Thanks Racine and Allen!

[Anonymous]

Since law enforcement isn't working in DC because the police just aren't *woke* enough, might as well give free drugs and money to the criminals then maybe that will cause them behave and obey the law. The criminals will be so grateful, they'll turn in their guns --legally obtained, of course, and become model citizens.

We just have to be nicer and kinder to criminals so they will reciprocate then everyone can give each other a big hug and celebrate a new era of peace and safety. The criminals are not evil, we're just not compassionate enough. Empathize harder, people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was born and raised in south east and have seen this terrible and sad parenting style first hand. Yes, there is some incredible cruelty in impoverished parenting. Also, the whole idea of a “whupping” being okay needs to stop.

That said, yes the problem is intractable. It’s getting worse because everyone is too scared to offend another culture by pointing too closely. Also, the whole criminal justice reform movement is hitting smack dab into rising crime. So basically yea. Nothing can be done. Except in 15 years when it’s been too much and we go back to the 1990’s style of policing, which destroyed some families but worked to stop crime.

Because it's ok to break some eggs to make omelets, as long as it's your omelets but other people's eggs?

I’m pretty sure the families of those who have been murdered by some of DCs 16-17 year olds would say they have been destroyed too.

Yes. We need policies that prioritize not destroying ANY families.

Useless post.

[Anonymous]

I hope women and POC like being the victims of crime in the city, because these laws result more crime (and the victims are predominantly _______ and _________).

You voted for it; now you are going to get it.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

I would be. But Charles Allen isn't the only problem. How can we nudge the city council to actually represent the interests of a functional city again rather than some weed-scented progressive utopia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

I would be. But Charles Allen isn't the only problem. How can we nudge the city council to actually represent the interests of a functional city again rather than some weed-scented progressive utopia?

NYC has a working class population that actually wants to live their life without being shot or carjacked. DC does not and will not vote for any tough on crime candidates. Y'all have 6 year olds getting shot at random and no one GAF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

I would be. But Charles Allen isn't the only problem. How can we nudge the city council to actually represent the interests of a functional city again rather than some weed-scented progressive utopia?

The weed I’m okay with. The mushrooms, too.

The lax on crime, woke af, no prosecution, slap and release bullsht for violent crime I am not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

I would be. But Charles Allen isn't the only problem. How can we nudge the city council to actually represent the interests of a functional city again rather than some weed-scented progressive utopia?

The weed I’m okay with. The mushrooms, too.

The lax on crime, woke af, no prosecution, slap and release bullsht for violent crime I am not.

One problem with the weed and the mushrooms is that once-functional citizens are using them to escape rather than remain aware of all our problems. Lotus eaters are not critics and they will vote for any politicians who support their habits. This was a Bowser masterstroke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Juvenile offenders thoughts do not run so deep as to “sense that the city does not care about them”. The whole genesis of Racine’s proposal is that kids’ brains are not fully developed, so they certainly aren’t thinking as deeply as you suggest. What they sense is that there are few consequences for criminal behavior in DC so they take their teenage years as a crime freebie. Being committed to DYRS is a bit of street cred for many kids because they know that commitment doesn’t mean you will be locked away, you’ll generally still be at home with no supervision and running the streets.

Feel free to do a search of the kids between 16-17 in DC who have been charged as adults with murder, and then realize that under this proposal those kids would have been looking at a commitment to DYRS (which does not necessarily mean they will be detained) until a max of age 21. Here are some examples: the murderer of Neil Godleski in 2010, sniper Lee Malvo, one of the people charged with killing 10 year old Makiyah Wilson, and Maurice Bellamy who was convicted of murdering 2 people at age 17.

I disagree - I think people have a pretty good sense about when the city (or whichever) government doesn't care about them, whether or not they can articulate it.

It doesn't help that the Post and other left-leaning elite narrative makers constantly tell them that a) they can never get ahead because of racism, b) they are poor because of racism, and c) money and bling is the source of happiness.

