DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gangbangers Kill White Teen Girl

Thanks for the feedback, King.

I think it sounds like a tremendously noble endeavor. Having never attempted anything like it before, I'm not sure where to start.

One thing I'm reminded of is the Jalen Rose Academy in Detroit. It's a open enrollment charter school founded by Jalen Rose and the University of Detroit. Now I know you aren't going for (or at least it doesn't sound like you are) the whole school concept. More of an after school, summer type program more similar to the Boys and Girls Club.

I'm sure funding is very difficult but in addition to funding, something I think you would benefit from greatly is a name. Somebody famous that the area can relate to and get behind. Somebody that will draw kids in. I think that would help in attracting funding as well as attracting attendance later on.

Here is a link to the Holt Brothers Foundation, they were WRs at NC State before going into the NFL, they now run a construction company in the area and they set up their foundation to support other foundations.. Holt Brothers I was at a golf tournament with Torry a couple weeks ago and we talked for a few minutes. They are very approachable.

I guess my point is, and please don't take this as an insult because I admire what you are committed to doing.. but right now you are a middle age white dude trying to help at-risk black kids... you are going to have trouble gaining any traction with that unless you have somebody on your side that politicians can get behind for funding and somebody that these kids can relate to.

What you are doing has been done before.. I've given you two examples of similar (not identical) but similar endeavors... and the reason I've heard of them is NOT because they amazingly great at what they do, it's because Jalen Rose and the Holt Brothers are famous athletes.. that gives them the platform to promote what they are trying to do.

They are both also very proud of what they have set up and I can almost assure you, that if you reached out to them and others like them, even if they can't help you directly, they will appreciate what you are trying to do and may be able to offer suggestions, contact other famous folks they know who might be interested in, etc...

In the end, the way I see you being most successful is if you are the hands and the feet of your organization but somebody else more famous is the face of it....

Those are my thoughts. I wish you nothing but the best of luck.

First.. Vers you are race baiting and it sad, you came to start and force a fight everyone knows what you are doing. I've learned from DC sometimes their is no point in jumping in battles so i will stayout this stupid race baiting fight.

DC
I am not endorsing gangs at all just another perspective.

There are many reasons why people join gangs. I will give you another real scenario that is not necessary a bad thing. I get it some of you might not understand or agree but that doesn't dismiss the point.

My brother joined a gang, Why? Protection. He had 3 younger brothers, a beautiful exotic light skinned mother who had to take the train/us home to and from work every day. At the time he was smaller then the other kids so its better to join the bad guys than be the victims.

Honestly his logic is actually sound.

He knew if he joined a gang that his family will be protected at all costs. So whatever he had to do we were always kept safe and treated with the up most respect. I remember when I was 8 or 9 walking home from trick or treating (some how I left my other brothers) a random teenager pulled a gun on me to steal my candy... then he looked at me said. "My bad your lil Lurkers Brother" and he walked away..... his protection saved me. just another perspective.

The main issue is poverty, had we been in another environment he would not have the need to protect us and would never had joined the gang in the first place.

You are absolutely correct.

This is no offense to anyone else, but if you have not been there, it is hard to understand sometimes.

I'd ask Lebron, but he's already donated a TON of money to help Akron. It's not right to keep asking him to give more.

But protection from whom?

Cops? substandard education? lack of jobs? the criminal justice system?

No. I think we all would agree that when you join a gang you are going to be compelled either through coercion or choice to commit crimes. This automatically increases your involvement with police and the criminal justice system. That same criminal behavior creates a blight in the neighborhood so no one in their right mind is going to invest businesses there, and again, that same behavior is more responsible for creating a substandard learning environment than lack of funds.

Clearly gangs aren't the sole problem. But they are a significant factor in all of this.

After Vers called me racist on a football thread, I blocked him and to date I don't have any intentions to unblock him, but having said that, I don't think he was race baiting with this thread at all. Swish says we've talked about gangs plenty in other race and cop issue threads. No, actually we haven't. It is brought up mostly by the people Clem has described as entrenched along with the amount of black on black crime and it is constantly minimized and we're told it's a separate issue. I don't suspect that will change in this thread either but whatever.

After the 5 cops got killed in Dallas many gangs started calling a truce and the media hailed it as something wonderful. They often left out the part that most of them were calling the truce to pool resources and target cops but...

...anyway, locally we had 4 gangs call a truce. This was after some kind of outreach program where some former gang members asked a group of young black kids what they thought about cops. Their reply was "they are white people who kill black people". Of course to these guys that was a "Right on, right on" answer. Then they asked them about what they thought about gangs. The kids said "they are black people who kill black people". This apparently was same sort of an epiphany to the gang members. That they weren't looked at as heroes or something. That stupidity and ignorance aside, it was encouraging to go on to read that the advocates for these kids were saying that there are literally hundreds of young kids that want out of that lifestyle but they are too afraid. Apparently these 4 gangs were willing to let the ones associated with them out without repercussions.

