DescentBB

So school is starting and gang violence is so bad they have to create safe passage routes for kids to walk to school in.

Apparently a bunch volunteers and city workers go out in orange safety vests and try to stake out some kind of a please don't shoot the kids corridor by standing along the route?!?

Doesn't this sound so outrageous that it can't really be happening to us?!?
It does to me.

For any one in power to actually try this tells me they have completely frikken surrendered to the thugs! And you can bet the thugs see it that way! Predators know fear and they know when the prey is retreating. This tells the thugs that the government is unable to stop them so instead they are begging for an exception to the violence for a subset of he population during a select time (and even that isn't being given). Surrender.

I'm disgusted to be an American if this is how we act in the face of thugs. We're done folks if we don't turn this around FAST!

OK. How do we get rid of the thugs? Got a better idea? I certainly got nothin' in mind. We can't take away their guns, we certainly haven't been able to stop the drugs, we don't fund the local public schools properly that these kids go to, nor can we force them learn an education and act like the nice citizens we all want, and we certainly can't force their parents to do a better job of raising their little brats so that they don't turn into hellions and gang bangers. The liberal feel good stuff that's been tried has failed miserably, so do conservatives now have a solution, other than load them into jails to rot just to keep them off the streets?

I say take Clint's approach in gran tourino.

Will Robinson wrote:For any one in power to actually try this tells me they have completely frikken surrendered to the thugs!

I see it the opposite way. Safe passage is the community standing up to the thugs, not surrendering. Chicago is a rough place to grow up (it's my home). There is no easy solution to the violence any more than with Mideast policies. Similarly, it's to the point where people refer to Chicago as "Chiraq" (like Iraq). There is a lot of attention on the matter. It's just going to take time and patience. The community coming together for "safe passage" is a sign of strength and commitment. It's not the end of America, it's the beginning of better communities. Feels good to me.

Will, is this happening in your home state? I suspect not, it isn't in mine either. However, the difference with Chicago, and this is a HUGE difference, is that due to certain logistical and geographical reasons(NOT city leadership or any other such political voodoo), the Mexican drug cartels have established a massive base of operations out of Chicago, serving a clientele that stretches from Omaha to Milwaukee to Cleveland and south to St Louis.
In Chicago, this operation uses street gangs(Chicago now has like 120 of them) as local enforcement, distribution and street sales staff. We are talking serious money, seriously illegal, and the means of growing the territory involves terrorizing other's. Welcome to the homicidal mess which is Chicago. I agree with the poster above who states that the concept of 'safe zones', is all about neighborhoods standing up and trying, desperately, to take back their streets. Good luck to them.

callmeslick wrote:Will, is this happening in your home state? I suspect not, it isn't in mine either. However, the difference with Chicago, and this is a HUGE difference, is that due to certain logistical and geographical reasons(NOT city leadership or any other such political voodoo), the Mexican drug cartels have established a massive base of operations out of Chicago, serving a clientele that stretches from Omaha to Milwaukee to Cleveland and south to St Louis.
In Chicago, this operation uses street gangs(Chicago now has like 120 of them) as local enforcement, distribution and street sales staff. We are talking serious money, seriously illegal, and the means of growing the territory involves terrorizing other's. Welcome to the homicidal mess which is Chicago. I agree with the poster above who states that the concept of 'safe zones', is all about neighborhoods standing up and trying, desperately, to take back their streets. Good luck to them.

Unless those cartels parachuted the gangs in over the weekend someone dropped the ball. The reaction to the threat is all wrong and has been going on like that for decades as the problem has grown.

This phenomenon of begging for a safe zone from the enemy is a sign of submission to the threat. Next will come a cartel lackey approaching the Mayor telling him he can guarantee a number of safe zones and re-election in exchange for cooperation eliminating the competition and protection for his men....and he'll get it too.
Chiraq? No, more like Juarez North.
Those people felt better about the Federales coming in also....for a while... until they discovered who was really in control of the soldiers, then it was too late.

I don't know the law regarding state of emergency and Marshal Law etc. but if I was the governor I'd be planning to hire a lot of veterans from the Iraq war and take my streets back. The notion that a bunch of armed men patrolling the streets is a bad thing is totally moot. There are more than one group of bad guys doing that already. Now it is only a question of who's group of armed men prevail!

Vision's comments on the feeling good about safe zones reminds me of the proverbial frog in the pot full of water....and he's thinking...ahhh that's nicer, it is now warm...

Will Robinson wrote:[nless those cartels parachuted the gangs in over the weekend someone dropped the ball. The reaction to the threat is all wrong and has been going on like that for decades as the problem has grown.

once the Mexican drug money came into the equation.it was a tough to stop as was organized crime during Prohibition and beyond. Easy for you, in South Carolina to say, 'someone dropped the ball'. You are talking poor people, huge money and a violent overseeing operation. Easy ball to drop.