Juvenile offenders read the Washington Post? Who knew?

not PP, but aside from your snide Post reading comment, do you not think the lives of juvenile offenders are shaped in any way by narrative makers - who quote obviously influence voter and policy decisions by anyone who does read the papers.

Can you point to some specific examples of where the "narrative making" Washington Post or other left leaning elites are saying it's OK for people to engage in violent crime and carjackings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone here actually support Charles Allen? I'm willing to do so much to support a challenger to him that actually takes crime seriously. Who's with me?

I would be. But Charles Allen isn't the only problem. How can we nudge the city council to actually represent the interests of a functional city again rather than some weed-scented progressive utopia?

NYC has a working class population that actually wants to live their life without being shot or carjacked. DC does not and will not vote for any tough on crime candidates. Y'all have 6 year olds getting shot at random and no one GAF.

NYC decriminalized marijuana years ago. So I guess your "lotus eaters" comment was crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Juvenile offenders thoughts do not run so deep as to “sense that the city does not care about them”. The whole genesis of Racine’s proposal is that kids’ brains are not fully developed, so they certainly aren’t thinking as deeply as you suggest. What they sense is that there are few consequences for criminal behavior in DC so they take their teenage years as a crime freebie. Being committed to DYRS is a bit of street cred for many kids because they know that commitment doesn’t mean you will be locked away, you’ll generally still be at home with no supervision and running the streets.

Feel free to do a search of the kids between 16-17 in DC who have been charged as adults with murder, and then realize that under this proposal those kids would have been looking at a commitment to DYRS (which does not necessarily mean they will be detained) until a max of age 21. Here are some examples: the murderer of Neil Godleski in 2010, sniper Lee Malvo, one of the people charged with killing 10 year old Makiyah Wilson, and Maurice Bellamy who was convicted of murdering 2 people at age 17.

I disagree - I think people have a pretty good sense about when the city (or whichever) government doesn't care about them, whether or not they can articulate it.

It doesn't help that the Post and other left-leaning elite narrative makers constantly tell them that a) they can never get ahead because of racism, b) they are poor because of racism, and c) money and bling is the source of happiness.

Juvenile offenders read the Washington Post? Who knew?

not PP, but aside from your snide Post reading comment, do you not think the lives of juvenile offenders are shaped in any way by narrative makers - who quote obviously influence voter and policy decisions by anyone who does read the papers.

Can you point to some specific examples of where the "narrative making" Washington Post or other left leaning elites are saying it's OK for people to engage in violent crime and carjackings?

I hate Trump, but the post went apoplectic when he was president and every story was anti-trump, which is fine, but please don’t act as if the majority of their content is not more liberal in agenda.

Additionally, obviously there are no stories where they expressly support car jackings. They report on them. There are opinion articles. However, many stories tend to empathize with “the underdog”, the articles play up the poor, mistreated criminal who, by external forces out of their own control, where somehow forced into car jacking someone out of desperation, when in reality they have other options.

The post has always leaned left. The entire city leans left. I know that because I am not an idiot and grew up in SE and am a media junkie like all the other nerds on this forum. This is a city of haves and have nots. However, the current climate and sentiment is to sympathize more criminals than with the actual tax paying citizens who don’t rob people out of a sense of altruism to rectify past wrongs. It’s messed up. If you voice concern with this stance you’re labeled as being part of the problem. And the only solution seems to throw money at the problem and kick the cam down the road as we have always done. “More programs more educational spending per child to counter the problem” when in actuality we spend over 26k per kid on schooling and the real solution begins in the home.

