Re: Rise in new Teenage sport

[Guest guest]

I groaned when I read that one of the teens said it was like playing

a violent videogame. Videogames already get enough *bleep* from

*bleep*wipe conservatives who don't agree with the first amendment

without this kid giving them ammo. If this story spreads, you just

know the media is gonna play up the videogame angle. Can't we enjoy

our hobby in peace without " concerned parents " groups talking about

how " evil " it is every five minutes?

>

> Found this just now. I removed a number of imbedded links because

some had

> disturbing content. I will provide the link to the main story if

you want to

> look up any of those.

>

>

>

> _http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html?

eref=rss_latest_

>

> (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html?

eref=rss_latest)

>

>

> Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise

> POSTED: 7:55 p.m. EST, February 20, 2007

>

>

>

> Story Highlights

> (CNN) -- All says he wanted to do was smoke pot and

get drunk

> with his friends.

> Killing Rex Baum was never part of the plan that day in 2004.

> " It all started off as a game, " said.

> The 15-year-old and his friends were taunting the homeless man --

throwing

> sticks and leaves -- after having a couple of beers with him.

> No big deal, says, but he's sorry for what came next.

> It was a mistake, he said, a sudden primal surge that made him and

his

> friends Oyola, 16, and 17-year-old Ihrcke begin

punching and kicking

> Baum.

> " says 'I'm gonna go hit him,' We're all laughing, thought he

was joking

> around,' " but he wasn't, concedes. " We just all started

hitting him. "

> They hurled anything they could find -- rocks, bricks, even Baum's

barbecue

> grill -- and pounded the 49-year-old with a pipe and with the

baseball bat he

> kept at his campsite for protection.

> Ihrcke smeared his own feces on Baum's face before cutting him

with a knife

> " to see if he was alive, " said.

> After destroying Baum's camp, the boys left the homeless man --

head wedged

> in his own grill -- under a piece of plastic where they hoped

the " animals

> would eat " him.

> Then, says, they took off to grab a bite at Mc's.

> Baum's murder was indicative of a disturbing trend.

> A National Coalition for the Homeless report says last year, there

were 122

> attacks and 20 murders against the homeless, the most attacks in

nearly a

> decade.

> Police found Baum's body two days after the teens attacked him.

> They bragged about it around town. Police picked them up and they

described

> what happened.

> Ihrcke told police that killing " the bum " reminded him of playing

a violent

> video game, a police report shows.

> All three teens pleaded no contest to first degree reckless

homicide charges

> and went to prison.

> recently turned 18 at Columbia Correctional Institution in

Portage,

> Wisconsin, where he is serving a 15 year sentence.

> " When [the beating] stops, you say, 'What did we just do?' " he

told CNN.

> " There's no rational explanation. "

> Teenage 'amusement'

> " It's disturbing to know that young people would literally kick

someone when

> they're already down on their luck, " said Stoops, the

executive

> director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the

Homeless. " We

> recognize that this isn't every teenager, but for some this

passes as amusement. "

> Criminologists call these wilding sprees " sport killing, " --

largely

> middle-class teens, with no criminal records, assaulting the

homeless with bats,

> golf clubs, paintball guns. (

> Some teens have even taped themselves in the act. Others have said

they were

> inspired by " Bumfights, " a video series created in 2002 and sold

on the Web

> that features homeless people pummeling each other for the

promise of a few

> bucks.

> A segment called " Bum Hunter, " hosted by a Crocodile Hunter-like

actor

> wearing a safari outfit, shows him " tagging " homeless people by

pouncing on them

> and binding their wrists.

> The distributors of " Bumfights " have claimed they've sold hundreds

of

> thousands of copies.

> But the company has had to deal with a couple of legal issues

unrelated to

> the Baum case.

> Last year, three former homeless stars of " Bumfights " won a civil

suit

> against filmmakers. Santa attorney Mark Quigley, who

represented Rufus

> Hannah, known as " Rufus the Stunt Bum " to series' fans, said he is

unable to

> disclose the amount of the settlement.