I don't know the law regarding state of emergency and Marshal Law etc. but if I was the governor I'd be planning to hire a lot of veterans from the Iraq war and take my streets back. The notion that a bunch of armed men patrolling the streets is a bad thing is totally moot. There are more than one group of bad guys doing that already. Now it is only a question of who's group of armed men prevail!

I'll tell you who my money would be on, and it isn't the veterans, with all due respect. They would be outgunned, outspent and they'd be on foreign turf(save for a handful who lived in West, South Chicago for any time prior), Further, they would be fecking with the daily, core livelihood of a horde of well-armed locals. No contest, I'd guess, and that would be before any bribery of the governors administration took place(look up the history of Illinois state governors....the last 3 or 4 have ALL done prison time).

Vision's comments on the feeling good about safe zones reminds me of the proverbial frog in the pot full of water....and he's thinking...ahhh that's nicer, it is now warm...

well, your plan above was about as naive and stupid as they come, so I can't see where criticizing Vision serves you well, at all.

callmeslick wrote:...
well, your plan above was about as naive and stupid as they come, so I can't see where criticizing Vision serves you well, at all.

My 'plan', as you defined it and presented it as complete...is not 'my plan'...it is your straw man.

I wondered aloud, so to speak, about Marshal Law and the Governors ability to put boots on the street...and if I was in his place what would I be thinking about. Give me enough credit please to understand I'd put a lot of boots on the street in addition to other measures.
Iraq vets have lots of experience policing locals in a war zone so don't count them out just because Chicago governors and thugs are tough ...
You might have inferred that from my comments about the numbers of armed men already destroying the everyday lives of people. If I presented a plan of simple might vs. might (which I didn't), but if I did try to do it one dimensionally like that you can bet the governors troops would outnumber the locals every where they went and when they moved from one area to another they would be taking full body bags and prisoners with them leaving the enemy staggering and depleted.

As for Vision. I don't criticize him, I feel bad for him.

Will Robinson wrote:...but if I did try to do it one dimensionally like that you can bet the governors troops would outnumber the locals every where they went and when they moved from one area to another they would be taking full body bags and prisoners with them leaving the enemy staggering and depleted.

Holy Jesus I can't believe I just read that. Let me get this straight, you wouldn't have a problem with the government declaring war against American citizens, using troops to kill "the enemy"? Maybe throw in a few drone strikes for good measure? Unbelievable. I understand you don't think that is the best option, but it bothers me you think it is an option at all.

This isn't a battle of ideologies. There is no "enemy." Drugs are only part of the picture. And violence is not the answer. In Iraq there was a surge of troops that secured Baghdad neighborhood by neighborhood. It was bloody and nothing has changed. People are dying in suicide attacks there at the same rate as during the occupation. In Chicago we need a surge of kindness going from neighborhood to neighborhood. We need to increase the well-being of people one city block at a time. It will take years, but when the surge is finished the violence will be a fraction of what it is today. Now if only we could get some of that military funding for such a surge...

It's easy to read reports from far away cities and play armchair mayor. You'll just have to trust that everyone is doing their best against an extremely complex and dangerous problem. You'll have to take my word for it -- because I AM CHICAGO.

Here is a video you won't watch. It doesn't provide any answers. It doesn't even talk about the problem. It does, however, remind you that these are real people who are just trying to get by.

Vision, I was simply illustrating to slick that although I didn't propose simply sending in troops...if I had I would at least have sent in enough to win the engagement even though thugs and Chicago governors are really really tough guys as he claims.

It was a hypothetical and completely hyperbolic comment addressed only toward slicks outrageous straw man representation that I would send in Iraqi war vets and they would all die at the hands of Chicago's superior numbers. His claim that I was all wrong, even allowing for his ridiculous fabrication of what he called my "plan", was weak because in a worse case scenario the streets could be controlled long enough to break up gangs.

Unlike Iraq, the people there are in favor of American justice and would cooperate at a much higher level. You could, if you wanted to temporarily cause some friendly casualties, break the backs of the thug groups and then maintain an ability to move quickly to gather them up as they tried to work the streets again. A favorite location for drug buyers can quickly become a horrible place for them and they will shop elsewhere...

However... That was just to address slicks straw man.

If you knew anything about my position on drugs you would guess that, in my view, the first ball that was 'dropped' was the maintaining a war on drugs which makes cartels possible in the first place. I would have decriminalized drugs 25 years ago if it was up to me.
The second was the demonization of anyone in authority who promoted the importance of the family unit.
And third, the constant excuse making by opportunistic politicians for the culture that has become known as the thug culture which is a cancer that growing throughout the country now!