Anyway, with rising crime, and a younger generation who disfavor the police, what the fk are we going to do? Tolerate the rise in crime because it’s only fair to those who historically had it bad???? It’s stupid. I’m sure if it gets bad enough the pendulum will swing back to the way policing was in the 90’s to counter the crack epidemic. History repeats itself and it seems everyone has to learn the hard way and eyes, the post, in its coverage, like most other newspapers won’t even provide a comment section for stories on crime, to prevent racist comments. But that kind of censorship mentality is also how we are approaching the crime rise in general. Preventing actual conversations from taking place. L

[Anonymous]

NYC had to live through years of deBlasio trying to pull the same crap as DC progressives before they came to their senses with the recent election of a moderate. Its not like they've had uninterrupted sensible government over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Juvenile offenders thoughts do not run so deep as to “sense that the city does not care about them”. The whole genesis of Racine’s proposal is that kids’ brains are not fully developed, so they certainly aren’t thinking as deeply as you suggest. What they sense is that there are few consequences for criminal behavior in DC so they take their teenage years as a crime freebie. Being committed to DYRS is a bit of street cred for many kids because they know that commitment doesn’t mean you will be locked away, you’ll generally still be at home with no supervision and running the streets.

Feel free to do a search of the kids between 16-17 in DC who have been charged as adults with murder, and then realize that under this proposal those kids would have been looking at a commitment to DYRS (which does not necessarily mean they will be detained) until a max of age 21. Here are some examples: the murderer of Neil Godleski in 2010, sniper Lee Malvo, one of the people charged with killing 10 year old Makiyah Wilson, and Maurice Bellamy who was convicted of murdering 2 people at age 17.

I disagree - I think people have a pretty good sense about when the city (or whichever) government doesn't care about them, whether or not they can articulate it.

It doesn't help that the Post and other left-leaning elite narrative makers constantly tell them that a) they can never get ahead because of racism, b) they are poor because of racism, and c) money and bling is the source of happiness.

Juvenile offenders read the Washington Post? Who knew?

not PP, but aside from your snide Post reading comment, do you not think the lives of juvenile offenders are shaped in any way by narrative makers - who quote obviously influence voter and policy decisions by anyone who does read the papers.

Can you point to some specific examples of where the "narrative making" Washington Post or other left leaning elites are saying it's OK for people to engage in violent crime and carjackings?

I hate Trump, but the post went apoplectic when he was president and every story was anti-trump, which is fine, but please don’t act as if the majority of their content is not more liberal in agenda.

Additionally, obviously there are no stories where they expressly support car jackings. They report on them. There are opinion articles. However, many stories tend to empathize with “the underdog”, the articles play up the poor, mistreated criminal who, by external forces out of their own control, where somehow forced into car jacking someone out of desperation, when in reality they have other options.

The post has always leaned left. The entire city leans left. I know that because I am not an idiot and grew up in SE and am a media junkie like all the other nerds on this forum. This is a city of haves and have nots. However, the current climate and sentiment is to sympathize more criminals than with the actual tax paying citizens who don’t rob people out of a sense of altruism to rectify past wrongs. It’s messed up. If you voice concern with this stance you’re labeled as being part of the problem. And the only solution seems to throw money at the problem and kick the cam down the road as we have always done. “More programs more educational spending per child to counter the problem” when in actuality we spend over 26k per kid on schooling and the real solution begins in the home.

Anyway, with rising crime, and a younger generation who disfavor the police, what the fk are we going to do? Tolerate the rise in crime because it’s only fair to those who historically had it bad???? It’s stupid. I’m sure if it gets bad enough the pendulum will swing back to the way policing was in the 90’s to counter the crack epidemic. History repeats itself and it seems everyone has to learn the hard way and eyes, the post, in its coverage, like most other newspapers won’t even provide a comment section for stories on crime, to prevent racist comments. But that kind of censorship mentality is also how we are approaching the crime rise in general. Preventing actual conversations from taking place. L

Totally agree with this. The fact that the only local news organizations that report on crime -- of which they only provide brief glimpses of what is going on -- all disable comments now. That creates an attitude that any kind of discussion or complaints about crime are "racist". They don't even do any kind of reporting on attitudes towards crime or deep dives into the impact of some of the police budget cuts on citizens. And you're also right that history repeats itself and most people thought lower crime rates were always a sure thing because that's what they saw for so long. They didn't associate any policing policies with lower crime -- just assumed you could take away all the "bad" and things would be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Juvenile offenders thoughts do not run so deep as to “sense that the city does not care about them”. The whole genesis of Racine’s proposal is that kids’ brains are not fully developed, so they certainly aren’t thinking as deeply as you suggest. What they sense is that there are few consequences for criminal behavior in DC so they take their teenage years as a crime freebie. Being committed to DYRS is a bit of street cred for many kids because they know that commitment doesn’t mean you will be locked away, you’ll generally still be at home with no supervision and running the streets.

