Mother and Child Shot at P and 10th NW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They posted the pic of the suspect: https://twitter.com/DCPoliceDept/status/1395523359316787201

I am pretty sure I saw this guy this afternoon near safeway on 17th and Corcoran NW. Have reported to the tip line

Is this the guy who lives in the encampment there? He looks similar, but I haven't seen his face in a while since they just hide out in the tents now. He looks very familiar to me. There needs to be an arrest NOW. They have his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

But he was ramming kids with a scooter so while they didn't know he had a gun and would shoot kids, he obv didn't GAF about them kids and was spoiling for some kind of fight.

So there was an eye witness who said he was “ramming kids”? I didn’t see that. The truth is, we don’t know exactly how it played out. Unless they release video of the events in question, no one can say for sure that they know precisely how it went down or how fast.

You can say for sure the victims saw the man in the mug shot. Does he look like an individual whose conduct could be influence by a few sharp words? Does he look like someone who you could reason with? The victims have no one but themselves to blame. The way they should have handled the situation is go back inside and call the police and keep calling the police every time you witness crime. Over time, this problem is solved only by the slow, steady process of gentrification.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

But he was ramming kids with a scooter so while they didn't know he had a gun and would shoot kids, he obv didn't GAF about them kids and was spoiling for some kind of fight.

So there was an eye witness who said he was “ramming kids”? I didn’t see that. The truth is, we don’t know exactly how it played out. Unless they release video of the events in question, no one can say for sure that they know precisely how it went down or how fast.

You can say for sure the victims saw the man in the mug shot. Does he look like an individual whose conduct could be influence by a few sharp words? Does he look like someone who you could reason with? The victims have no one but themselves to blame. The way they should have handled the situation is go back inside and call the police and keep calling the police every time you witness crime. Over time, this problem is solved only by the slow, steady process of gentrification.
.

Oh my god. The armchair quarterbacking and second guessing in this thread is ridiculous. The entire sequence of events could have taken no more than a few seconds! We don’t know whether the victims got a good look at him while he whizzed by, and we don’t know how he appeared at the time this took place. You’re not perfect, and you can’t say for sure how you would have handled it if it were you. That’s the reality. Get off your high horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

Have you ever confronted these individuals for anti-social behavior in an environment where you are particularly vulnerable, i.e., with ur kid standing there or in front of ur house while u r spending time with ur family? U shouldn't. The way to deal with these individuals when u r in a vulnerable situation is keep silent and call the cops. Gentrification eventually solves this problem. The problem isn't solved by reasoning with people who are unwilling or unable to reason. The last two decades have seen the benefits of gentrification- there is still a little work to be done, but the city is only a decade or so from being completely gentrified. Then these stories will be man bites dog stories, rare and remarkable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

Have you ever confronted these individuals for anti-social behavior in an environment where you are particularly vulnerable, i.e., with ur kid standing there or in front of ur house while u r spending time with ur family? U shouldn't. The way to deal with these individuals when u r in a vulnerable situation is keep silent and call the cops. Gentrification eventually solves this problem. The problem isn't solved by reasoning with people who are unwilling or unable to reason. The last two decades have seen the benefits of gentrification- there is still a little work to be done, but the city is only a decade or so from being completely gentrified. Then these stories will be man bites dog stories, rare and remarkable.

You know what doesn’t solve the problem? Blaming the victims. Blaming victims of violent crime doesn’t reduce crime; it just hurts victims. To reduce violent crime, you need to focus on the perpetrators and would-be perpetrators, not those they have harmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is America - get into a verbal beef with someone and you run a good chance of getting shot. This is certainly not unique to cities. It's tragic.

What about the 4 year old kid?

If you have kids with you all the more reason not to argue with strangers. People who live in DC shouldn’t believe they are exempt from violence because they are white or own an expensive house in Logan Circle.

Victim blame much?

We don’t even know if the mother “argued.” She could have just asked the guy to move the scooter.

Why? Seriously why? If it was in her way he saw her and was being an assh#&#. If it wasn’t in her way why say anything at all. Just move it when he’s gone

Is there some rule book that I can read that can help me know how I can interact with people without getting shot?

Apparently there are all sorts of rules that I was not aware of that would make me a deserved victim of violent crime (and death) that only apply to living in DC but nowhere else.

Help me understand this please!

Is this a serious question? Yes, there are rules in a city, especially DC right now. They are MYOB and STFU. Don’t get into confrontations with strangers on the street. If you get mugged or carjacked, hand it over as calmly as possible.

So we are to allow the most violent among us to control and regulate us for fear that they will arbitrarily exact violence against us?

I’m sorry but I’m not going to live like a hostage to psychotic sociopaths every time I walk outside my house. I’m sad that you feel that you need to.

I mean, what do you want me to say? You apparently feel that due to some intrinsic quality or special right you have, you are immune from crime. You’re not.