However, in spite of your optimism about the safe zones, I find us reaching the point where we concede the violence and beg exemption to be untenable. It is the indication of having gone over the edge.
It legitimizes the thugs violence as an accepted condition and it didn't sneak up on anyone it has taken decades to evolve. And it isn't just a result of cartel business.

To paraphrase one of your community's rockstar leaders, Liberalisms chickens have come home to roost!

Vision wrote:but when the imaginary surge is finished the violence will be a fraction of what it is today in reality.

I think that maybe Will is speaking of worst-case scenario thugs, not just kids raised in a thug culture. The truth is people need help, but they are not without fault. Responsibility is what your perspective lacks, Vision. To the degree that thugs are a threat to the rest of society, society should declare war on them instead of lying down. It would be refreshing for the problem to be dealt with at a stroke instead of being allowed to fester and grow until your unfounded fantasies become reality. My only reservation is I don't see many people capable of heading such a campaign and keeping it on the straight-and-narrow. You've mis-characterized it on purpose I think, in order to put Will in the position of a hypocrite. Will's not talking about the government VS American citizens, he's talking about law VS the violently lawless.

I'll add that there is Biblical precedent for taking steps to drive a problem to the surface and then dispatching it with extreme prejudice. I'm talking about a local government putting pressure on the lawless element, and then killing or jailing everyone who is willing to take it to the next level. There is a time for mercy and understanding, and there is a time for judgement. That's the problem with people who are of a liberal lean--they don't believe in a time for judgement.

maybe, Thorne, many of those of a 'liberal' bent don't feel that Biblical solutions are best to address an underlying economic problem.

Yea, I guess it was a immoral act against our own citizenry when the FBI cracked down against mob activities back in the day.

Legalizing drugs is the only place to start in my opinion, then you decide how to proceed from there.

futile, more than immoral, Spidey(seeing as how it led to the formation of an organization that had 80 years of staying power). You, and others are correct, saying that complete legalization and regulated availability of drugs would be the only way to cut the legs out of economic incentives behind street violence and cartel infiltration. Still, that leaves a lot of work to be done to support the 30% unemployment rate in the communities that feed soldiers to the gang wars. This whole issue, in Chicago and many, many other places in the US, is VERY complex. We didn't get to this quickly, nor will we get out of it quickly.

callmeslick wrote:maybe, Thorne, many of those of a 'liberal' bent don't feel that Biblical solutions are best to address an underlying economic problem.

I said there was Biblical precedent, I didn't say it was a Biblical solution. The difference is that one shows the way things work in reality, and one conveys the desires or will of the author. If there is an "underlying economic problem" then that makes two problems, and you and the "liberal" pretend there is only one. You cannot solve a problem of personal responsibility with economics, you can only alleviate one of the more obvious symptoms. Sooner or later people need to choose what's right in order for things to be good. You know Hitler wouldn't have been a war criminal if only he had been given everything he wanted, but since the situation didn't allow for that those people who were willing to deal with the situation had to directly confront a threat and put it down.

This "liberal" needs to be a lot more concerned with economics when there's a place for that, and a lot less willing to use the economic aspects to avoid dealing with an existing problem.

I don't think you have something as simplistic as a lack of 'personal responsibility'. People in desperate economic straits do desperate things. I don't think it is at all a lack of personal responsibility, for example, for a 16 year old boy, the only male breadwinner for his family, supporting maybe 4 siblings along with parents who may or may not be employed and contributing(most times not) to look favorably upon a $500/week job as a lookout, and aspiring to maybe twice that as a street dealer. If it gets food to his family, or pays an overdue rent bill, it is VERY responsible, when looked at in a personal manner.

callmeslick wrote:I don't think you have something as simplistic as a lack of 'personal responsibility'. People in desperate economic straits do desperate things. I don't think it is at all a lack of personal responsibility, for example, for a 16 year old boy, the only male breadwinner for his family, supporting maybe 4 siblings along with parents who may or may not be employed and contributing(most times not) to look favorably upon a $500/week job as a lookout, and aspiring to maybe twice that as a street dealer. If it gets food to his family, or pays an overdue rent bill, it is VERY responsible, when looked at in a personal manner.

How about the irresponsible parents that put him into that situation?

I know one thing is true: If every single person in this country was deeply, personally responsible about taking care of their commitments via the legal route, we wouldn't have 90% of these problems. People would still be poor and hungry, but they wouldn't be getting shot.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I don't think you have something as simplistic as a lack of 'personal responsibility'. People in desperate economic straits do desperate things. I don't think it is at all a lack of personal responsibility, for example, for a 16 year old boy, the only male breadwinner for his family, supporting maybe 4 siblings along with parents who may or may not be employed and contributing(most times not) to look favorably upon a $500/week job as a lookout, and aspiring to maybe twice that as a street dealer. If it gets food to his family, or pays an overdue rent bill, it is VERY responsible, when looked at in a personal manner.

