Where does the real fault lie?

[spud_meister]

To Spud -- if you had little children and somebody shot your daughter and you KNEW that your neighbors knew who did it, wouldn't you blame them, too?

i would probably beat them until they told me who did it, but i wouldn't blame them for the actual attack.

 

[Hoplite]

You'd be surprised how much that has to do with a lot of things.

The social welfare system has influenced the single parent family more than anything else.

With that comes the disconnect of the traditional family structure, which creates an interdependence among all the members.
Essentially, marriage tends to settle people down, to insure the well being of the family structure.

When that erodes you have a class of transient, anti social men running around breeding more transient, anti social men.

I find this a rather skewed concept.

I'd like to see it demonstrated that having a system of welfare support has influenced single parent families beyond making it a more viable option. Because there is public assistance, women or men dont feel they have to stay in an unhappy marriage or marry someone they dont want to marry simply for financial reasons. Public assistance gives people more flexibility because they know they can try to make it on their own and have less of a chance of ending up on the street if they dont quite make it.

 

[StandUpChuck]

I find this a rather skewed concept.

I'd like to see it demonstrated that having a system of welfare support has influenced single parent families beyond making it a more viable option. Because there is public assistance, women or men dont feel they have to stay in an unhappy marriage or marry someone they dont want to marry simply for financial reasons. Public assistance gives people more flexibility because they know they can try to make it on their own and have less of a chance of ending up on the street if they dont quite make it.

Public assistance is great when someone needs a hand. But it's not suppose to be a lifestyle. I realize this is simplistic, but what the heck, it worked for me. Back when I was single and sexually active, I took precautions to make sure I didn't get knocked up by some Joe I didn't want to marry. I suppose there might have been a chance of BC failure, but I figure after a short while on the gov't's dime, I'd find a way to support myself in an area in which kids weren't being shot while innocently jumping rope. See, parents need to take care of their kids. When my boy is swimming in the ocean, and the waves are strong, I don't take my eyes off of him. Nor is he far from me. If we lived in an area where drive bys happened, I'd be carving out at least an hour a day to take him to a safer outdoor area in which to play. It would be my responsibility to ensure he got his outdoor time in a place where bullets aren't raining. In my first example, the ocean is to blame for the danger, but it's my responsibility to teach my child how to understand that danger.

 

[MaggieD]

I find this a rather skewed concept.

I'd like to see it demonstrated that having a system of welfare support has influenced single parent families beyond making it a more viable option. Because there is public assistance, women or men dont feel they have to stay in an unhappy marriage or marry someone they dont want to marry simply for financial reasons. Public assistance gives people more flexibility because they know they can try to make it on their own and have less of a chance of ending up on the street if they dont quite make it.

Public assistance is a lifestyle choice for inner-city Chicago girls. For far too many of them, it's their job objective in high school. I have two young friends who teach in Chicago Pubic Schools, and that's their take on it. I believe them. They're waiting 'til they're 17 or so, getting pregnant with their first, and starting their "paycheck." They don't want the father in the picture -- or want him for little more than booty calls -- because if he's living with them, they get less assistance. Public assistance has destroyed poor black families more thoroughly than slavery ever did.

 

[MaggieD]

Public assistance is great when someone needs a hand. But it's not suppose to be a lifestyle. I realize this is simplistic, but what the heck, it worked for me. Back when I was single and sexually active, I took precautions to make sure I didn't get knocked up by some Joe I didn't want to marry. I suppose there might have been a chance of BC failure, but I figure after a short while on the gov't's dime, I'd find a way to support myself in an area in which kids weren't being shot while innocently jumping rope. See, parents need to take care of their kids. When my boy is swimming in the ocean, and the waves are strong, I don't take my eyes off of him. Nor is he far from me. If we lived in an area where drive bys happened, I'd be carving out at least an hour a day to take him to a safer outdoor area in which to play. It would be my responsibility to ensure he got his outdoor time in a place where bullets aren't raining. In my first example, the ocean is to blame for the danger, but it's my responsibility to teach my child how to understand that danger.

