DC criminals stealing your coat at gunpoint

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

This is why we can't have nice things. You're either an insane Marxist or you're parodying an insane Marxist and the fact that we can't tell which one you are shows just how insane Marxists are. Couple this with Dems not telling insane Marxists to go pound sand and we get high crime rates and lawlessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

I’m going to assume this is sarcasm.

Could also be genuine "professorspeak."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

I’m going to assume this is sarcasm.

The problem is it very well may not be. People like this actually exist. Hence the situation we are in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

This is why we can't have nice things. You're either an insane Marxist or you're parodying an insane Marxist and the fact that we can't tell which one you are shows just how insane Marxists are. Couple this with Dems not telling insane Marxists to go pound sand and we get high crime rates and lawlessness.

Untamed capitalism and rampant materialism inevitably lead to class conflict. Much of the so called “crime” we are witnessing is the result. You all need to look in the mirror for the source of your sudden predicament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

This is why we can't have nice things. You're either an insane Marxist or you're parodying an insane Marxist and the fact that we can't tell which one you are shows just how insane Marxists are. Couple this with Dems not telling insane Marxists to go pound sand and we get high crime rates and lawlessness.

Untamed capitalism and rampant materialism inevitably lead to class conflict. Much of the so called “crime” we are witnessing is the result. You all need to look in the mirror for the source of your sudden predicament.

So it's a mostly peaceful protest then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

This is why we can't have nice things. You're either an insane Marxist or you're parodying an insane Marxist and the fact that we can't tell which one you are shows just how insane Marxists are. Couple this with Dems not telling insane Marxists to go pound sand and we get high crime rates and lawlessness.

Untamed capitalism and rampant materialism inevitably lead to class conflict. Much of the so called “crime” we are witnessing is the result. You all need to look in the mirror for the source of your sudden predicament.

"so called"?!
Idiots like you have no credibility at all. None.
Ridiculous and pathetic how you progressives are legends in your own mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

Do you think hong Kong has this problem

Can confirm, you can wear your Gucci stuff all over Hong Kong with no fear of being robbed.

The idea that “vibrant urban life” means thugs robbing people in broad daylight is an American invention.

Because most of the "Gucci" stuff in HK is counterfeit. As for Moncler, the people wearing that in HK are the ultra-wealthy and they can kill anyone they want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This is demented. I can use the same logic to rob you of anything.

It is none of your business what I wear. I have the right to be safe to wear the most expensive or cheapest cloth.

Advertising one’s privilege is pretty tacky. Why make yourself a target by antagonizing those not as lucky as you?

Come on, people have cell phones. People have nice belts and coats and shoes. It’s not like it’s a $100k diamond ring or something - regular working people can save up for a Canada Goose jacket if that’s what they really want. People are getting carjacked if they drive a regular car like a Hyundai or a Honda, or a luxury car. Our city shouldn’t be this dangerous.

However given the vast inequality in wealth distribution it’s simply not appropriate to show off one’s material privilege.

-1

If anything, only reason people should think twice about what they wear is because DC has opted to behave as third world city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This is demented. I can use the same logic to rob you of anything.

It is none of your business what I wear. I have the right to be safe to wear the most expensive or cheapest cloth.

Advertising one’s privilege is pretty tacky. Why make yourself a target by antagonizing those not as lucky as you?

Come on, people have cell phones. People have nice belts and coats and shoes. It’s not like it’s a $100k diamond ring or something - regular working people can save up for a Canada Goose jacket if that’s what they really want. People are getting carjacked if they drive a regular car like a Hyundai or a Honda, or a luxury car. Our city shouldn’t be this dangerous.

However given the vast inequality in wealth distribution it’s simply not appropriate to show off one’s material privilege.

-1

If anything, only reason people should think twice about what they wear is because DC has opted to behave as third world city.

Third World?
Your ignorance is evident in the use of this phrase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that the group named "Guardian Angels" came here from NYC at the worst of the crime wave in the 1990s. I remember seeing them in the subway. I think I remember crime dropping after they began patrolling crime hot spots in D.C.

They patrol the DC subway these days too

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/08/guardian-angels-washington-dc-metro-spike-crime/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

LOL, you had me for a minute there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This is demented. I can use the same logic to rob you of anything.

It is none of your business what I wear. I have the right to be safe to wear the most expensive or cheapest cloth.

Advertising one’s privilege is pretty tacky. Why make yourself a target by antagonizing those not as lucky as you?

Come on, people have cell phones. People have nice belts and coats and shoes. It’s not like it’s a $100k diamond ring or something - regular working people can save up for a Canada Goose jacket if that’s what they really want. People are getting carjacked if they drive a regular car like a Hyundai or a Honda, or a luxury car. Our city shouldn’t be this dangerous.

However given the vast inequality in wealth distribution it’s simply not appropriate to show off one’s material privilege.

-1

If anything, only reason people should think twice about what they wear is because DC has opted to behave as third world city.

DC the Fallujah of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the rationale behind a person in their teens and early 20s walking around with thousands of dollars of branded clothing? Especially after at least one university (GWU) told them they were at risk and to stop wearing them. It can’t be status; it’s not their money.

This is demented. I can use the same logic to rob you of anything.

It is none of your business what I wear. I have the right to be safe to wear the most expensive or cheapest cloth.

Advertising one’s privilege is pretty tacky. Why make yourself a target by antagonizing those not as lucky as you?

Come on, people have cell phones. People have nice belts and coats and shoes. It’s not like it’s a $100k diamond ring or something - regular working people can save up for a Canada Goose jacket if that’s what they really want. People are getting carjacked if they drive a regular car like a Hyundai or a Honda, or a luxury car. Our city shouldn’t be this dangerous.

However given the vast inequality in wealth distribution it’s simply not appropriate to show off one’s material privilege.

-1

If anything, only reason people should think twice about what they wear is because DC has opted to behave as third world city.

Third World?
Your ignorance is evident in the use of this phrase.

Really, most dem run cities take on a 3rd world persona, DC is no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These poor Jean Valjeans are just trying to clothe their families.

Have pity for them. They need the coats more than you do. These poor people don’t have access to any help.

Yeah, sure! Blame poors for the acts of lawless.

It's not the wealthy committing armed robbery.

It's not the poor either. These are crimes of opportunity.

Or crimes of malice.

I think we should be careful about throwing the word “crime” around before we analyze the full context under which each of these type of activities occur.
Many of these type of events I think we would all agree would fall into a “needs” category (i.e. people need a coat to survive but cannot afford one due to society’s exploitation). This should not be a crime.
What I think needs to be further explored is how many of these events are acts of empowerment - an oppressed individual seeking dignity and self-actualization against their oppressor. Not something I would classify as crime.
In the end I think we’d be left with a tiny fraction that could be considered truly criminal activity.

This is why we can't have nice things. You're either an insane Marxist or you're parodying an insane Marxist and the fact that we can't tell which one you are shows just how insane Marxists are. Couple this with Dems not telling insane Marxists to go pound sand and we get high crime rates and lawlessness.

Untamed capitalism and rampant materialism inevitably lead to class conflict. Much of the so called “crime” we are witnessing is the result. You all need to look in the mirror for the source of your sudden predicament.

Interesting perspective but I think the reality is thugs are going to thug.

[Anonymous]

Good thing I don't wear a $2500 jacket. I DGAF