Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

What Allen and people like him do not seem to realize is that there's middle ground between locking up a 14-year-old kid for 30 years and releasing them without any sort of corrective measures, which is exactly what is happening now.

This +1,000. There’s a big difference between locking a kid up as an adult for decades (which DC can’t do if the kid is under 16 no matter what the crime), and wanting people held accountable for the crimes they commit. The amount of violent crime committed by teens in DC is at an all time high, but no one will talk about the fact that this uptick directly correlates with the implementation of policies designed to be softer on crime committed by kids. There is a whole generation of kids in DC now who know that if they are running the streets and they are under 16 nothing of significance will happen to them.

Kids have a criminal field day in DC up to 18. Then they don't know another lifestyle and keep going and get locked up for much longer (though Allen is working on that!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

What Allen and people like him do not seem to realize is that there's middle ground between locking up a 14-year-old kid for 30 years and releasing them without any sort of corrective measures, which is exactly what is happening now.

This +1,000. There’s a big difference between locking a kid up as an adult for decades (which DC can’t do if the kid is under 16 no matter what the crime), and wanting people held accountable for the crimes they commit. The amount of violent crime committed by teens in DC is at an all time high, but no one will talk about the fact that this uptick directly correlates with the implementation of policies designed to be softer on crime committed by kids. There is a whole generation of kids in DC now who know that if they are running the streets and they are under 16 nothing of significance will happen to them.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/us/12-year-old-four-carjacking-arrest/index.html

This. What the hey?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

^ The kid already had better choices available to make. What you do is remove them from society for a time (no 14 year old kid is getting locked up for 30 years for carjacking, as you know) and while you have them in custody, you provide education and skills, including educating them in the better choices they should[i] make when given a choice between abiding by or breaking the law. Then, upon release, you heavily supervise them and support them. Part of this support can include conditions, such as being in school or employment and staying out of trouble. We know that kids thrive with expectations and support. All of this is called "reform", and I've never really heard Charles speak to it.

I don't think you have any idea what these kids choices look like.

How hard do you work to provide your kids good opportunities? How many natural obstacles do they have in their way? Imagine what it's like to have significantly higher obstacles and the people looking out for you have much less ability to open up opportunities.

The rest of what you said doesn't seem far from Allen and his allies position at all. I don't get why you're so up in arms.

Uh, thanks. I worked for years with at-risk DC youth, including adjudicated. I agree they face lives of difficulty, and have a very limited understanding of what the world offers due to what they have been/are exposed to. I have students who had never been to a single museum in DC, who were frightened in the country at retreats and organized night patrols, who rarely left "the block". They do often do whatever it takes to score short term rewards and peer approval. They have no idea how to take steps/plan to make goals. They get stuck. However, they have choices between stealing/not stealing, hurting/not hurting etc. just like you or I and they would be the first to tell you they know the difference. Please don't patronize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you have any idea what these kids choices look like.

How hard do you work to provide your kids good opportunities? How many natural obstacles do they have in their way? Imagine what it's like to have significantly higher obstacles and the people looking out for you have much less ability to open up opportunities.

The rest of what you said doesn't seem far from Allen and his allies position at all. I don't get why you're so up in arms.

Allen's position is armed carjackings occur because the carjacker needs a warm place to stay. If you don't understand why people are up in arms over the absurdity of that claim, I'm not sure what to tell you. PPs are upset because Allen's positions and policies are leading to a serious rise in violent and non-violent crime. No one is arguing against increased opportunities for kids, nor that some face substantial challenges, that's a straw man. They do want effective policies to reverse that trend. All the good intentions in the world matter very little without results, and so far the results of the policies Allen has advocated have been abysmal.

Thank you. Just thank you. There's a point where well-reasoned "reform" turns into utter nonsense. DC deserves better than this.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you have any idea what these kids choices look like.

How hard do you work to provide your kids good opportunities? How many natural obstacles do they have in their way? Imagine what it's like to have significantly higher obstacles and the people looking out for you have much less ability to open up opportunities.

The rest of what you said doesn't seem far from Allen and his allies position at all. I don't get why you're so up in arms.

Allen's position is armed carjackings occur because the carjacker needs a warm place to stay. If you don't understand why people are up in arms over the absurdity of that claim, I'm not sure what to tell you. PPs are upset because Allen's positions and policies are leading to a serious rise in violent and non-violent crime. No one is arguing against increased opportunities for kids, nor that some face substantial challenges, that's a straw man. They do want effective policies to reverse that trend. All the good intentions in the world matter very little without results, and so far the results of the policies Allen has advocated have been abysmal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

^ The kid already had better choices available to make. What you do is remove them from society for a time (no 14 year old kid is getting locked up for 30 years for carjacking, as you know) and while you have them in custody, you provide education and skills, including educating them in the better choices they should[i] make when given a choice between abiding by or breaking the law. Then, upon release, you heavily supervise them and support them. Part of this support can include conditions, such as being in school or employment and staying out of trouble. We know that kids thrive with expectations and support. All of this is called "reform", and I've never really heard Charles speak to it.