How about the irresponsible parents that put him into that situation?

certainly, a factor, and a fact. That's where this whole equation gets complex. Heck, you can argue that we dealt with that reality more humanely back when orphanages and adoption of out-of-wedlock children was the norm. But, times change, for an assortment of reasons, and you have to deal with the reality now.

I know one thing is true: If every single person in this country was deeply, personally responsible about taking care of their commitments via the legal route, we wouldn't have 90% of these problems. People would still be poor and hungry, but they wouldn't be getting shot.

I'll go one better and say that if everyone were completely responsible to both their family and their society, we wouldn't have many poor or hungry people at all......but, that isn't happening anytime soon, I reckon.

callmeslick wrote:... But, times change, for an assortment of reasons, and you have to deal with the reality now. ....

Yes and a lot of those 'changes' are the results of bad choices, politically expedient excuses for criminal behavior and a complete 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' when it came to reacting to anyone advancing morality based peer pressure.
Dan Quayle spells potato kind of funny but as it turns out he was correct in pointing to the need of a mother AND father to raise safer, smarter children into decent and more prosperous adults.
But alas, it became cool to shout down any attempts to preserve morality in the mainstream. Now those chickens that came home to roost are crapping all over the place.

I can't believe this topic was Godwin'd already...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To the degree that thugs are a threat to the rest of society, society should declare war on them instead of lying down.

First, no one should declare war on anyone else. "Declaring war" sets a combative mentality (those wars on drugs and terrorism are going great right? just like the wars in Iraq, etc...?). Also, there is no enemy here to declare war against. These are real people suffering great economic hardship, literally trying to maintain the basics of food and shelter. The "thugs" are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and children of everyone else. It's not organized crime like the mafia, it's literally people desperately trying to survive with little or no resources. Focusing on gangs is an over-simplification and doesn't address the root of the problem. You are just cutting off the head of the Hydra.

It's easy for people on the outside to talk about personal responsibility BS. Like slick said, your first responsibility is to survive and protect your family. I know all you pro-gun people would behave just like the citizens of Chicago if violence came to your neighborhood. You wouldn't think twice about shooting someone who was a threat to your property or family. I've read it all here, so get off your high-horses. In fact, I'm the only one here who wouldn't kill to protect my family because I hold the principal of non-violence above all. Yeah, I'm a scumbag, right?

Blame it on family values? What good is a mother and a father if neither can find work and are hopelessly dependent on welfare because there are no opportunities? How long before that hopelessness overtakes the whole family and desperation for a new life sets in? It's like Detroit. These people live in places deserted by industry and have have no economic mobility. The ones who can move go to the suburbs to find work. The ones who can't fight for scraps. Jesus, they just closed 50 more Chicago schools this year -- but let's trim more of the government, right?

Safe passage is not laying down. Safe passage is admitting reality and coming together as a community to protect children, to get them an education and an opportunity to live a better life. It's taking "personal responsibility" and not relying on the government to create safe passage for your children. It's making a sacrifice because you know what is right.

I will not apologize for optimism. What kind of role model would I be if I spouted negativity like you guys?

vision wrote:I can't believe this topic was Godwin'd already...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To the degree that thugs are a threat to the rest of society, society should declare war on them instead of lying down.

First, no one should declare war on anyone else. "Declaring war" sets a combative mentality (those wars on drugs and terrorism are going great right? just like the wars in Iraq, etc...?). Also, there is no enemy here to declare war against. These are real people suffering great economic hardship, literally trying to maintain the basics of food and shelter. The "thugs" are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and children of everyone else. It's not organized crime like the mafia, it's literally people desperately trying to survive with little or no resources. Focusing on gangs is an over-simplification and doesn't address the root of the problem. You are just cutting off the head of the Hydra.

It's easy for people on the outside to talk about personal responsibility BS. Like slick said, your first responsibility is to survive and protect your family. I know all you pro-gun people would behave just like the citizens of Chicago if violence came to your neighborhood. You wouldn't think twice about shooting someone who was a threat to your property or family. I've read it all here, so get off your high-horses. In fact, I'm the only one here who wouldn't kill to protect my family because I hold the principal of non-violence above all. Yeah, I'm a scumbag, right?

Blame it on family values? What good is a mother and a father if neither can find work and are hopelessly dependent on welfare because there are no opportunities? How long before that hopelessness overtakes the whole family and desperation for a new life sets in? It's like Detroit. These people live in places deserted by industry and have have no economic mobility. The ones who can move go to the suburbs to find work. The ones who can't fight for scraps. Jesus, they just closed 50 more Chicago schools this year -- but let's trim more of the government, right?