Despite calling a truce amongst themselves, they still didn't renounce all the other criminal activity they engage in. None of the gangs were our largest and 2 of them I never heard of before.

But it's start at least. I don't know what it will take to break the cycle though.

And I think this is what Vers main point was: there are oppressive forces within these communities that people who live there have to deal with before you get to cops and no jobs and institutional racism etc.

actually, it's brought up all the time.

just because you aren't involved in this discussion doesn't mean it isn't happening.

i know for a fact it's brought up all the time because a variety of posters have came at me in different directions about the topic in any given thread.

as a matter of fact, i've laid out, in DETAIL, about how middle and high school kids are especially at threat of joining gangs with a host of any given factors.

as a matter of fact, i've laid out, in DETAIL, about how i almost joined a gang.

as a matter of fact, i've laid out, in DETAIL, about how the drugs work in relation to gang members.

Lurker has as well.

But it seems like the only person you ever acknowledge around here is Clem.

but i get it. it's my word against a cop's. i already know everything i say, hell, everything i HAVE said on the board will get ignored as if i didn't say anything about the topic at all.

nobody has YET to comment about my post on gangs and tribalism.

but i forgot, it's only brought up by Clem, right?

and yes, Vers was trying to race bait. take the blinders off. the guy was hoping that MYSELF specifically would jump at the moment to 'defend' gangs.

he was visibly upset that other posters agreed that these losers should be executed. he wanted more divide and conflict, and we didn't give it to him.

but you see how that's viewed?

if i make a thread, it's race baiting. If Vers does it, it's wanting a discussion.

if i say anything trying to get you guys to understand gang violence like i have in the past, i get accused of defending them.

but then if i agree with posters about gangs, now it's 'only clem brings it up'

can NOT win around here.

The problem Clem is that what you see clear as day is full of contradictions across many levels.

Let's take the drug issue as an example. You and others have repeatedly stated that drug laws have unfairly and disproportionately impacted minorities and are an example of this racism.

The Anti-Crime Bill from 1994 is the basis of not only the increased enforcement but enhanced sentencing as well. This was in response to the crack epidemic plaguing black neighborhoods and was crafted at the behest of black community leaders and black politicians and signed in to law by Bill Clinton-D.

Please explain to me how this is an example of the white power structure.

Now fast forward to a couple weeks ago. We often hear about how marijuana laws disproportionately impact black people, and those convictions for something so trivial create yet another barrier to finding gainful and meaningful employment. 2 weeks ago the DEA considered re-classifying marijuana on it's schedule list. (Personally I think it should be a Legislative responsibility as it would effect statutes.. but that aside...) They decided to keep it classified as one of the most dangerous drugs. Had they lowered it, it would have gone a long way in de-criminalizing or even legalizing it on the State level.

So can you please explain to me why the U.S.'s first black President had the authority to decriminalize a substance who's related laws have disproportionately impacted black people but chose not to?

Baltimore had a black mayor, black police commissioner, black State's attorney, numerous black politicians... and the DoJ recently releases a report about systemic racism over there.

The current welfare system does not include a path to help people improve their lot in life so they can get off of assistance and live a higher quality of life. It traps people. But black people overwhelmingly vote for a party that shows no interest or inclination to fixing it.

Now these may seem like overly simplistic examples to you, and maybe they are. I don't believe in making things more difficult than they need to be. But also understand this my fellow Dawg, there's another perspective out there other than yours. Clearly I'll never have the same experiences as you or others have had. But when you make the claim to an "outsider" such as myself that there are institutional and systemic problems, I'm going to look at those institutions and systems and who is in power. From there you are going to have to be able to explain how black people are being oppressed by white's when black people are in the driver's seat of some of those oppressive institutions.

But that's what I see. Maybe that makes me entrenched or to some a racist. Honestly I don't care. I've come to realize that the only thing I can do is effect the people and environment around me.

It is important to note, however, that President Obama could not simply order the Attorney General to reschedule marijuana tomorrow. The CSA requires the Attorney General to follow certain, notoriously cumbersome procedures when rescheduling drugs (hold hearings, etc.), and it seems to require the Attorney General to adhere to any treaties governing the drug regardless of what those hearings might reveal. For these reasons, the President could probably order only limited legalization of marijuana (say, for certain medical purposes), and then, only after months if not years of formal hearings. And as Alex has pointed out in a great paper here, rescheduling would not change the content of state law; i.e., marijuana would remain illegal for all purposes in at least 30 states, even if somehow the President were to remove the drug from the list of federally controlled substances altogether.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijua...-marijuana.html

What's crazy is that this is my third time posting this.