Feel free to do a search of the kids between 16-17 in DC who have been charged as adults with murder, and then realize that under this proposal those kids would have been looking at a commitment to DYRS (which does not necessarily mean they will be detained) until a max of age 21. Here are some examples: the murderer of Neil Godleski in 2010, sniper Lee Malvo, one of the people charged with killing 10 year old Makiyah Wilson, and Maurice Bellamy who was convicted of murdering 2 people at age 17.

I disagree - I think people have a pretty good sense about when the city (or whichever) government doesn't care about them, whether or not they can articulate it.

It doesn't help that the Post and other left-leaning elite narrative makers constantly tell them that a) they can never get ahead because of racism, b) they are poor because of racism, and c) money and bling is the source of happiness.

Juvenile offenders read the Washington Post? Who knew?

not PP, but aside from your snide Post reading comment, do you not think the lives of juvenile offenders are shaped in any way by narrative makers - who quote obviously influence voter and policy decisions by anyone who does read the papers.

Can you point to some specific examples of where the "narrative making" Washington Post or other left leaning elites are saying it's OK for people to engage in violent crime and carjackings?

Yet more specific examples:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/nats-park-shooting-neighborhood/2021/07/21/6cb9a454-e987-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html

Identifying with the crime perpetrators over the enormous good the gentrification of the last 20 years in SW has done. If people can’t afford the rent and can live there without gang warfare then they should move. The post always sides with the liberal bleeding heart cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Juvenile offenders thoughts do not run so deep as to “sense that the city does not care about them”. The whole genesis of Racine’s proposal is that kids’ brains are not fully developed, so they certainly aren’t thinking as deeply as you suggest. What they sense is that there are few consequences for criminal behavior in DC so they take their teenage years as a crime freebie. Being committed to DYRS is a bit of street cred for many kids because they know that commitment doesn’t mean you will be locked away, you’ll generally still be at home with no supervision and running the streets.

Feel free to do a search of the kids between 16-17 in DC who have been charged as adults with murder, and then realize that under this proposal those kids would have been looking at a commitment to DYRS (which does not necessarily mean they will be detained) until a max of age 21. Here are some examples: the murderer of Neil Godleski in 2010, sniper Lee Malvo, one of the people charged with killing 10 year old Makiyah Wilson, and Maurice Bellamy who was convicted of murdering 2 people at age 17.

I disagree - I think people have a pretty good sense about when the city (or whichever) government doesn't care about them, whether or not they can articulate it.

It doesn't help that the Post and other left-leaning elite narrative makers constantly tell them that a) they can never get ahead because of racism, b) they are poor because of racism, and c) money and bling is the source of happiness.

Juvenile offenders read the Washington Post? Who knew?

not PP, but aside from your snide Post reading comment, do you not think the lives of juvenile offenders are shaped in any way by narrative makers - who quote obviously influence voter and policy decisions by anyone who does read the papers.

Can you point to some specific examples of where the "narrative making" Washington Post or other left leaning elites are saying it's OK for people to engage in violent crime and carjackings?

Yet more specific examples:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/nats-park-shooting-neighborhood/2021/07/21/6cb9a454-e987-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html

Identifying with the crime perpetrators over the enormous good the gentrification of the last 20 years in SW has done. If people can’t afford the rent and can live there without gang warfare then they should move. The post always sides with the liberal bleeding heart cause.

Counterpoint:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/second-chance-law-for-young-criminals-puts-violent-offenders-back-on-dc-streets/2016/12/02/fcb56c74-8bc1-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html