> Also, in July 2006, a California judge ordered " Bumfights' "

producers

> McPherson and Zachary Bubeck to spend 180 days in jail for failing

to perform

> community service related to guilty pleas they previously entered

to charges

> of staging illegal street fights.

> " Bumfights " directors did not answer CNN's request for an

interview.

> Attacks across the nation

> Incidents of teen-on-homeless violence dotted the map last year.

Florida

> racked up at least six such attacks in 2006.

> In Lauderhill, four teens were arrested after they allegedly

videotaped

> themselves beating, dragging, and stealing from a homeless man.

> The victim has not been found, but the four face one charge each

of

> strong-armed robbery.

> Earlier this month, teens in Corpus Christi, Texas, videotaped

themselves

> attacking a homeless man.

> Commander said police arrested a 15-year-old and are

looking for

> at least one more teenager and a 22-year-old who described on

tape what they

> were about to do before they jumped on the man.

> On the other side of the nation, former Oregon State University

student

> Grimes stands accused of shooting and injuring a homeless

man from his

> perch in a fraternity house window.

> He has not yet entered a plea, but, according to a police report,

he cried to

> detectives after the October shooting, telling them, " I didn't

mean to shoot

> him. "

> At least three homeless people in Kalamazoo, Michigan, reported

being

> attacked by teens on bicycles during a 10-day span in October,

according to the

> homeless coalition.

> In Huntsville, Alabama, six teens -- one of them 13 -- beat a

homeless man

> with golf clubs, the coalition reported. But perhaps the most

shocking of these

> examples was 2006's first recorded case of teen-on-homeless

violence.

> On January 12 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a surveillance camera

captured two

> teens beating a homeless man with bats.

> Prosecutors say 17-year-old skateboarder Tom Daugherty, 18-year-

old

> Hooks, a popular hockey team captain, and a third unseen teen,

Ammons, a

> high school dropout, assaulted two more homeless men that night.

> One of them was 45-year-old Norris Gaynor. A witness,

e, told

> police and CNN last year that he saw the three teens approach

Gaynor as he

> slept on a park bench. Daugherty began whacking Gaynor with a

bat, e said.

> As Gaynor lay dying, Ammons shot him with yellow paintballs, later

remarking

> that the beating felt like " teeing off, " police said.

> Gaynor was beaten so badly his own father didn't recognize him.

Facing life

> in prison, the teens face trial for murder later this year. They

have each

> pleaded not guilty to one count of first-degree murder and two

counts of

> attempted murder.

> Lingering questions

> Stoops and Levin, a California State University hate crimes

expert, say

> common themes run through teen-on-homeless violence. The

attackers are

> almost always boys, peer pressure and mob mentality sweep away

caution, and

> parents don't suspect their children could be capable of such

actions.

> Simpson didn't. Her son, Brumfield, is serving an 11-

year prison

> stretch in California.

> In August 2005, Brumfield and Orantes, both 19, beat 56-

year-old

> Ernest with bats. emerged from a coma three weeks

later with dents

> in his skull, permanent scars and no vision in one eye, the Los

Angeles Times

> reported. Orantes is serving a three-year sentence.

> Simpson, a sixth-grade teacher, says she is still tormented by her

son's

> actions and wonders if her son's irritability was more than

typical teenage

> moodiness.

> She has other questions: Was her son, a natural follower, just

succumbing to

> peer pressure? Was he that into " Bumfights " ? Did he see the fear

in '

> eyes when he raised the bat to strike him?

> In a sad irony, she had adopted him; his mother was a homeless

drug addict, a

> revelation he had learned not long before the beating and which

his attorney

> used to explain his rage.

> Her son has told her he is sorry for what happened, but her

questions remain

> unanswered.

> " As a parent, of course you're going to question yourself, " she

said. " It was

> just hard to comprehend. The first thing was, 'Not . There

has to be a

> mistake,' " she said. " You think you know everything that's going

on and you

> don't. "

> When the mob mentality takes over, even the perpetrators may not

comprehend

> what's going on.

