been, but I think people from all over should be able to go to the Zoo and have a fun family night.

At the same time, I have a teenager. I'd like it if my teenager could have some freedom and go places with friends. I like that Zoo lights is free and I think the City needs more places where teenagers can hang out and be teens - more events, more spaces, more fun activities. But not teenagers with guns, or not teens that fight, but just more engaging spaces for teens to be teens - safely and legally.

Thanks PP. I'm the PP who called out that phrase last night. Your contribution is far more thoughtful and considerate than my snide intervention (and this thread as a whole) deserves. I was reacting to something that wasn't your intention, this sense that some well-off homeowners (including & esp in MoCo where I now live) believe that they're entitled to a kind of gated community existence.

Fwiw I lived a few blocks from the zoo during my first few years in DC, and for the past 15 years I've been a FONZ member and such a frequent visitor that I could give tours. The zoo is one of my teenager's favorite places in the world, so while I don't have any better solutions either, I totally endorse your wish that it remains a safe place, accessible to all who respect its mission. And separately I'm very sorry for sending this thread toward a crazy unproductive direction.

Feel free to stay in MoCo and not assume what us "well-off homeowners" are like. We are also entitled to safety, regardless of how "well-off" our household is. It is not wrong to feel entitled to safety, I think that's why you moved to MoCo, right?

[Anonymous]

Everyone is entitled a safe night out. I don't understand how safety has become a divisive issue on this thread. When kids are left on their own - without supervision - they are more likely to get into trouble.

Those who ARE troubled commit dangerous acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet if fare evasion was enforced it would allow dc police to search for weapons , run their rap sheet and pull them off the street. It would be a great way to prevent these criminals from freely roaming the streets

exactly. it's basic law and order. nobody wants 13 year olds sent to jail for fare evasion, but we don't want lawlessness on the metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who made the remark last night on this thread about "people not from this neighborhood." I only meant to point out the implicit classicism/racism in some of the comments about the shooting. I wasn't endorsing violence. It's terrible that this happened at the Zoo, just as it's terrible when it happens in other areas of the city All.The.Time. It's also terrible that the racism on this thread has only gotten worse and more blatant.

Thank you for this. I"m the person that made the "people not from this neighborhood" quote, and first I'd like to apologize for it, and thank god for anonymity. I often type more quickly and more abbreviated than what I originally intended. Obviously, not from this neighborhood is dog whistle for NIMBY-ism and racism, and that was not remotely the intent.

The phrase was highlighted in my original post, however, the point I was trying to make was actually not about the perpetrators. I was looking beyond this specific incident to the possible ramifications of the incident. I was in no way talking about the specific incident or decrying the incident itself being the cause of people not from here. I was predicting that the ZOO would use this incident to push through some measures they've been advocating for a couple of years. For example, I used to be able to walk through the zoo starting as early as 6 am and lasting into the evening, and a few years ago the Zoo, citing "safety" shortened the hours the zoo was open. Only a very few people took advantage of the open grounds of the zoo at 6 am, and it was a fun place to run in the neighborhood. The zoo wants more permanent fencing and more fewer entry points, with tighter controls. I'll admit, that does make some sense during high traffic times like Zoo lights and Easter. But for the most part, it really only serves as building more walls between the neighborhood and the Zoo. Unlike the majority of the Smithsonian, the Zoo is BOTH a neighborhood AND a national resource.

So, I was aggravated last night that the Zoo would likely take the events of last night and use them to further impose further restrictions that don't actually help prevent things like last night from happening, but that do affect the way the Zoo interacts with neighbors.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish Bowser would speak out more about violence and crime. I know the city is safer than it has been, but I think people from all over should be able to go to the Zoo and have a fun family night.

At the same time, I have a teenager. I'd like it if my teenager could have some freedom and go places with friends. I like that Zoo lights is free and I think the City needs more places where teenagers can hang out and be teens - more events, more spaces, more fun activities. But not teenagers with guns, or not teens that fight, but just more engaging spaces for teens to be teens - safely and legally.