I don't think you have any idea what these kids choices look like.

How hard do you work to provide your kids good opportunities? How many natural obstacles do they have in their way? Imagine what it's like to have significantly higher obstacles and the people looking out for you have much less ability to open up opportunities.

The rest of what you said doesn't seem far from Allen and his allies position at all. I don't get why you're so up in arms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what Charles Allen thinks about Rayful Edmonds, who was directly responsible for hundreds of murders in DC in the 1980s. His federal life sentence has been reduced, mainly because he's a huge snitch:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/rayful-edmond-prison-sentence-reduction/2021/02/23/efa9d0b6-48c2-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

(Edmonds likely isn't getting out anytime soon because Allen's idiotic law can't touch the 30-year Pennsylvania sentence for running his drug empire from prison.)

I don't think he thinks. Or he wouldn't say dumb things like "car thieves seek warm places"

Rayful. What is going to do when he gets out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last person to run against him run to the left of him - ugh. Lots of people are starting to complain about his stance on crime and how much it is increasing around the hill. That might be a potential hook for a more moderate candidate. Ward 6 is also going to change when they adjust the wards. Not sure if that will matter.

Yes, he was so vocal in his support of the youth rehabilitation act. Now we also have shortened sentence thing for violent criminals too. Plus teens get a slap on the wrist for crimes. It’s so nuts. Such a heartfelt to do right. The problem is that deterring violent crime is now taking a back seat to “restorative justice”, which basically lets criminals think they can do whatever they want.

It will be fascinating to see redistricting is handled. According to census estimates, Allen's ward will need to shed population, so its boundary will have to change. The easiest way to do this would be to move Ward 6's "Shaw Stovepipe" back to Ward 2. That would move *a lot* of Allen's die-hard support out of his ward. There's also a scenario where some of Ward 8 moves into Ward 6, which also would not be good news for Allen, because Ward 8 is not exactly friendly territory to someone with Allen's pillow-soft stance on crime.

Anonymous wrote:The last person to run against him run to the left of him - ugh. Lots of people are starting to complain about his stance on crime and how much it is increasing around the hill. That might be a potential hook for a more moderate candidate. Ward 6 is also going to change when they adjust the wards. Not sure if that will matter.

Yes, he was so vocal in his support of the youth rehabilitation act. Now we also have shortened sentence thing for violent criminals too. Plus teens get a slap on the wrist for crimes. It’s so nuts. Such a heartfelt to do right. The problem is that deterring violent crime is now taking a back seat to “restorative justice”, which basically lets criminals think they can do whatever they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

^ The kid already had better choices available to make. What you do is remove them from society for a time (no 14 year old kid is getting locked up for 30 years for carjacking, as you know) and while you have them in custody, you provide education and skills, including educating them in the better choices they should[i] make when given a choice between abiding by or breaking the law. Then, upon release, you heavily supervise them and support them. Part of this support can include conditions, such as being in school or employment and staying out of trouble. We know that kids thrive with expectations and support. All of this is called "reform", and I've never really heard Charles speak to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

What Allen and people like him do not seem to realize is that there's middle ground between locking up a 14-year-old kid for 30 years and releasing them without any sort of corrective measures, which is exactly what is happening now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Maybe it’s just a difference in perspective. Of course carjacking is wrong. What do we do about it? Lock up a 14 year old kid for 30 years? Or give that kid better choices to make? Frankly, I trust that people will make overall good decisions when they have good options to choose from. Some of these kids don’t have good options in front of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.

But once people get carjacked or shot, Allen's sympathies seem to lie more with the person doing the the carjacking or shooting than the victim. How is that at all sane?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a neighbor/ANC commissioner/etc. who may have a more balanced approach to crime, please encourage them to consider running or at least making some serious noise. I'm tired of Charles Allen's "it's literally never their fault when they point a gun in your face" approach.

Have you called his office to voice this? I have. They very courteously tell you how much you are misunderstanding the worthiness of his approach. I mean, I guess they have to defend it since its his platform, but I've had some pretty Seussical conversations with his staff.

Good for you for calling him. But this is why I don't even try - I just don't think it would change a thing unless he (and politicians in general) is at risk of losing his seat or comes under serious political/PR pressure. I just don't know how to get that going, especially around such a sensitive topic. Any time you bring up violent crime as a problem, you get flamed as a racist within three seconds, when all I want (and the vast majority of AA residents want) is to not worry about getting carjacked or shot at by 14-year-olds who will be released to their guardian in a day.

With all due respect, that’s not *all* that most people want. We want to see a productive future for our kids, grandkids, etc. which does take some understanding of why they are committing crime. Of course no one wants to get carjacked or shot.