> Back at the prison in Wisconsin, seems baffled by his

own

> actions. Killing Rex Baum now registers like a " blur " or " dream, "

he says.

> and his friends knew Baum from around town. Life had been

painful for

> the homeless man from the start; alcohol eased it. As a kid

growing up in

> Milwaukee, when his home life became too rocky, a neighboring

family took him

> in. He drifted through school and a brief stint in the military,

his friends

> say, a wanderer, a loner.

> Homeless for years, he defied Wisconsin winters by constantly

walking around

> the city, bundled in a coat patched with duct tape. For a few

dollars, he

> pumped gas, shoveled snow off driveways, and walked neighborhood

dogs.

> More than 100 people came to Baum's funeral. Someone sent a

newspaper clip of

> the story to in prison.

> " Every day I wish I could take it back, " he said. " I seen [the]

repercussions

> among everyone. I didn't think about any of this when [the

beating] was

> going on. "

>

> <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> Check out

free AOL at

> http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set

of free

> safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos

from across the

> web, free AOL Mail and much more.

>

[Guest guest]

" I groaned when I read that one of the teens said it was like playing

a violent videogame. Videogames already get enough *bleep* from

*bleep*wipe conservatives who don't agree with the first amendment

without this kid giving them ammo. "

Well, the kid surely was not lying. It is, as he sees it, the truth.

He sees beating up a homeless person like playing a violent video

game.

Shouldn't we now ban all violent video games because of it?

Speaking purely as a *bleep*wipe conservative, my answer would have

to be...

No.

But I don't think kids should be playing these games either.

There are " R " ratings on certain movies in America for a reason, and

likewise there are ratings on games for a reason. As much as parents

would like to be " cool " and be " friends " with their kids by allowing

them to watch these movies and play these games, as we have seen,

sometimes kids -otherwise GOOD kids- can be corrupted by these games.

" If this story spreads, you just know the media is gonna play up the

videogame angle. "

And they should, because:

A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids are doing

ought to be paying more attention, and

They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

activities, and

C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more carefully,

and

D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors when they

attempt to purchase these games.

" Can't we enjoy our hobby in peace without " concerned parents "

groups talking about how " evil " it is every five minutes? "

Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

playing a videogame.

One of our members, Heph, was once homeless. Tomorrow it may be you.

How would you like to find yourself getting beaten up by kids who

think they are just playing some extrapolated version of the video

games you like to play?

Then perhaps you will wonder why you supported the company that

manufactured these games with your consumer dollars.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

playing a videogame. "

I think what is really worrying me is that videogames are not

reality - so is this kid/young person basically saying what he did

didn't feel real?

How have people/young people/children got so removed from reality?

Have they really become so desensitized? Do they not realise the

consequences of their actions? Do they not realize the difference

between fact/real/reality and fiction?

Scary stuff :-(

>

> " I groaned when I read that one of the teens said it was like

playing

> a violent videogame. Videogames already get enough *bleep* from

> *bleep*wipe conservatives who don't agree with the first amendment

> without this kid giving them ammo. "

>

> Well, the kid surely was not lying. It is, as he sees it, the

truth.

> He sees beating up a homeless person like playing a violent video

> game.

>

> Shouldn't we now ban all violent video games because of it?

>

> Speaking purely as a *bleep*wipe conservative, my answer would have

> to be...

>

> No.

>

> But I don't think kids should be playing these games either.

>

> There are " R " ratings on certain movies in America for a reason,

and

> likewise there are ratings on games for a reason. As much as

parents

> would like to be " cool " and be " friends " with their kids by

allowing

> them to watch these movies and play these games, as we have seen,

> sometimes kids -otherwise GOOD kids- can be corrupted by these

games.

>

> " If this story spreads, you just know the media is gonna play up

the

> videogame angle. "

>

> And they should, because:

>

> A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids are doing

> ought to be paying more attention, and

>

> They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

> beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

> activities, and

>

> C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more carefully,

> and

>

> D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors when they

> attempt to purchase these games.