That is EGZAKTLY my point, StandUp. Bulls Eye! Thank you for expressing it better than I was able to.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I find this a rather skewed concept.

I'd like to see it demonstrated that having a system of welfare support has influenced single parent families beyond making it a more viable option. Because there is public assistance, women or men dont feel they have to stay in an unhappy marriage or marry someone they dont want to marry simply for financial reasons. Public assistance gives people more flexibility because they know they can try to make it on their own and have less of a chance of ending up on the street if they dont quite make it.

Making it viable is not a good thing for low income people.

Before social welfare and contrary to many popularly believed myths, society still had out of wedlock births and pregnancies.
Then there was only one choice available to ensure that your child would be stable and that was marrying your spouse, while retaining some sort of employment.

Now, to qualify for many social services you have to meet a threshold of, not to much income to qualify.
They do take into account your spouse's income, if you have one.
It encourages out of wedlock births, you can argue that it may be better for individual liberation but I'd argue the opposite.

A two parent household (gay or straight, I don't care) offers the best potential life for a child.

 

[Johnny]

You can beat the dead horse of should'ves all day. But when the thread is titled 'Where does the real fault lie" then that is 100% the fault of the shooter/s.

There can be some responsibility others could've took but they share no blame. It's not their fault.

 

[MaggieD]

What 'they' you talking about? The kids are doing normal stuff like skipping rope, riding bikes, etc. Are you suggesting that kids should never leave the house? If I had kids and knew my neighbors knew who did it? They would either tell me who did out right or I would damn sure do some stuff to make em talk. Then once I found out who killed my kids? They would die.

Yes, they are doing normal things like that....skipping rope, riding bikes. I'm suggesting three things: that these parents don't allow their kids to play outside in war zones (take 'em somewhere else to play); that they find a way, any way, to (gasp!) move; that they actually take ownership of their neighborhoods so that you wouldn't have to "do some stuff to make 'em talk."

 

[MaggieD]

You can beat the dead horse of should'ves all day. But when the thread is titled 'Where does the real fault lie" then that is 100% the fault of the shooter/s.

There can be some responsibility others could've took but they share no blame. It's not their fault.

Yes, it's the shooter. But as for the reasons this is happening? 100% the fault of the neighborhood and the people in it. So kill me 'cause I didn't title it "Do neighborhoods share the blame?" ;-)

 

[Johnny]

Crime is inevible when there's a high level of poverty concentrated in an area. Violence, gangs and the like have been part of the American landscape since the 1700's.

I agree with all of your points.

I just don't like to use the word blame to a victim or bystanders. They didn't do anything wrong.

I do see where you're coming from though.

 

[MaggieD]

Crime is inevible when there's a high level of poverty concentrated in an area. Violence, gangs and the like have been part of the American landscape since the 1700's. I agree with all of your points. I just don't like to use the word blame to a victim or bystanders. They didn't do anything wrong. I do see where you're coming from though.

In what appears to be a case of mistaken identity, on Wednesday night, a 13-year-old boy was shot at least 22 times by a masked gunman. The killer emerged from a darkened, overgrown vacant lot and pumped round after round into rising eighth-grader Robert Freeman Jr. while he was riding his bike. The boy's father, Robert Freeman Sr., told the Chicago Sun-Times: "My son was the only one got hit. I don't understand how no one seen anything." As usual, witnesses are not cooperating, and this murder is likely to go unsolved. Chicago is suffering a wave of gang violence which was responsible for nearly all of the city’s 458 murders last year.