My point still stands. Whether it could take a pen stroke or a lengthy process, steps weren't taken to change it. He's been in office nearly 8 years.. that ought to be plenty of time and that could have been a near bullet proof issue for him.

And obviously I know if the Feds re-classified it or dumped it all together it still doesn't directly change State laws. But one of the big concerns for some States who have toyed with the issue was trying to reconcile it with Federal Law. If you make it less important on the Federal level it won't be such a big deal in the legal sense anymore and that will filter down. States will be more likely to legalize it when they don't have to worry about butting heads with the Feds.


It's stuff like this that continues to make me have a skeptical view when you guys start talking about systemic oppression. I'm not purposefully trying to be thickheaded about these kinds of things and I do understand that historically minorities have not been in positions of power, authority, and influence. But that is changing and has been changing. What's the tipping point between a minority breaking ground and getting into such a position but can't effect change because they are fighting the establishment vs. having the influence and authority, but just not making the changes needed?

Then you didn't read the entire article.

Obama has taken steps, such as not having the Feds go after anybody in these states legalizing and such. He has also taken other steps, as outlined in the article.

So your point doesn't stand, at least not with me anyway.

And what your saying is a double edge sword.

Lets say Obama legally could do something with just the stroke of the pen, have you not been paying attention to the King Obama comments? The dictator in chief comments?

He's goes around everybody because of an obstructionist congress, he gets blasted and congress takes steps to reverse what he's done.

He plays nice, and people claim he isn't being a good leader.

So which is it? Do you want Obama going over everybody head? Or do you want him taking the correct steps like he has been doing?

I know my point stands: a lot of people on this board have no idea what they actually want.

No, I haven't read it, but I'll trust what you are telling me about it.

Thing is, not taking enforcement action is totally different than taking the steps to actually change the books. Maybe he's actually done that and was unsuccessful, but I would think if he actually he was that would be an issue he'd use the President's "bully pulpit" for.

But what about if Trump OR Hillary get in there? I think either one of them is likely to start prosecuting Federal pot crimes if it becomes convenient for them.

And no, I clearly wouldn't want King Obama making a decree. But there is a process that should be gone through. A couple posts up I mentioned that I felt it should have been a Legislative power but.... I guess I'm just not seeing why something that I believe could be done that would address a major grievance doesn't appear to be getting the attention it should.

*my point stands back up. it's just a little shorter* lol

The biggest reason I can...well I guess the idea I'm pulling out of my ass lol, is that maybe there needs to be more of a consensus on the topic?

For example, I know some police departments don't even care about weed. I know the cops here in cleveland don't even bother.

But I know in other cities or states, they do.

Then you have the DEA who clearly has no intentions of wanting it legalized. Then you have a lot of politicians and religious folks who don't want any part of legalization.

It's still a polarizing issue, even taking race out of the equation.

There is a process. The process was followed. The article is long, so I'm only posted the part about the process itself. BTW- The FDA and DEA refused to reschedule marijuana just this month.................

For now, there remain two ways to change the federal government's classification of marijuana: for a host of federal agencies including the DEA and FDA to sign off; or for Congress to pass a law, and for the president to sign it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/...ns-on-marijuana

Money! If it was legalized Big Pharma would lose out.

I think it was in Denver right after it was legalized, there was going to be some big Pot festival in the park. Denver PD got a bunch of bags of chips and attached little flyers reminding everyone of the new laws and ordnances, asked that attendees be responsible and courteous, and told them to have fun lol

And this is the problem with having a bureaucracy in charge of making the rules. I appreciate the checks and balances part of it, if not exactly appropriate.

I'm curious as to whether or not the States or citizens could sue the Fed agencies in court over it, possibly citing State classifications. Schedule 1 in NC is for drugs that have no medicinal value. Cocaine and heroin is a Schedule II because it has some medical applications but is easily abused. Pot here is Schedule 6. It don't go any lower than that.

Thanks for the info you guys.

Protection from other gang members in that same neighborhood. Poverty is terrible, poverty enhances the crab int he bucket mentality. In these neighborhoods people prey on the week because they can.

Swish agreed with him several times, that these guys are monsters, everyone agreed that these guys are monsters and need the death pentality.........why argue and make it about race when these guys are terrible people who should be put to death like yesterday.

If you want to talk about gangs create a thread about it, I mean we can create a thread about everything else.

And that is where he lost me. He equated gangs with blacks, and that is just not the case. Now gangs can be equated with financially poor areas. There are also many poor city neighborhoods with lots of whites and hispanics too, and there are gang issues there too. Hell, back in the day , the mafia also formed in poor neighborhoods, that were at that time, Italian neighborhoods.