>

> " Can't we enjoy our hobby in peace without " concerned parents "

> groups talking about how " evil " it is every five minutes? "

>

> Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

> of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

> baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

> playing a videogame.

>

> One of our members, Heph, was once homeless. Tomorrow it may be

you.

> How would you like to find yourself getting beaten up by kids who

> think they are just playing some extrapolated version of the video

> games you like to play?

>

> Then perhaps you will wonder why you supported the company that

> manufactured these games with your consumer dollars.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

Video games are a part of it, but the root responsibility lies with the parents. Pretty much all of those violent games are rated too high for teens to be playing them. However, I have seen even young kids manipulate their parents, most often mothers or grandmothers, into buying them. If the parents stood firm, then this wouldn't be a problem.

The other problem is that kids are so sheltered and pampered these days. Most of them see lots of killing and fighting on the TV and in the movies, but they don't see the real thing, not really. They might see those fights on the internet or even some scramblings at school, but not serious fights let alone killings. Some do of course, but I mean in the main.

Most of them probably haven't even seen a dead animal before. My family taught be how serious guns were by showing me the kills after a successful hunt when I was about 5 or 6. They tell you they shoot the goose with the shotgun and its dead. You see it there, dead, and the point gets across. I used to hunt when I was younger and was a good shot. That didn't bother me, but it wasn't something I particularly enjoyed either. But, seeing what a rifle could do to a deer got the point across about not shooting people.

A lot of it also went back to my parents. My father wasn't to good, but he did teach me one important thing: that you should only fight when you had no choice. That's still the way I look at it. If I can, I'll avoid trouble, but if I'm corner or it is looking really bad, then I'll fight. Its a shame kids can't be taught this today.

As for the games, I play them too. I really like the Call of Duty series and have played all 3 editions of Doom and the second Hitman game. They are rough games and they can make you hostile. But they are just games. Actually shooting someone is going to tear them up. Like I said, I know what a .30-06 will do to a deer and I have read soldier's account of what they could do to a human.

I just think it is that kids are coddled too much. There are no consequences for their actions, they have no serious challenges in school, and they have little real supervision. Add to that soft parents and you've got a recipe for real problems.

Granted not everyone will be a problem, but there are always those who will be.

Last thing I'll mention. It isn't just homeless people that have to worry. Twice I have been targeted by teens. Nothing serious came of it, though one time was very close. A bunch of them had been harassing me at a Burger King in other town, sitting a few seats away making comments and such. Since I had been ignoring them, several followed me into the Men's Room where I had to go before leaving. Most of them chickened out evidently and only two came inside. With most of the pack gone, they weren't too hot on seriously picking a fight, though flashing the knife clipped to my belt probably helped too. No, I didn't draw it or open it, it was in the case clipped to my belt, but they knew what it was and the way I looked at them seemed to take the wind out of their sails.

Had a couple of fights in college though. Same stuff. A couple of idiots talking crap and got themselves in over their heads. I really don't think that one guy had ever really been hit in his life before he and his friend started pushing me around. Yes, I had my knife, but no, it didn't get used. This was just stupid stuff by kids doing the Alpha Male thing, trying to look tough for the girls. Funny how they always try to look tough by picking on a little fellow smaller than any of them. You would think that if they wanted to prove their manliness that they would go one on one with a bigger guy than them. That never seems to happen though.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/21/2007 3:07:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

How have people/young people/children got so removed from reality? Have they really become so desensitized? Do they not realise the consequences of their actions? Do they not realize the difference between fact/real/reality and fiction?Scary stuff :-(

Part of it is military psychology. In WWI and WWII, it was estimated that in a platoon of 50 men or so, only 6 to 10 would actually be shooting effectively. That is to say that they were actually shooting to kill or at least suppress the enemy. Most of the rest took cover and didn't shoot or fired ineffectively. Out of this came new training. Part of that more realistic training with realistic conditions. By the Gulf War, virtually all troops in a platoon would fire when they had a target.