Number of murdered chidlren corresponding to the school year:
2006-2007…31
2007-2008…27
2008-2009…36

One of the most disturbing slayings came last week when the family of Alex Arellano found the 15-year-old's body. He had been beaten, burned and shot in the head. It's sad because they didn't have to torture him that way. He never did nothing wrong, never. He was a good kid. It just gets to me. It's crazy," Alex's friend Ashley Recendez said. Indeed, police say the teen had no criminal record, no gang affiliation. His family says he was well-behaved and shy, almost fearful of strangers. They had recently taken him out of school to protect him after gang members threatened him.

I just grabbed a couple articles. It's just nutz. If this were happening in my town or yours, we'd have the National Guard in the neighborhoods protecting these children. Coincidentally, last night 60 Minutes (I think it was) had an expose about it. It's pathetic.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Crime is inevible when there's a high level of poverty concentrated in an area. Violence, gangs and the like have been part of the American landscape since the 1700's.

I agree with all of your points.

I just don't like to use the word blame to a victim or bystanders. They didn't do anything wrong.

I do see where you're coming from though.

On the individual level, most definitely it was the dumb ass who shot them.

But the overall behavior that allows this kind of crap to happen comes from the behavior of the community.
There were/are places like this in Atlanta, even when Atlanta has free guns rights (for the most part).

There was a project in Atlanta, it was called Bowing Homes, they finally tore it down but it was a den of crime, much like that of many Chicago neighborhoods.

 

[StandUpChuck]

You can beat the dead horse of should'ves all day. But when the thread is titled 'Where does the real fault lie" then that is 100% the fault of the shooter/s.

There can be some responsibility others could've took but they share no blame. It's not their fault.

No one's blaming the victim or their families. However parents *do* bear the responsibility for protecting their minor children. No one else does. Not the child, not the next door neighbor.

Maybe these should'ves need to be beaten into some of the people not protecting their children. Maybe they *are* partially responsible. Like I've been saying, my son is one year older than the girl who was gunned down. I give him pretty good freedom, but I don't let him play in dangerous areas. We may go into those areas (for us, it's the woods and the ocean), but he knows dangers signs and survival skills. He's still not ready to navigate that stuff on his own. His safety is my responsibility. I realize it's different when suddenly a couple of thugs riding their bikes start opening fire, but was that really the last thing anyone expected there?

And maybe, just maybe some of these young women should consider whether or not a life in the projects is the best scenario for children. Just maybe they may want to consider birth control or having a responsible partner. :shrug: Again, not blaming the victim, but come on. Protect your kids as best you can.

 

[1069]

But when innocent kids are being killed, it's time to step out of your own comfort zone. Start taking steps to rat out these thugs, abandon the hell hole neighborhoods, wear a free condom so you don't end up raising kids in a danger zone, teach your kids how to recognize when something's about to go down on the street (as if no one knows), teach your kids not to play jumprope next to gangsters. If you live in an area long enough, you know the street, you know the trouble areas. I let my kid play outside with his friends unsupervised because we live in a safe area. However because nothing is 100% safe, I know where he is. When he and his friends want to ride their bikes in an area that's known for fast moving cars, one of us goes with him. *He* might not notice a car that's being driven erratically, but *I* would. I'm not saying it's the parents' fault that these 2 little girls were caught in the crossfire, but maybe if mom were outside watching, she'd have noticed 2 morons riding their bikes with guns, because I'm sure the girls didn't.

I dunno ... do something. :shrug:

I agree.
If people are willing to raise kids in these ghetto hellholes, why would you expect them to narc on their neighbors?
If they care about their kids' safety, they can pack up and leave; there's government-funded housing everywhere, including small towns and rural areas, for those who qualify.

 

[MaggieD]

I agree.
If people are willing to raise kids in these ghetto hellholes, why would you expect them to narc on their neighbors?
If they care about their kids' safety, they can pack up and leave; there's government-funded housing everywhere, including small towns and rural areas, for those who qualify.

Interesting your choice of words...."narc."

