Anonymous wrote:How did DC get cleaned up in the past , what is the current barrier to getting crime down

Leftists.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

Who said that’s not true? I don’t wish anyone to be the victim of a crime. I just think the kids walking around with these jackets in the midst of a crime wave are foolish and shallow.

Like women who wear skirts to clubs or go back to a guy’s place “for dinner.” Just poor judgment.

False equivalency. But thanks for deflecting and misdirecting to defend these poor kids’ privilege.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

+1. People have the right to wear $10K coats and not get robbed. American cities are horrible and attitudes like the apologists for armed robberies are the reason why.

This is ridiculous.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

Who said that’s not true? I don’t wish anyone to be the victim of a crime. I just think the kids walking around with these jackets in the midst of a crime wave are foolish and shallow.

Like women who wear skirts to clubs or go back to a guy’s place “for dinner.” Just poor judgment.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in DC needs coats that expensive!

Personally, I would never wear an expensive coat. For my money it’s wasteful. But for their money they could do whatever they want with it, and they have the right to wear it without fear of it being stolen.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

Who said that’s not true? I don’t wish anyone to be the victim of a crime. I just think the kids walking around with these jackets in the midst of a crime wave are foolish and shallow.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

They obviously have a right to wear them and not get robbed. The line of what coat is “too expensive” is completely arbitrary anyway and as ever, DCUM provincials just use their own economic band as a proxy for morals.

That pesky Constitution.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

Right… because showing off $2000 coats is liberating for these kids and might as well be an extension of their identity. My apologies for suggesting we stifle such a pure form of expression

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

dp.. to be sure, but given what is happening, don't you think people should be more wary now a days?

Would you walk down a dark alley in a sketchy part of town in the middle of the night? I get that you don't think DC is "a sketchy alleyway", but I think the point is that it's becoming that way.

Between this and carjackings of nice cars, "you can't always [wear/drive] what you want".. that's the message our city leaders are telling us.

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 sounds a bit too much like “what is the rationale behind a young woman in her teens and early 20s walking around wearing tight skirts and low-cut tops and heels? Especially after they were told that are at risk of being raped so they should stop wearing them….”

Maaaybe just maaaaaybe the responsibility of not being ROBBED should not be placed onto the VICTIM of the robbery.

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

When crime involving innocent victims was a fraction of what it is now, Tony Williams went on the warpath with big gestures to let the criminal underclass know things have changed and to cut that sh out.

Our current leadership coddles the criminals.