DP. So you hide from strangers and are afraid to use your voice in front of them? Your life must be so sad and small.

No, I don’t hide from strangers. I use basic street smarts. If you think that somehow ruins one’s life, maybe you’re not cut out to live in a city.

NP. Look, I get it. You can't afford to move outside the city. But that doesn't mean you need to rationalize violence and death as a normal daily thing that everyone should just accept

It's the poor people who can't afford to buy IN the city. That said, I hope the victims and their family do not find or see this thread.

No. It’s the poor people who can’t afford to buy in the city and send their kids to private or buy into the one decent pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Have none of you encountered an aggressive panhadler? Although it's rational for them to be polite, some of them are very aggressive and swear at you when you walk by. Mental illness, drugs, both, who knows?I've had one try to grab at me. DC, San Francisco, Boston were the cities. At no time did I think it was a good idea to engage.

You see the no fixed address for this guy? Same thing. Nothing to lose.

For those who want to bring race into it -- we have a 20 page thread here on this white woman and her child but the same day a black great grandmother was shot as a BYSTANDER on Southern Ave SE and the media has a couple of sentences and no mention here. Police are looking for those perpetrators too. What does this tell you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have none of you encountered an aggressive panhadler? Although it's rational for them to be polite, some of them are very aggressive and swear at you when you walk by. Mental illness, drugs, both, who knows?I've had one try to grab at me. DC, San Francisco, Boston were the cities. At no time did I think it was a good idea to engage.

You see the no fixed address for this guy? Same thing. Nothing to lose.

For those who want to bring race into it -- we have a 20 page thread here on this white woman and her child but the same day a black great grandmother was shot as a BYSTANDER on Southern Ave SE and the media has a couple of sentences and no mention here. Police are looking for those perpetrators too. What does this tell you?

You guys care a lot when the victim is white and the perp is black. Posters care even more if the perp is white and the victim is black, because it means we can discuss racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

Have you ever confronted these individuals for anti-social behavior in an environment where you are particularly vulnerable, i.e., with ur kid standing there or in front of ur house while u r spending time with ur family? U shouldn't. The way to deal with these individuals when u r in a vulnerable situation is keep silent and call the cops. Gentrification eventually solves this problem. The problem isn't solved by reasoning with people who are unwilling or unable to reason. The last two decades have seen the benefits of gentrification- there is still a little work to be done, but the city is only a decade or so from being completely gentrified. Then these stories will be man bites dog stories, rare and remarkable.

You know what doesn’t solve the problem? Blaming the victims. Blaming victims of violent crime doesn’t reduce crime; it just hurts victims. To reduce violent crime, you need to focus on the perpetrators and would-be perpetrators, not those they have harmed.

People are simply pointing out that the victims did not live in CC Hills or CC Section whatever. Rather, they live in a community that is quickly becoming, but has not yet become, civilized. Transitioning communities have people like the perp here that you simply would never encounter in NA or CC. The way to eradicate this type of creature is not through direct confrontation citizen to citizen and it's beyond naive to suggest that such an approach is effective. Instead, call the cops, call the cops and call the cops. Also critically, vote for representatives that favor heavy policing and accountability. As the city becomes more gentrified, the electable politicians will become less soft on crime, defund the police types and more law and order types.

Straw man much? I haven’t seen anyone suggest such an approach is effective. Do you want to show us where you saw that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, so here's the thing about the gun argument. [b]Guns proliferate in other communities, but they don't seem to share in the violence that overtakes some cities/communities. Simply saying "GUNS" is simplistic and doesn't come close to identifying deep problems that you probably don't want to discuss anyway.[b]

Also, Australia. Yeah, an island nation that would be pretty easy to seal off from illegal weapons. The USA, not so much. Not to be cliche, but it really applies: when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. That's just how it is with porous borders and many, many guns in circulation. It's a pipedream if you think we could outlaw guns and get rid of "gun violence" at the same time.

+1. Yep. There are plenty of communities with lots of guns, but not all of them are as violent as DC. So there is something else going on, but I think people are afraid to have that conversation.

+2 We have plenty of guns here in NOVA, people just seem to know how to behave better.

I lol every time one of these woke DC residents complains about evil Virginia and all the guns coming into their shining city and ruining everything for the otherwise model citizens. Ummm... you realize that guns from Virginia ALSO flow into *gasp* Virginia. And we are doing just fine. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps DC's problem is the people living in DC, not the boogieman across the potomac.

Snort.

Over 1,000 people died by guns in VA in 2019. Plus, many of the people doing the shooting in DC are from VA and MD.
Sorry the truth doesn't fit your narrative. Guns need to be banned in America just like they are in every other civilized country where they don't lose tens of thousands of people to gun violence every year. Ignorance like yours is deadly.