 

[Kali]

Public assistance is a lifestyle choice for inner-city Chicago girls. For far too many of them, it's their job objective in high school. I have two young friends who teach in Chicago Pubic Schools, and that's their take on it. I believe them. They're waiting 'til they're 17 or so, getting pregnant with their first, and starting their "paycheck." They don't want the father in the picture -- or want him for little more than booty calls -- because if he's living with them, they get less assistance. Public assistance has destroyed poor black families more thoroughly than slavery ever did.

They have cut off rates now and unless you have a disabled child? You are not gonna be getting welfare for their entire lives and after like 3? Your rate no longer goes up.

 

[Kali]

Making it viable is not a good thing for low income people.

Before social welfare and contrary to many popularly believed myths, society still had out of wedlock births and pregnancies.
Then there was only one choice available to ensure that your child would be stable and that was marrying your spouse, while retaining some sort of employment.

Now, to qualify for many social services you have to meet a threshold of, not to much income to qualify.
They do take into account your spouse's income, if you have one.
It encourages out of wedlock births, you can argue that it may be better for individual liberation but I'd argue the opposite.

A two parent household (gay or straight, I don't care) offers the best potential life for a child.

A two parent household only offers the best potential life for a child if the parents love and care for each other and are providing a happy homelife. If they are living in misery? Not so much

 

[Kali]

Yes, they are doing normal things like that....skipping rope, riding bikes. I'm suggesting three things: that these parents don't allow their kids to play outside in war zones (take 'em somewhere else to play); that they find a way, any way, to (gasp!) move; that they actually take ownership of their neighborhoods so that you wouldn't have to "do some stuff to make 'em talk."

So you are putting blame on parents for them letting their children do what kids should be doing? A shooting can happen anywhere, at anytime and place. There is no REAL 100% sure SAFE place for a child to be these days.

 

[Kali]

I agree.
If people are willing to raise kids in these ghetto hellholes, why would you expect them to narc on their neighbors?
If they care about their kids' safety, they can pack up and leave; there's government-funded housing everywhere, including small towns and rural areas, for those who qualify.

Most of those places are usually full or come with 3-6 year waiting list. It is really easy to sit up here and blame ghetto living parents but you do what the hell you gotta do and moving to small towns in whitebread happyland is not always that easy.

 

[Johnny]

Not all ghettos are government owned projects either. Not everybody has a choice in where they live. Only where they can afford.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

A two parent household only offers the best potential life for a child if the parents love and care for each other and are providing a happy homelife. If they are living in misery? Not so much

I understand but the world ain't perfect.

My dad lived with me but he was a giant asshole, who neglected my sister and I.
Can't change the past but do the best you can, with the future.

 

[Hoplite]

Making it viable is not a good thing for low income people.

Before social welfare and contrary to many popularly believed myths, society still had out of wedlock births and pregnancies.
Then there was only one choice available to ensure that your child would be stable and that was marrying your spouse, while retaining some sort of employment.

Now, to qualify for many social services you have to meet a threshold of, not to much income to qualify.
They do take into account your spouse's income, if you have one.
It encourages out of wedlock births, you can argue that it may be better for individual liberation but I'd argue the opposite.

A two parent household (gay or straight, I don't care) offers the best potential life for a child.

Would you rather have a system set up where people felt like they HAD to get married to ensure financial stability and they couldnt get divorced from an unhappy marriage or risk starving?

Two-parent households are no better or worse than a single parent household to any degree that really matters. The overwhelmingly influencing factor is QUALITY of parenting. Growing up in a crappy two parent home is worse than growing up in a good one parent home.

 

[1069]

Not all ghettos are government owned projects either. Not everybody has a choice in where they live. Only where they can afford.

Everyone has a choice.
The choice is, do whatever you have to do, legal or illegal, in order to keep your kids safe.
Or don't.
That's the choice.
We all make it.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

National Guard should come in. Freedoms should be taken away. And i dont care about freedoms in those areas. They arent deserved. For the innocent folks in that area, they should be HAPPY things are being improved that need it desperatly.