Thanks PP. I'm the PP who called out that phrase last night. Your contribution is far more thoughtful and considerate than my snide intervention (and this thread as a whole) deserves. I was reacting to something that wasn't your intention, this sense that some well-off homeowners (including & esp in MoCo where I now live) believe that they're entitled to a kind of gated community existence.

Fwiw I lived a few blocks from the zoo during my first few years in DC, and for the past 15 years I've been a FONZ member and such a frequent visitor that I could give tours. The zoo is one of my teenager's favorite places in the world, so while I don't have any better solutions either, I totally endorse your wish that it remains a safe place, accessible to all who respect its mission. And separately I'm very sorry for sending this thread toward a crazy unproductive direction.

Feel free to stay in MoCo and not assume what us "well-off homeowners" are like. We are also entitled to safety, regardless of how "well-off" our household is. It is not wrong to feel entitled to safety, I think that's why you moved to MoCo, right?

Wrong. We moved to MoCo because we couldn't afford the price tag for a 3br place where we were living in DC. Believe it or not, a lousy old house on a busy street in Bethesda was a lot cheaper. Happily, the zoo doesn't discriminate based on residence, unlike some of its neighbors apparently.

[Anonymous]

Just charge $5 admission at the entrance.

That alone would eliminate 99% of "teen" problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet if fare evasion was enforced it would allow dc police to search for weapons , run their rap sheet and pull them off the street. It would be a great way to prevent these criminals from freely roaming the streets

exactly. it's basic law and order. nobody wants 13 year olds sent to jail for fare evasion, but we don't want lawlessness on the metro.

But they could detain them until a parent comes to get them and pay the fine. And make the fare violators scrub the dirty station floors as well. As fare collections have dropped, some stations look like Metro stopped cleaning them some time ago.

[Anonymous]

“Violence interrupters” are more about knowing the friends and family of those victims as violence tends to occur in pocketed outbreaks (among known parties). The fact that the kids were likely not from the neighborhoods around the zoo means there is much less worry of on-going violence for the zoo neighbors while there is greater risk around the homes of those involved.
I happen to live in a neighborhood plagued by violence. There were kids (toddler to teen) roaming my street on Weds and Fri. I watched ding-dong-ditch be played and my dogs got harassed a bit while out in the front yard. I came outside (working from home those days) to intervene in my dogs having kids bark back and yell at them and eventually had to exclaim “you all must be bored!” because the kids did not scatter when my adult self cane out to I intervene. They just nodded and agreed that they were BORED! There was nothing for them to be involved in. They were switching each others shoes for entertainment (one little girl wearing one swapping one shoe with another). There are a lot of friendly amiable kids that live around me and very little for them to do. There is mischief to get into though.
A few posters on here I would like to thank. The one who used to run early mornings in the zoo and the one who moved and lived near the zoo long ago (moved to MoCo?) and the one who asked how criminal we all are if parking over the two hours allotted were seen as harshly as other infractions. Anyway, I worry for my neighbors and pray they not be villianized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who made the remark last night on this thread about "people not from this neighborhood." I only meant to point out the implicit classicism/racism in some of the comments about the shooting. I wasn't endorsing violence. It's terrible that this happened at the Zoo, just as it's terrible when it happens in other areas of the city All.The.Time. It's also terrible that the racism on this thread has only gotten worse and more blatant.

Thank you for this. I"m the person that made the "people not from this neighborhood" quote, and first I'd like to apologize for it, and thank god for anonymity. I often type more quickly and more abbreviated than what I originally intended. Obviously, not from this neighborhood is dog whistle for NIMBY-ism and racism, and that was not remotely the intent.