The first person shooter games are kind of like that, and word is that some were developed by the military. (That's not entirely true though. The first real first person shooter was Castle Wolfenstein and was created as a technical challenge by a couple of men in their apartment in their spare time.) The games can be pretty realistic and do teach the reflexes used in combat and tactics can be used in them as well.

They could be partly to blame, but not entirely. After all, kinds in my generation played army with toy guns and some of us later played Paintball (I only played once because some of the other players were just as bad as little kids playing army). However, not many of use turned out badly. Many of my friends are in the service now actually. The others, the ones who really weren't good friends, are good people, but that seems to be a family tradition more than anything else. They're not violent and I don't think they have criminal records or anything, they just aren't good people and at least one is kinda nuts.

That could be another part of it. Pointing at toy gun at a real person has a very different feel from pointing a virtual gun at a virtual person. Paintball takes that to another level since getting shot by one of those balls hurts, especially in the winter when they are partly frozen.

I still think it is mostly a parenting issue. Kids aren't taught right from wrong anymore and most have no limits either.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

>

> I groaned when I read that one of the teens said it was like playing

> a violent videogame. Videogames already get enough *bleep* from

> *bleep*wipe conservatives who don't agree with the first amendment

> without this kid giving them ammo. If this story spreads, you just

> know the media is gonna play up the videogame angle. Can't we enjoy

> our hobby in peace without " concerned parents " groups talking about

> how " evil " it is every five minutes?

>

you are right if people screened what their kids played, or gave them a

basis to be non-violent in the first place. Child rearing is a job

that is not for the lazy. It sounded like a cop out plea bargain;

place the blame elsewhere I am a poor victim of my own obscene violent

behavior

[Guest guest]

>

> I groaned when I read that one of the teens said it was like playing

> a violent videogame. Videogames already get enough *bleep* from

> *bleep*wipe conservatives who don't agree with the first amendment

> without this kid giving them ammo. If this story spreads, you just

> know the media is gonna play up the videogame angle. Can't we enjoy

> our hobby in peace without " concerned parents " groups talking about

> how " evil " it is every five minutes?

>

you are right if people screened what their kids played, or gave them a

basis to be non-violent in the first place. Child rearing is a job

that is not for the lazy. It sounded like a cop out plea bargain;

place the blame elsewhere I am a poor victim of my own obscene violent

behavior

[Guest guest]

>

They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

activities,

That really would be best:) har har har They should teach common

sense!!!! before people parent

[Guest guest]

>

I think what is really worrying me is that videogames are not

reality - so is this kid/young person basically saying what he did

didn't feel real?

How have people/young people/children got so removed from reality?

Have they really become so desensitized? Do they not realise the

consequences of their actions? Do they not realize the difference

between fact/real/reality and fiction?

Scary stuff :-(

Applicable school subjects (stop lowering standards) Everyone thinks

everything is too hard!!! Breakfast, parenting, carpentry. Soon our

nation will be lost on shoe tying but missle launching!! that will get

taught

[Guest guest]

On 21 Feb 2007 environmental1st2003 wrote:

> A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids are doing

> ought to be paying more attention, and

I'm in favor or parental supervision, but there are some things

that parents aren't going to have the time to supervise. An

example is the strategy of a video game, unless the parent is a

video gamer. If the parent is a video gamer, there wouldn't be

an issue of supervision anyway.

> They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

> beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

> activities, and

Yeah, if I did that, I'd lose my driving privileges for a week.

Seriously, the activity time is " out with my friends " . How does

a parent limit that?

> C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more carefully,

> and

This presumes that " It was like a video game " is the same as

" The video game made me do it. "

1. " It was like a video game " just means that the kids didn't

consider it a big deal. To these kids it was no different than

" Take off every ZIG. " There is nothing in the " like a video

game " statement that indicates that a video game made it easier

to beat up homeless people; nothing that indicates that video

games gave these kids the " skills " to beat up homeless people.

