Zoo Lights Shooting and Violence

[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.

BS> There atre *plenty* of 3, 4 and 5 BR houses in DC that cost considerably less than your 3 BR in Bethesda. Yet you didn't move there - why is that again? Oh, yeah - the safety (and schools, which are all related).

[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.

BS> There atre *plenty* of 3, 4 and 5 BR houses in DC that cost considerably less than your 3 BR in Bethesda. Yet you didn't move there - why is that again? Oh, yeah - the safety (and schools, which are all related).

+1.

I call out PP as a liberal hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

zoolights, zoofights!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fare evasion is the first gateway into the DC youth crime culture. It also is the way these kids get around. They don't have cars and get parking tickets.

I don't know it you are being intentionally obtuse, but they are still subject to a $50 fine A much more likely gateway to crime is getting put into the criminal justice system because you evaded a $2 fare. What do you think the criminal path would be for people like you and me if we ended up in the criminal system because we parked for three hours in a two hour parking space?

if you decriminalize everything there will be no more crime but a very horrible and dangerous city. How about expect decent civilized behavior ? I actually hope they start violating smoking bans do democrats get rid of those too

Please explain why you believe fare evasion is so much worse than parking violations or speeding? Would you be willing to support the criminalization of parking and driving violations in return for re-criminalizing fare evasion? Or do you simply think that young people -- most of whom probably are eligible for Kids Ride Free cards anyway -- deserve worse punishments that folks like yourself?

Fare evasion is the free rider problem of toll services. That's why it is different than a parking or speeding ticket. Tickets don't fund roads. Tolls fund metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is one way for the police to move things along and start making arrests. It requires some old fashioned police work and some financial incentives (the only way to get things done in DC). Show the 7-Eleven looting videotape to DC high school principals and their immediate staffs. Have them identify any students in their school. For each student identified the school would get a $5000 bonus. But if it is later found that they failed to identify students on the tape, the school would lose at least at least twice that amount of money. The rioters, looters and shooters need to be arrested swiftly and punished harshly.

This idea is both stupid and illegal.

Not illegal at all. We need aggressive, relentless policing so that the criminals are caught and severely punished.

So you’ll agree that it’s stupid? If I’m a kid who goes to this high school and am uninvolved with the looting (as the majority of these students are) why should my school lose money?

[Anonymous]

Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

So? What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

...

Really? You think it's better to have people bringing guns and firecrackers into the zoo? It's not like it's an abstract risk, it's a real thing that really happened 2 days ago. I prefer to have family friendly events be gun-free tyvm.

[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.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

[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.

My town had similar rules re the malls and discouraging teen disruption and loitering. This is exactly the type of policy the Zoo should impose.

[Anonymous]

A few years ago, some of the Cleveland Park businesses proposed that 'Zoo" also be added to the name of the Cleveland Park Metro station, to drive more customers. Today, they look at the looted 7-11 near the National Zoo and may be glad that the change was not made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says security will be stepped up and backpacks etc will be screened. So bubbles up wealthy suburban moms (and dads) can now breath easier when Carson and Emily start asking about going.

So? What's wrong with that?

Previous PP apparently prefer that "Carson and Emily" leave the house with a handgun.

Ah, those fun Wild West days.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But is this $50 fine ever enforced? Because it seems like Metro workers just look the other way.

If it is not being enforced, that is a problem with the police and Metro workers, not the Council or the mayor who seem to get the blame.

DP

Agree that the fine seems to rarely be enforced. Maybe it's up to the Police, but they Council and Mayor do set the tone.

I'm fine with them using fare evasion as an 'add-on' to other charges. If a teen is arrested for illegally shooting off fireworks, and looting a 7-11, and it turns out there is video footage of that teen hopping a turnstyle, then it would seem that the teen has a pattern of disregarding the law.

Plus, like anything else, if there is no negative consequence for an action, you're likely to see more of it. That's just human nature.

If I don't pay to park at RTC and get a ticket every time, I'm not going to do that anymore. Next time, I'll just pay for parking. Whereas, when I park in certain garages, I know that I'll rarely (if ever) get a parking ticket there. So, I have little incentive to pay for those meters.

Same thing applies for fare evasion. If there is no negative consequence, there's no reason not to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be someone parking in a parking garage (example parking garages at the Wharf) and then not paying upon leaving the garage? Not sure how you could get a car to get through the guard gate and exit a parking garage without paying but assuming that is possible...

I would assume the parking garage owner could call the police if you did this.

I would hope so. Because it's a crime. You're stealing. Just like fare evasion is stealing. And, the people who use Metro without paying are making it more expensive for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.

Mostly true, except that there are a lot of legal things for kids in DC to be involved in, and most of it is free and accessible by Kids Ride Free metro. There is very little excuse for boredom in this city. And since you mentioned Wednesday night, on Wednesday night, kids should be in after school activities at school for free until at least 4:30, supervised free after care until 6 (most non-wealthy neighborhood schools have this), then home to study and read until bedtime. I have teens in the city too and they are never out and about being 'bored' and getting into trouble. There is plenty to do.

Being bored cannot be allowed to be an excuse for violence, harassment, or illegal behavior.

This.

There is PLENTY offered in this area. And, aren't your kids bored sometimes? That doesn't mean it's okay for them to be violent.