Safe passage is not laying down. Safe passage is admitting reality and coming together as a community to protect children, to get them an education and an opportunity to live a better life. It's taking "personal responsibility" and not relying on the government to create safe passage for your children. It's making a sacrifice because you know what is right.

I will not apologize for optimism. What kind of role model would I be if I spouted negativity like you guys?

Vision I'm not faulting the citizens who would put on the orange vest and go create a hopeful corridor out of necessity.
I'm faulting the mayor and the governor for not realizing this is a tipping point and calling for an emergency level reaction to the threat level. And I blame those who created this mess who are still in power and demagogue the very disaster they helped create to further their political party and personal fortunes.

You need emergency measures that will remove members of the gangs. I'm sorry, I don't care if they had to choose between shooting their competition on the sales corner or unemployment. There are alternatives to shooting children who get in the way of your job! You yourself would choose to take a bullet before taking a life....well I won't go that far but I'm certainly willing to say the thugs should take welfare before taking a life...

The victimhood that is at the root of so much of the hype around their plight is BS. We have lots of people here who relocated to escape that jungle. They are doing fine. You have generations of people who choose to stay there, in those conditions, precisely because they get what they want out of it. They raise their babies to take their place. I have no sympathy for a guy who wont give up his crack peddlers assistant job and take a cut in pay to go west or south and get a real job that doesn't require shooting children for standing on the wrong side of the street! Victim my ass!

Will Robinson wrote:Vision I'm not faulting the citizens who would put on the orange vest and go create a hopeful corridor out of necessity.
I'm faulting the mayor and the governor for not realizing this is a tipping point and calling for an emergency level reaction to the threat level. And I blame those who created this mess who are still in power and demagogue the very disaster they helped create to further their political party and personal fortunes.

except that, as I pointed out, this is a complex situation that has been developing over decades. Plus, at the state level, the two Dem and two GOP governors were busy breaking Federal law while in office.

You need emergency measures that will remove members of the gangs. I'm sorry, I don't care if they had to choose between shooting their competition on the sales corner or unemployment. There are alternatives to shooting children who get in the way of your job! You yourself would choose to take a bullet before taking a life....well I won't go that far but I'm certainly willing to say the thugs should take welfare before taking a life...

once again, you seem to think you can take to the streets with some sort of force and root these people out. You are either unaware of the scope and nature of the 'enemy' or willing to lay waste to entire neighborhoods(which, by the way, would push the problem into new neighborhoods)

The victimhood that is at the root of so much of the hype around their plight is BS. We have lots of people here who relocated to escape that jungle. They are doing fine. You have generations of people who choose to stay there, in those conditions, precisely because they get what they want out of it. They raise their babies to take their place. I have no sympathy for a guy who wont give up his crack peddlers assistant job and take a cut in pay to go west or south and get a real job that doesn't require shooting children for standing on the wrong side of the street! Victim my ass!

put yourself in his shoes and try. You are talking out your ass here, and it shows. There are not 'lots' of people who have relocated, and how many 13 year olds are going to get on a train/bus/whatever and relocate. To where? For what prospect? Mr. Sympathy strikes again!

callmeslick wrote:certainly, a factor, and a fact. That's where this whole equation gets complex. Heck, you can argue that we dealt with that reality more humanely back when orphanages and adoption of out-of-wedlock children was the norm. But, times change, for an assortment of reasons, and you have to deal with the reality now.

I'll go one better and say that if everyone were completely responsible to both their family and their society, we wouldn't have many poor or hungry people at all......but, that isn't happening anytime soon, I reckon.

Yes, I suppose the out of wedlock stigma served a purpose... maybe. In some cases things are worse, in other things are better.

I guess my point is that we should try to reach for the ideal and teach responsibility. I'm bothered by the level of acceptance that I perceive for crime in these neighborhoods. I understand that it's one of those "what do you want" things when it comes to individuals, but I think it starts with education, law enforcement, and the core family unit.

From there I think it extends to community activism and people's refusal to turn a blind eye to crime in their neighborhoods. If a neighborhood is too deeply in control of the criminals, I think people should be willing and be helped to leave. The hard part is separating the wheat from the chaff, and a "don't snitch" culture doesn't help - but i think people should individually prioritize separating themselves from and ousting crime and criminals.

vision wrote:I can't believe this topic was Godwin'd already...

I can't believe you're trying to "Godwin!" your way out of a perfectly good argument.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To the degree that thugs are a threat to the rest of society, society should declare war on them instead of lying down.

