Another shooting near the National Zoo

[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.

Link to article, please?

[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.

Link to article, please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/gang-activity-behind-shooting-near-zoo-dc-police-say/2014/05/05/890f4902-d48f-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Link to article, please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/gang-activity-behind-shooting-near-zoo-dc-police-say/2014/05/05/890f4902-d48f-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html

Any teenager who takes a pistol and fires into a crowd should be tried as an adult. He is a predator and deserves to go away for a long time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Link to article, please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/gang-activity-behind-shooting-near-zoo-dc-police-say/2014/05/05/890f4902-d48f-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html

Any teenager who takes a pistol and fires into a crowd should be tried as an adult. He is a predator and deserves to go away for a long time.

DC law does not allow children this young to be tried as an adult. Would you really expect at 13 year old to go to an adult prison?

[Anonymous]

Why not send him to Juvenile detention until he is 18, then send him to adult prison. Its probably safe to assume he is going to end up in adult prison at some point with a track record starting at age 11! Who robs someone with a knife at 11?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not send him to Juvenile detention until he is 18, then send him to adult prison. Its probably safe to assume he is going to end up in adult prison at some point with a track record starting at age 11! Who robs someone with a knife at 11?

Someone with mental issues or a deeply unstable home life. I'm guessing; I know nothing about this kid.

It's also probably safe to assume that with stability and someone to look up to who holds them accountable, lots of people with heinous histories have managed to turn their lives around.

[Anonymous]

I read the article today and have to admit that I felt very uncomfortable that the Police had what sounded to me like a credible threat based on social media chatter, but didn't inform the public.

I get that we don't treat gang violence threats like terrorist threats, but is this the right choice? If my child had passed by the zoo at the wrong time (which might well have happened-- we live nearby and walk past very often) and had gotten hurt, I would have felt 1000 times worse knowing that violence was actually anticipated, and that the police weren't really prepared to prevent it-- just to stop it once it started. I think citizens have a right to know about situations it's smart to avoid.

Sure, I've lived here long enough to be aware of the event's history of violence, and thanks to Popville (no thanks to the for-profit media), I knew about the gun incident and Ellington Bridge mini-mob the previous week. That helped me decide to avoid the immediate zoo area that day. But I think credible information that gangs are planning to fight at a specific event should result in the cancellation of the event, or at least a warning to the public to attend at their own risk. Boo to the Smithsonian (and it hurts me to write that!) and to the MPD for not sharing what they knew or taking more effective preventative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article today and have to admit that I felt very uncomfortable that the Police had what sounded to me like a credible threat based on social media chatter, but didn't inform the public.

I get that we don't treat gang violence threats like terrorist threats, but is this the right choice? If my child had passed by the zoo at the wrong time (which might well have happened-- we live nearby and walk past very often) and had gotten hurt, I would have felt 1000 times worse knowing that violence was actually anticipated, and that the police weren't really prepared to prevent it-- just to stop it once it started. I think citizens have a right to know about situations it's smart to avoid.

Sure, I've lived here long enough to be aware of the event's history of violence, and thanks to Popville (no thanks to the for-profit media), I knew about the gun incident and Ellington Bridge mini-mob the previous week. That helped me decide to avoid the immediate zoo area that day. But I think credible information that gangs are planning to fight at a specific event should result in the cancellation of the event, or at least a warning to the public to attend at their own risk. Boo to the Smithsonian (and it hurts me to write that!) and to the MPD for not sharing what they knew or taking more effective preventative action.

I agree completely. I was actually planning to go to the zoo that day with my baby and preschooler. Thankfully I read something here about a shooting, anticipated violence, and then after much googling found some opinion websites that talked about Easter Monday violence. It's irresponsible of the media and police to keep the general public uninformed. I will now avoid the zoo for all of Spring break, Easter weekend, and Easter Monday.

[Anonymous]

that scum is beyond redemption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article today and have to admit that I felt very uncomfortable that the Police had what sounded to me like a credible threat based on social media chatter, but didn't inform the public.

I get that we don't treat gang violence threats like terrorist threats, but is this the right choice? If my child had passed by the zoo at the wrong time (which might well have happened-- we live nearby and walk past very often) and had gotten hurt, I would have felt 1000 times worse knowing that violence was actually anticipated, and that the police weren't really prepared to prevent it-- just to stop it once it started. I think citizens have a right to know about situations it's smart to avoid.

Sure, I've lived here long enough to be aware of the event's history of violence, and thanks to Popville (no thanks to the for-profit media), I knew about the gun incident and Ellington Bridge mini-mob the previous week. That helped me decide to avoid the immediate zoo area that day. But I think credible information that gangs are planning to fight at a specific event should result in the cancellation of the event, or at least a warning to the public to attend at their own risk. Boo to the Smithsonian (and it hurts me to write that!) and to the MPD for not sharing what they knew or taking more effective preventative action.

I agree completely. I was actually planning to go to the zoo that day with my baby and preschooler. Thankfully I read something here about a shooting, anticipated violence, and then after much googling found some opinion websites that talked about Easter Monday violence. It's irresponsible of the media and police to keep the general public uninformed. I will now avoid the zoo for all of Spring break, Easter weekend, and Easter Monday.

If they knew the social media chatter was coming from juveniles, then maybe privacy concerns prevented them from going public. It is important that we protect our children and children's identity.

[Anonymous]

No it's important we protect innocent people from being shot by out of control teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it's important we protect innocent people from being shot by out of control teens.

Out of control teens with absentee parents.

[Anonymous]

Well the alleged so-called suspects a child too! Just because he's being suspected of something doesn't mean he don't have rights too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the alleged so-called suspects a child too! Just because he's being suspected of something doesn't mean he don't have rights too.

Your advice for next year??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article today and have to admit that I felt very uncomfortable that the Police had what sounded to me like a credible threat based on social media chatter, but didn't inform the public.

I get that we don't treat gang violence threats like terrorist threats, but is this the right choice? If my child had passed by the zoo at the wrong time (which might well have happened-- we live nearby and walk past very often) and had gotten hurt, I would have felt 1000 times worse knowing that violence was actually anticipated, and that the police weren't really prepared to prevent it-- just to stop it once it started. I think citizens have a right to know about situations it's smart to avoid.

Sure, I've lived here long enough to be aware of the event's history of violence, and thanks to Popville (no thanks to the for-profit media), I knew about the gun incident and Ellington Bridge mini-mob the previous week. That helped me decide to avoid the immediate zoo area that day. But I think credible information that gangs are planning to fight at a specific event should result in the cancellation of the event, or at least a warning to the public to attend at their own risk. Boo to the Smithsonian (and it hurts me to write that!) and to the MPD for not sharing what they knew or taking more effective preventative action.

I agree completely. I was actually planning to go to the zoo that day with my baby and preschooler. Thankfully I read something here about a shooting, anticipated violence, and then after much googling found some opinion websites that talked about Easter Monday violence. It's irresponsible of the media and police to keep the general public uninformed. I will now avoid the zoo for all of Spring break, Easter weekend, and Easter Monday.

If they knew the social media chatter was coming from juveniles, then maybe privacy concerns prevented them from going public. It is important that we protect our children and children's identity.

I don't disagree that minors' privacy concerns must be respected, but I think the public could have been informed of the social media chatter without public revelation of the chatterers' identities.