The phrase was highlighted in my original post, however, the point I was trying to make was actually not about the perpetrators. I was looking beyond this specific incident to the possible ramifications of the incident. I was in no way talking about the specific incident or decrying the incident itself being the cause of people not from here. I was predicting that the ZOO would use this incident to push through some measures they've been advocating for a couple of years. For example, I used to be able to walk through the zoo starting as early as 6 am and lasting into the evening, and a few years ago the Zoo, citing "safety" shortened the hours the zoo was open. Only a very few people took advantage of the open grounds of the zoo at 6 am, and it was a fun place to run in the neighborhood. The zoo wants more permanent fencing and more fewer entry points, with tighter controls. I'll admit, that does make some sense during high traffic times like Zoo lights and Easter. But for the most part, it really only serves as building more walls between the neighborhood and the Zoo. Unlike the majority of the Smithsonian, the Zoo is BOTH a neighborhood AND a national resource.

So, I was aggravated last night that the Zoo would likely take the events of last night and use them to further impose further restrictions that don't actually help prevent things like last night from happening, but that do affect the way the Zoo interacts with neighbors.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish Bowser would speak out more about violence and crime. I know the city is safer than it has been, but I think people from all over should be able to go to the Zoo and have a fun family night.

At the same time, I have a teenager. I'd like it if my teenager could have some freedom and go places with friends. I like that Zoo lights is free and I think the City needs more places where teenagers can hang out and be teens - more events, more spaces, more fun activities. But not teenagers with guns, or not teens that fight, but just more engaging spaces for teens to be teens - safely and legally.

Thanks PP. I'm the PP who called out that phrase last night. Your contribution is far more thoughtful and considerate than my snide intervention (and this thread as a whole) deserves. I was reacting to something that wasn't your intention, this sense that some well-off homeowners (including & esp in MoCo where I now live) believe that they're entitled to a kind of gated community existence.

Fwiw I lived a few blocks from the zoo during my first few years in DC, and for the past 15 years I've been a FONZ member and such a frequent visitor that I could give tours. The zoo is one of my teenager's favorite places in the world, so while I don't have any better solutions either, I totally endorse your wish that it remains a safe place, accessible to all who respect its mission. And separately I'm very sorry for sending this thread toward a crazy unproductive direction.

Feel free to stay in MoCo and not assume what us "well-off homeowners" are like. We are also entitled to safety, regardless of how "well-off" our household is. It is not wrong to feel entitled to safety, I think that's why you moved to MoCo, right?

Wrong. We moved to MoCo because we couldn't afford the price tag for a 3br place where we were living in DC. Believe it or not, a lousy old house on a busy street in Bethesda was a lot cheaper. Happily, the zoo doesn't discriminate based on residence, unlike some of its neighbors apparently.

It is reckless to say that neighbors who demand safety, discriminate. What about a demand for safety says discrimination? I bet you could have purchased a non-lousy old house in a different town but you chose Bethesda for your own reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who made the remark last night on this thread about "people not from this neighborhood." I only meant to point out the implicit classicism/racism in some of the comments about the shooting. I wasn't endorsing violence. It's terrible that this happened at the Zoo, just as it's terrible when it happens in other areas of the city All.The.Time. It's also terrible that the racism on this thread has only gotten worse and more blatant.

Thank you for this. I"m the person that made the "people not from this neighborhood" quote, and first I'd like to apologize for it, and thank god for anonymity. I often type more quickly and more abbreviated than what I originally intended. Obviously, not from this neighborhood is dog whistle for NIMBY-ism and racism, and that was not remotely the intent.

The phrase was highlighted in my original post, however, the point I was trying to make was actually not about the perpetrators. I was looking beyond this specific incident to the possible ramifications of the incident. I was in no way talking about the specific incident or decrying the incident itself being the cause of people not from here. I was predicting that the ZOO would use this incident to push through some measures they've been advocating for a couple of years. For example, I used to be able to walk through the zoo starting as early as 6 am and lasting into the evening, and a few years ago the Zoo, citing "safety" shortened the hours the zoo was open. Only a very few people took advantage of the open grounds of the zoo at 6 am, and it was a fun place to run in the neighborhood. The zoo wants more permanent fencing and more fewer entry points, with tighter controls. I'll admit, that does make some sense during high traffic times like Zoo lights and Easter. But for the most part, it really only serves as building more walls between the neighborhood and the Zoo. Unlike the majority of the Smithsonian, the Zoo is BOTH a neighborhood AND a national resource.

