Another shooting near the National Zoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

Sorry, but you'll never hear me making up excuses for any crime. Rich white boy "chemical imbalance"? F*** that. I don't care what hue you are. Violence is violence. Crime is crime. We need to stop pretending it isn't. -23:30

Good post, PP. I agree.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I personally think using the terms youngsters and kids to describe a teenagers is bad policy if it's done to be deliberately misleading or being used to minimize impact of a story. The law recognizes age when they decide to try teens as adults in certain situations, and certainly recognizes the difference between a child and a teen.

Can you please tell me the ages of the individuals involved? I don't have this information, but since you appear to be in a position to decide how they should be described, maybe you can share your knowledge with the rest of us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I personally think using the terms youngsters and kids to describe a teenagers is bad policy if it's done to be deliberately misleading or being used to minimize impact of a story. The law recognizes age when they decide to try teens as adults in certain situations, and certainly recognizes the difference between a child and a teen.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe we should make reference to criminals as "kids", especially if we don't even know their ages. It makes light of a very serious problem. They may very well be teens, but they certainly aren't kids.

It's amazing how posters in this thread are inventing new ways to be divisive. The Post referred to them as "youngsters". Would you prefer that?

Regardless of your feelings for a group of people about whom you know nothing at all, teens are "kids".

I thought we agreed that we shouldn't believe everything we read in the press.

I also thought we agreed that some individuals engaged in criminal activity on Monday. That we know, don't we? I don't know if the police dept. has disclosed their ages. Do you?

I'm a believer in "It takes a village", but we need to step up here and call this what it is: crime. Not a few "kids" having a fun day at the Zoo. We can't hope to fix a problem if we don't think it was much of a problem.

Ok, so no knows the ages of any of the alleged criminals?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

You can't be serious. If the police refuse to even get the names or ages of the alleged criminals, much less make an actual arrest, how do you imagine getting "the most accurate and complete information"? It appears to be clear that the police themselves caused the escalation of mayhem by neglecting to make a few arrests in the midst of the violence inside the Zoo. Did the thugs threaten a mass riot to force the police into non-enforcement of the law?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, what changes (if any) would you propose for next year at (or near) the Zoo on Easter Monday?

I would want to get the most accurate and complete information about this event possible. Then, do an "lessons learned" exercise to understand what could have been done differently to have prevented the shooting. Depending on what those conclusions are, I would suggest new or modified procedures or other changes in how the event is conducted.

You can't be serious. If the police refuse to even get the names or ages of the alleged criminals, much less make an actual arrest, how do you imagine getting "the most accurate and complete information"? It appears to be clear that the police themselves caused the escalation of mayhem by neglecting to make a few arrests in the midst of the violence inside the Zoo. Did the thugs threaten a mass riot to force the police into non-enforcement of the law?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The best thing to do is to go off half-cocked based on rumors from an anonymous Internet forum and disrupt a 128 year tradition regardless of whether that will resolve the problem or not.

Why in the hell would anyone question the value of obtaining "the most accurate and complete information". I seriously cannot believe there are fools who oppose that idea. I'm done with this discussion. If you want to throw gasoline on the fire, go right ahead.

[Anonymous]

If only there was any hope of getting "accurate and complete information", we wouldn't be having such an ongoing problem. At some point, you need to resign yourselves to the fact that we will not be getting "accurate and complete information", and move on to reality.

So what now? Business as usual next year at the Zoo on Easter Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So what now? Business as usual next year at the Zoo on Easter Monday?

Absolutely. Anything else would be racist.

Sin,

Jsteele, District government, balck community leaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So what now? Business as usual next year at the Zoo on Easter Monday?

Pretty much. Note the lack of news flow over fallout from the Easter Monday shooting. No real reaction from those who call the shots (i.e. Smithsonian, MPD). I'll be surprised if we see a new format for next year (i.e. tickets).

[Anonymous]

The mother of the 14 year old shooter, according to wtop this morning, blamed "the system" for failing her "baby" and her.

She also said that her baby's father is incarcerated and that was a cause of her sons behavior.

She pleaded for his relief and insisted she can control him.

He apparently has a prior conviction for armed robbery in he district with a knife. He is also a gang member and he shot randomly into the crown because he thought he saw members of a rival gang at Family Day.

[Anonymous]

^^^^ release

[Anonymous]

Reading the article in the post made my blood boil today. He has prior arrests, and convictions and once again back on the street. Since his mom is pretending to finally give a shit and whining about how hard it is to raise him, I say lock him up until he is 21. She clearly has failed. She wants the system to raise him, then let the system have him. This kid is horrible and probably beyond redemption. The sad fact is that studies show some kids actually have permanent brain damage caused from early years in their dysfunctional homes. What if someone had been killed? Kid is threat to society. I wish they would charge him as an adult. And what I really think we need to do is charge the parent of these minors as accomplices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the article in the post made my blood boil today. He has prior arrests, and convictions and once again back on the street. Since his mom is pretending to finally give a shit and whining about how hard it is to raise him, I say lock him up until he is 21. She clearly has failed. She wants the system to raise him, then let the system have him. This kid is horrible and probably beyond redemption. The sad fact is that studies show some kids actually have permanent brain damage caused from early years in their dysfunctional homes. What if someone had been killed? Kid is threat to society. I wish they would charge him as an adult. And what I really think we need to do is charge the parent of these minors as accomplices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the article in the post made my blood boil today. He has prior arrests, and convictions and once again back on the street. Since his mom is pretending to finally give a shit and whining about how hard it is to raise him, I say lock him up until he is 21. She clearly has failed. She wants the system to raise him, then let the system have him. This kid is horrible and probably beyond redemption. The sad fact is that studies show some kids actually have permanent brain damage caused from early years in their dysfunctional homes. What if someone had been killed? Kid is threat to society. I wish they would charge him as an adult. And what I really think we need to do is charge the parent of these minors as accomplices.

+1000.

What would everyone say if the victims had died?

Would the Post highlight a young life cut short while ignoring a shooter who had been given a second chance, a third chance, a tenth chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the article in the post made my blood boil today. He has prior arrests, and convictions and once again back on the street. Since his mom is pretending to finally give a shit and whining about how hard it is to raise him, I say lock him up until he is 21. She clearly has failed. She wants the system to raise him, then let the system have him. This kid is horrible and probably beyond redemption. The sad fact is that studies show some kids actually have permanent brain damage caused from early years in their dysfunctional homes. What if someone had been killed? Kid is threat to society. I wish they would charge him as an adult. And what I really think we need to do is charge the parent of these minors as accomplices.

+1000.

What would everyone say if the victims had died?

Would the Post highlight a young life cut short while ignoring a shooter who had been given a second chance, a third chance, a tenth chance?

I agree. I'm over it.