No lie, my brother was a "Rocco Boy" (from the Fulton Rd St Rocco parish). These guys were like a farm team for the mob, I think. Some of them went on to be wise guys, I think. Luckily, not my brother.

I grew up right behind St Roccos. I left about 92, there were still a few of the old italians still left in the neighborhood but I am sure they are all gone by now. St Roccos is one of the few Catholic Parishes in the city that is doing well. They have actually been expanding, and they have done it by adding a third service in, one in Spanish for the large Puerto Rican population in the neighborhood.

I just remembered the Festival - isn't the greasy pole climb today?

I am not sure if it is on Sunday or Monday, I am trying to convince my GF to go uptoday but she is not about that life and is scared to get out of the car in that neighborhood.

The sausage sandwiches alone are worth the trip.

I remember watching an episode of a tv show called "Disappeared" about this girl. It was one of the more interesting episodes, because she literally vanished from a busy street. I'm really surprised that they were able to resolve this case. What a horrible thing. I can't imagine what her family is feeling right now.

Thanks DC. You were the only one who actually replied to one of my solutions.

The rest of the guys just go right back to their usual crap of taking sides.

We are talking about gang issues, but you dont want to listen to anybody who has any knowledge of gangs that isnt from the outside looking in . Not to put your efforts down at all, but everything you spoke of, exists already. People who want to be out of the gang life, the resources are there, and easy to find. But they have to want to first. Hey, Swish is from an area with gang issues, but he decided he wasnt about that life and took advantage of other opportunities. I have resisted saying this because I figured it would get thrown back in my face at some point, but I was about that life at some point, but with a little guidance, left that part of my life behind me . I will say in my case that athletics helped me get away and a woman came along that showed me there was a life outside of the little hood that I knew about. I know many people who still live in that little area and will never know anything else. They are bt necessarily criminals or anything, they are just used to living there.

he still hasn't responded to my post about gangs and the issue involving tribalism.

i guess i should just chalk it up to him being full of crap, again.

If you could, please re iterate the post about gangs and tribalism. I've looked, can't find it. Maybe I didn't read far enough back?

But I'm interested in the gangs and tribalism relation.

I will jump and give my take on it

But what does a tribe provide to its members? A lot of various things, but it pretty much can be summed up in strength in numbers, I have found that most gang members put on a tough front but if you get them by themselves it is exposed as a front. I always laughed at the bad asses who were tough when there were 3 or 4 of them, but if I caught them in a back stairwell by themselves they wanted nothing to do with me and backed down

it's on page 8:



i was waiting on somebody to respond that way we can get our hands dirty and get into the gritty details.

but obviously nobody pays attention to what i post so..

Swish said;

"Economics can fix a lot. But it isn't fixing everything. The culture of the community has to change. The culture on how the majority demographic treats its minority demographic has to change. "

Just to clarify before someone makes this a race issue, majority and minority does not denote race is this case. It is a socioeconomic issue. IMO

Thanks, to you and King.

As to your last sentence: Sorry, the board doesn't revolve around your posts. Sometimes even, people are gone and don't see them.

Or, as has happened to me just tonight, again, I respond to a post, post it, respond to another post, then go back to the forum thingy, click, and see a response that I hadn't seen.

I'm close to perfect, but I'm not there yet.

i'm not saying it revolves around me.

i'm saying we got posters (like vers) claiming nobody is dialoging about gangs when i literally made multiple post about it.

as if i'm being ignored.

I will say in fairness, sometimes it is hard to reply to everything and sometimes conversations take unexpected turns and things get caught in the shuffle.

As far as Vers, he can be mad, I dont care I am going to call if for what it is. He posts with an agenda and is looking for certain things to be said, and when it doesnt go that way he gets upset and tries to direct the conversation with selective quoting and false narratives

i feel you.

and the thing is that nobody has to respond to every single post. i get that. some people just don't bother. i know i look at a lot of post and i maybe want to respond but i just go...eh..

thats cool. it's whatever. but in regards to Vers, don't sit there and claim that nobody is talking about the topic. that isn't remotely true. obviously somebody is, we got 12 pages of it.

I survived the gang lifestyle many years ago. Nobody messed with our gang. We ran the streets with reckless abandon, and caused more trouble than they could keep track of.

You don't have a clue as to what you are saying.

Many of us would benefit from reading "Just Mercy" written by Bryon Stevenson. It may create a greater understanding of the current status of society.

We are using it in a course I am working on.

Here is a link to a portion of his TED Talk if interested.

Here is the link to the Ted Talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en#t-1025394

Thank you.

You are right Vers, you know all . Good luck with your efforts.