First, no one should declare war on anyone else. "Declaring war" sets a combative mentality (those wars on drugs and terrorism are going great right? just like the wars in Iraq, etc...?). Also, there is no enemy here to declare war against. These are real people suffering great economic hardship, literally trying to maintain the basics of food and shelter. The "thugs" are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and children of everyone else. It's not organized crime like the mafia, it's literally people desperately trying to survive with little or no resources. Focusing on gangs is an over-simplification and doesn't address the root of the problem. You are just cutting off the head of the Hydra.

A straw-man argument. No-one's talking about non-combatants here. Everyone who has ever committed murder, rape, aggravated assault, etc, was somebody's brother, sister, mother or father. I am specifically talking about anyone who makes a living perpetrating violence against their neighbor, or anyone who is willing to cross that line.

vision wrote:It's easy for people on the outside to talk about personal responsibility BS. Like slick said, your first responsibility is to survive and protect your family. I know all you pro-gun people would behave just like the citizens of Chicago if violence came to your neighborhood. You wouldn't think twice about shooting someone who was a threat to your property or family.

You and slick are both twisting this. You can't equate being willing to hurt others who have done nothing to you in order to provide for your family with acting in defense of your family. Contrary to your opinions, we are not, all of us here, animals. Hurting or stealing from another person is wrong, and doing it "for your family" does not make it right. It's irresponsible to wrong another in order to do right by your own.

vision wrote:I've read it all here, so get off your high-horses. In fact, I'm the only one here who wouldn't kill to protect my family because I hold the principal of non-violence above all. Yeah, I'm a scumbag, right?

If there really were a "principle" behind your non-violence, I would think better of it. I would never call you a scumbag, but I would say you have a pretty big kink in your ideological rope, and it is very foolish to hold a "principle" that is not a principle above the lives of your family.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vision I'm not faulting the citizens who would put on the orange vest and go create a hopeful corridor out of necessity.
I'm faulting the mayor and the governor for not realizing this is a tipping point and calling for an emergency level reaction to the threat level. And I blame those who created this mess who are still in power and demagogue the very disaster they helped create to further their political party and personal fortunes.

except that, as I pointed out, this is a complex situation that has been developing over decades. Plus, at the state level, the two Dem and two GOP governors were busy breaking Federal law while in office.

Is that somehow an excuse for something?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You need emergency measures that will remove members of the gangs. I'm sorry, I don't care if they had to choose between shooting their competition on the sales corner or unemployment. There are alternatives to shooting children who get in the way of your job! You yourself would choose to take a bullet before taking a life....well I won't go that far but I'm certainly willing to say the thugs should take welfare before taking a life...

once again, you seem to think you can take to the streets with some sort of force and root these people out. You are either unaware of the scope and nature of the 'enemy' or willing to lay waste to entire neighborhoods(which, by the way, would push the problem into new neighborhoods)

They had no problem creating martial law conditions for the NATO Summit in case the occupy something group decided to cause a disruption. I think having school children murdered on a regular basis is a little more than a disruption!
If the governor wanted to he could sweep the streets, use facial recognition and remote camera operators to catalog and identify thugs in real time and the boots on the ground could disrupt the street sales, arrest thugs on sight after establishing their likely suspects and unlike Iraqi or Afghanistani locals the Americans who are beset with these thugs would contribute willingly to the identification of the gang members. You could severely disrupt their activity if you suspend some freedoms. Stop and Frisk State of Emergency style. Which is more harmfully to the welfare of the community, 20 new dead every month or ruffled feathers of a few non gang members who get hauled off for questioning?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The victimhood that is at the root of so much of the hype around their plight is BS. We have lots of people here who relocated to escape that jungle. They are doing fine. You have generations of people who choose to stay there, in those conditions, precisely because they get what they want out of it. They raise their babies to take their place. I have no sympathy for a guy who wont give up his crack peddlers assistant job and take a cut in pay to go west or south and get a real job that doesn't require shooting children for standing on the wrong side of the street! Victim my ass!

put yourself in his shoes and try. You are talking out your ass here, and it shows. There are not 'lots' of people who have relocated, and how many 13 year olds are going to get on a train/bus/whatever and relocate. To where? For what prospect? Mr. Sympathy strikes again!

That thirteen year old is abandoned? Call social services....otherwise I look to the responsible adult that should be looking out for his welfare.
And with regard to 'talking out of ones ass' you might want to rethink that one because in spite of you making another one of your declarations to the contrary the people living in those conditions ARE RELOCATING.

Will Robinson wrote:I wondered aloud, so to speak, about Marshal Law and the Governors ability to put boots on the street...and if I was in his place what would I be thinking about..

So, do they have the money for that? And if they can put boots on the ground, for how long? In perpetuity? Because there will be no end to the strife and poverty that causes gangs to form in the first place. Boots on the ground would be a temporary solution at best, not a long term fix. Take those boots on the ground away, the gangs will return to fill the vacuum all over again.