So, I was aggravated last night that the Zoo would likely take the events of last night and use them to further impose further restrictions that don't actually help prevent things like last night from happening, but that do affect the way the Zoo interacts with neighbors.

I don't know what the solution is. I wish Bowser would speak out more about violence and crime. I know the city is safer than it has been, but I think people from all over should be able to go to the Zoo and have a fun family night.

At the same time, I have a teenager. I'd like it if my teenager could have some freedom and go places with friends. I like that Zoo lights is free and I think the City needs more places where teenagers can hang out and be teens - more events, more spaces, more fun activities. But not teenagers with guns, or not teens that fight, but just more engaging spaces for teens to be teens - safely and legally.

Thanks PP. I'm the PP who called out that phrase last night. Your contribution is far more thoughtful and considerate than my snide intervention (and this thread as a whole) deserves. I was reacting to something that wasn't your intention, this sense that some well-off homeowners (including & esp in MoCo where I now live) believe that they're entitled to a kind of gated community existence.

Fwiw I lived a few blocks from the zoo during my first few years in DC, and for the past 15 years I've been a FONZ member and such a frequent visitor that I could give tours. The zoo is one of my teenager's favorite places in the world, so while I don't have any better solutions either, I totally endorse your wish that it remains a safe place, accessible to all who respect its mission. And separately I'm very sorry for sending this thread toward a crazy unproductive direction.

Feel free to stay in MoCo and not assume what us "well-off homeowners" are like. We are also entitled to safety, regardless of how "well-off" our household is. It is not wrong to feel entitled to safety, I think that's why you moved to MoCo, right?

Wrong. We moved to MoCo because we couldn't afford the price tag for a 3br place where we were living in DC. Believe it or not, a lousy old house on a busy street in Bethesda was a lot cheaper. Happily, the zoo doesn't discriminate based on residence, unlike some of its neighbors apparently.

It is reckless to say that neighbors who demand safety, discriminate. What about a demand for safety says discrimination? I bet you could have purchased a non-lousy old house in a different town but you chose Bethesda for your own reasons.

No I was saying YOU discriminate because your response to my post was to tell me to stay in MoCo. The zoo welcomes members and visitors irrespective of where they live.

[Anonymous]

The zoo does not welcome anyone who rampages, goes wilding, assaults other visitors, knocks over strollers or brings a gun. And neither do we. They are PNG.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatincentive does anyone have to actually pay for a metro card? That’s an odd way to govern a city. Broken windows theory ....

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the topic of fare evasion. Previously, this was a criminal activity, which meant that you could go to jail and earn criminal record for doing it. The DC Council decriminalized it. That does not mean that fare evasion is legal, but rather that it is now a civil violation punishable by a $50 fine. So, to answer your question, the incentive to pay for a metro card is to avoid a $50 fine. It is now similar to a parking violation. If you park in a metered space but don't pay for parking, you do not face the possibility of going to jail. Rather, you will likely be ticketed and fined. Notice that nobody posts questions in this forum asking about the incentive for paying for parking.

Seems like it’s still a criminal offense in VA and MD. And it does not sound like Metro has yet come up with an enforcement/appeals mechanism for the civil infractions in DC. So there’s effectively not much of an incentive to comply as of now. By contrast, there’s an established procedure for enforcing parking violations. Maybe if an effective enforcement mechanism became a reality that would be something to consider.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that teens "being teens" in DC means violence. If they would stop evading metro fares and then shooting people, there wouldn't be a problem to start with.