65% of those deaths are suicide. And "many" people come from VA to do the shootings....? I'm glad people like you, are the opposition in the firearm debate. It makes keeping those rights a cake walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

Have you ever confronted these individuals for anti-social behavior in an environment where you are particularly vulnerable, i.e., with ur kid standing there or in front of ur house while u r spending time with ur family? U shouldn't. The way to deal with these individuals when u r in a vulnerable situation is keep silent and call the cops. Gentrification eventually solves this problem. The problem isn't solved by reasoning with people who are unwilling or unable to reason. The last two decades have seen the benefits of gentrification- there is still a little work to be done, but the city is only a decade or so from being completely gentrified. Then these stories will be man bites dog stories, rare and remarkable.

You know what doesn’t solve the problem? Blaming the victims. Blaming victims of violent crime doesn’t reduce crime; it just hurts victims. To reduce violent crime, you need to focus on the perpetrators and would-be perpetrators, not those they have harmed.

People are simply pointing out that the victims did not live in CC Hills or CC Section whatever. Rather, they live in a community that is quickly becoming, but has not yet become, civilized. Transitioning communities have people like the perp here that you simply would never encounter in NA or CC. The way to eradicate this type of creature is not through direct confrontation citizen to citizen and it's beyond naive to suggest that such an approach is effective. Instead, call the cops, call the cops and call the cops. Also critically, vote for representatives that favor heavy policing and accountability. As the city becomes more gentrified, the electable politicians will become less soft on crime, defund the police types and more law and order types.

Straw man much? I haven’t seen anyone suggest such an approach is effective. Do you want to show us where you saw that?

Isn't that the premise behind those that contend the victims were right to engage with the perp? That some good could come out of such engagement? If no good and possible tragedy could come from engagement, then engagement is a mistake, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a rabid dog appeared from the woods and bit your kid, would you actually engage with the animal?

Do you think this man was wearing a sign saying “I shoot kids”? Obviously the victims could not immediately tell this man was homicidal.

If the perp was a nun wearing her church outfit, I would agree. Stop being coy. Every fact that would be immediately knowable to the victims should have led them to believe that yes, he might as well have had a sign saying I shoot kids (and women in the back). Do you live under a rock or have you allowed your wokeness to distort your view of reality?

I’m the opposite of woke, PP. You have no idea what you’re talking about. (You know what does sound woke? Blaming a white victim for not being sufficiently submissive to a violent black man.)

What about the perpetrator makes you think it’s obvious he was homicidal? Can you get specific? I frequently encounter men who look like him around the city, and none of them have been violent toward me.

Have you ever confronted these individuals for anti-social behavior in an environment where you are particularly vulnerable, i.e., with ur kid standing there or in front of ur house while u r spending time with ur family? U shouldn't. The way to deal with these individuals when u r in a vulnerable situation is keep silent and call the cops. Gentrification eventually solves this problem. The problem isn't solved by reasoning with people who are unwilling or unable to reason. The last two decades have seen the benefits of gentrification- there is still a little work to be done, but the city is only a decade or so from being completely gentrified. Then these stories will be man bites dog stories, rare and remarkable.

You know what doesn’t solve the problem? Blaming the victims. Blaming victims of violent crime doesn’t reduce crime; it just hurts victims. To reduce violent crime, you need to focus on the perpetrators and would-be perpetrators, not those they have harmed.

People are simply pointing out that the victims did not live in CC Hills or CC Section whatever. Rather, they live in a community that is quickly becoming, but has not yet become, civilized. Transitioning communities have people like the perp here that you simply would never encounter in NA or CC. The way to eradicate this type of creature is not through direct confrontation citizen to citizen and it's beyond naive to suggest that such an approach is effective. Instead, call the cops, call the cops and call the cops. Also critically, vote for representatives that favor heavy policing and accountability. As the city becomes more gentrified, the electable politicians will become less soft on crime, defund the police types and more law and order types.

Unfortunately right now you have the opposite happening. Woke politicians like Charles Allen are coddling criminals and defunding the police, which emboldens even more outrageous violent behavior, which causes educated families to leave DC, which leaves fewer voters in favor of pro-safety measures.

[Anonymous]

Suggest not engaging with the conservative trolls in this thread, many of whom don’t live in DC.

The way to beat trolling is just to keep repeating your truth. If you try to debunk they’ll just change their lie. Normally you want to use a truth sandwich: lead with the truth, note the lie, then return to the truth. The trolls will work hard to distract you into peripheral arguments where they are not obviously wrong. Don’t take the bait. Just reply by restating the main truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suggest not engaging with the conservative trolls in this thread, many of whom don’t live in DC.

The way to beat trolling is just to keep repeating your truth. If you try to debunk they’ll just change their lie. Normally you want to use a truth sandwich: lead with the truth, note the lie, then return to the truth. The trolls will work hard to distract you into peripheral arguments where they are not obviously wrong. Don’t take the bait. Just reply by restating the main truth.

Can't argue with DC's crime statistics.