Detroit News wrote:The survey suggests that many residents who remain would like to leave but are stuck: More than half, 50.9 percent, say they would live in another city if they could, while 39.9 percent plan to move in the next five years.

Planning to move is not the same as moving. If everyone in danger moved out of Chicago we would have the equivalent of a refugee crisis. Where would tens of thousands of people go to live and work in these economic times? I do agree with Will, there is a crisis. Are funds available to move in massive law enforcement and retake Chicago? Do a little regime change and nation building in our own backyard? I think it's worth the cost, but plenty of others don't.

Just remember, these "thugs" from Chicago are just people who have been pushed to the brink. There is a thin line between people who resort to violent crime because they want to and people who do it because they are out of options (unless watching your kids starve to death is an option). Sometimes it's 13 year old kids with guns. Is this the enemy we want to remove in a body bag?

Will Robinson wrote:If the governor wanted to he could sweep the streets, use facial recognition and remote camera operators to catalog and identify thugs in real time and the boots on the ground could disrupt the street sales, arrest thugs on sight after establishing their likely suspects and unlike Iraqi or Afghanistani locals the Americans who are beset with these thugs would contribute willingly to the identification of the gang members. You could severely disrupt their activity if you suspend some freedoms. Stop and Frisk State of Emergency style.

I'd be more afraid of this being successful, so successful that it must be continued indefinitely and extended to other cities.

I still say you all are delusional if you even think a military--type street sweep cleans the streets in Chicago. Some of you just can't seem to grasp, THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WOULD BE fighting for their very existence, their food, their shelter, their only source of viable income. They will fight for drug turf to the death, with little regard for collateral damage. It's their home turf. You think you're going to send, who exactly, in there and win a shooting battle on Chicago's West side, or South End? If so, I'm here to tell you that you are insane. It would be a bloodbath, likely worse than any ground battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh, you say, we have the capability to escalate it. Now, as Vision notes, you would be declaring war on your own citizenry, which the Posse Comitus(?sp) laws prohibit, and common sense would revolt against. And, as Jeff notes, you would be creating precedent, to boot. Odd to hear some of you, who on a regular basis, decry big government and wasteful spending. How much more invasive do you want your government to be than military occupation of major cities? How much money would you think this little adventure is going to cost? I'm stunned at the complete disregard some of you are showing for your normal philosophies of government.

One side offers solutions that might not work, the other side offers excuses…

Are we there yet?

no excuses here, Spidey, I (and Vision if I read correctly) are aware that this mess was a long time being made, will take a long time to go away, if it EVER does, and in the meantime, Vision is correct in the approach of positivity and encouragement of neighborhood efforts as were desribed in the outset of the thread.

Hey, I let my house rot for fifty years, now it’s going to take a long time to fix…

NO ★■◆●!

Spidey wrote:Hey, I let my house rot for fifty years, now it’s going to take a long time to fix…

NO ****!

would that it were that simple. But, then again, that is the problem with a lot of Americans. They want easy answers, quick solutions. This is the byproduct of all those economic trends I post about in here. It's yet another of those signposts to oblivion when you stop rewarding labor income and focus an entire national economy on investment income. These folks in Chicago and Detroit are simply canaries in a big coal mine.

callmeslick wrote:And, as Jeff notes, you would be creating precedent, to boot. Odd to hear some of you, who on a regular basis, decry big government and wasteful spending. How much more invasive do you want your government to be than military occupation of major cities? How much money would you think this little adventure is going to cost? I'm stunned at the complete disregard some of you are showing for your normal philosophies of government.

Remember, it's only ebil big gub'mint until someone's being shot at. Then it's A-OK!

No chance that you guys are mis-characterizing or misunderstanding. Will has certainly done a complete 180, and lost his mind. There is nothing left but to shout insults and throw vegetables.

Spidey wrote:One side offers solutions that might not work, the other side offers excuses…

Are we there yet?

No. Because no solution is viable to everyone. They all have major downsides. We can't be lefty softy feely. That hasn't worked, only perpetuated the problem. We can't become police state. That's not tolerable either, because when power is concentrated in that hands of the authorities, it is always abused and turned against all citizens. Just look at what the state of national security has become under the purview of our President.

We could always just kill off all the miscreants and gangsters and clean out society once and for all, like killing off the rats. Oh wait. More will be born to replace them, to live in the same conditions that will nurture them and make new ones. We keep on breeding like rats and pushing the overload into bad, undesirable city areas to be forgotten and then we wonder what to do about the stink that arises around us.

Well, we could always declare Chicago unfit for human habitation and tear the entire thing down.

Quick question before I start back-tracking and pulling apart what you folks have done to Will's idea: Slick... what makes you so absolutely set on blaming economics for what is unavoidably a complex issue involving morality and law? I notice that's all I see from you. Makes me think of the saying, "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I don't believe it could be said that there is no economic aspect to the issue, but of the issues responsible for the thug culture that Will is calling out, is economics really such a big part that it merits the spotlight? Have you considered that it may only be a fraction of the problem? Could it be non-essential to the problem? Have you asked yourself the question: even if economic despair is the cause of the problem, is it actually the beginning of the chain? Couldn't economic despair itself have been an effect of a deeper problem? Most people, when they lack opportunity, go and search it out, why do the people we're talking about dig in and survive off of illegal activities instead of dispersing in the absence of legal opportunity?

I also just want to say, in response to some of the bastardizations/misunderstandings of what Will is saying: you do not kill people for being criminals, or for being less than upstanding members of society, even if some sick son of a ★■◆● could make a convincing argument that it would result in a utopia. We are not playing thought exercises at being some kind of petty God here. What I was talking about, and I believe what will is talking about, is forcing the hand of and targeting those who are willing to harm or kill innocents to get what they want, and either throwing them in jail or killing them in a stand-off. Not outside the law. The end-result being a community with less predators and less threats to innocent, law-abiding civilians where people don't have to look over their shoulder as much.

Slick you are way over the top with your projections.
Most of the people in those areas are not part of the problem and would love to see the thugs go away.
Many of the thugs who are not hard core would drop out of sight before they were carted off. These are not zealots with no connection to the forces that would be making the sweeps. It wouldn't be infidels from another land occupying their homeland it would be the police pushing back.

And it wouldn't be a house to house all encompassing search of every house on a block.
The goal is to round up previously identified criminal and gang types.
It would be a series of overwhelming raids on known groups and locations. And patrols of squads keeping them off the streets, keeping the buyers out and arresting criminals, stop and search, etc.

This would be like a series of police raids popping up and continuing to pop up for days. You don't see thugs run toward swat teams that are raiding the corner crack dealers house....they run away...so why would they suddenly find the courage to go against a much more overwhelming force?!? They wouldn't.
Thugs are NOT courageous they are bully's and opportunistic and self centered.

This is kind of silly though because without an end game plan there is no point to sweep the streets. And the end game requires a national reform of drug laws as well as a powerful effort to deliver a positive alternative to those who's drug/gang existence is going to be all but destroyed.

The police raids are a given though, it can absolutely be done in spite of your suggested apocalyptical hollywood style outcome. It isnt anything new, the tactics are proven and manpower would have the thugs broken and scrambling for a safe harbor and the neighbors would jump on he bandwagon slipping the names of the hard core types that linger around.
In Afghanistan and Iraq the common thread for any success they had was due to the citizens stepping up when it looked like the Taliban or imported 'insurgents' were losing. American family's in the city will be just as motivated to have security and unlike the Afghans or Iraqi's they won't have any uncertainty about what these 'police' are really there for.

It is more likely they will be throwing a big bar b que at the end of the month inviting the troops to join them than joining in any kind of massacre!

But, again, the end game must be planned and held out there publicly and followed through or it will be nothing but a big raid that ends and the roaches come back out at sundown.

And for those that worry about a precedent and having it happen elsewhere....if your city is over run like Chicago you should be hoping for it to happen. And if it isn't there would be no reason to expect anyone would suspend normalcy and put their neck on the chopping block for calling in the troops like this. Governors have always had the ability to declare Martial Law but they haven't always had the level of carnage a few locations do to justify it until now.

It makes me sad the more I think of this. Obama's the perfect person/President to make this work. He could create the very thing he talks about...a new 'peace corps' ...turn gangbangers into local heros etc but all that campaign talk was just that, talk.

He could rally the country in a unified way that would really make it happen instead he wants to rally the left for a mid term election so he can get a rubber stamp congress....and all for what? To get a little revenge?!? To lay out two years of policy that will just be turned inside out as soon as the next President is sworn in! The man has no vision!

He could really be great right now...first black pres....from Chicago...huge impact on inner city culture...drug law reforms...cut violence...build real hope and change...etc
All using a real issue that transcends partisanship and is coming to a tipping point like the perfect storm custom designed just for him!

But no, he will screw the pooch and go out like all the others.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Most people, when they lack opportunity, go and search it out, why do the people we're talking about dig in and survive off of illegal activities instead of dispersing in the absence of legal opportunity?

And how exactly do you propose they do that? If you have no/a low-paying job, and you live in a shithole of a neighborhood where no one in their right mind would buy or rent, how exactly are you going to be able to pick up and move somewhere else?