They didn't even use phasar weapons.

2. There are people who are not sociopaths who enjoy these

games. Why should a parent stop their kid from playing a video

game because a *different* kid who beats up homeless people

talked about a video game? I'll bet that kid who beat up

homeless people also watched a television.

> D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors when they

> attempt to purchase these games.

Store owner: " How are you gentlemen!! "

Kid: " All your bases are belong to us. "

Store owner: " What happen? "

Kid: " Main screen turn on. "

Store owner: " We get signal. "

Kid: " Someone set us up the ID. "

Store owner: " It's you. "

Kid: " We know what you are doing. "

Store owner: " You have no chance of survive. Make your time. "

Cats: " Ha ha ha ha "

Proper English translation: Why does a kid need ID to purchase

a video game?

Still, it's unrealistic to conclude that video games cause kids

to kill homeless people. Perhaps illegal aliens if they're from

outer space, but not homeless people. Well, maybe homeless

people if they're from a forbidden galaxy in space.

> " Can't we enjoy our hobby in peace without " concerned parents "

> groups talking about how " evil " it is every five minutes? "

>

> Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

> of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

> baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

> playing a videogame.

Everyone, if you have a kid who beats people to death with golf

clubs and baseball bats, don't let him play video games. But

that does not mean that a kid playing a video game is going to

get bored and start killing real people.

> How would you like to find yourself getting beaten up by kids who

> think they are just playing some extrapolated version of the video

> games you like to play?

Sociopaths, not gamers. If they think they're playing some

extrapolated version of a video game, they're beyond BPD.

> Then perhaps you will wonder why you supported the company that

> manufactured these games with your consumer dollars.

And what about the people who made the golf club and baseball

bat?

- s

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/2007 1:30:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Part of the reason kids learn less these days is because teachers spend an increased amount of time baby-sitting and less time teaching, primarily because parents have spent less time mentoring and teaching their kids about how to behave correctly in a classroom setting. One can posit from the increasing degree of violence taking place in today's schools that morals, values, and ethics are not being as ingrained in children at home. 's supposition that a lack of parental involvement in the lives of their children has been proven out in the minds of the many teachers I have worked with.

My mother is a teacher and she says that every year it seems like more and more kids are becoming more and more, what is her word for it?, well I'll just say soft. That's not her word of course. What I mean is that more and more kids are coming to school not knowing pretty basic things. A lot of them are also spoiled. They know that if they whine enough, their parents will do whatever they want. There are several that are real problems but the parents won't hear anything other than their kids being perfect angels. You practically have to have video of them beating up another kid before they'd believe it, and even then it isn't a sure thing.

So yes, a lot of time is spent babysitting the kids. Many of them just don't know how to behave or take care of themselves properly (my mother teaches second grade). Those kids take up time that could be going to teaching.

Telling kids to behave can also be a real headache. It isn't so bad where my mother teaches because it is a private school. Public schools though are said to have a major problem with discipline. One of the high schools around here is so bad that they actually have police officers patrolling the halls. If that doesn't just scream that something is seriously wrong I don't know what will.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/2007 1:30:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Part of the reason kids learn less these days is because teachers spend an increased amount of time baby-sitting and less time teaching, primarily because parents have spent less time mentoring and teaching their kids about how to behave correctly in a classroom setting. One can posit from the increasing degree of violence taking place in today's schools that morals, values, and ethics are not being as ingrained in children at home. 's supposition that a lack of parental involvement in the lives of their children has been proven out in the minds of the many teachers I have worked with.

My mother is a teacher and she says that every year it seems like more and more kids are becoming more and more, what is her word for it?, well I'll just say soft. That's not her word of course. What I mean is that more and more kids are coming to school not knowing pretty basic things. A lot of them are also spoiled. They know that if they whine enough, their parents will do whatever they want. There are several that are real problems but the parents won't hear anything other than their kids being perfect angels. You practically have to have video of them beating up another kid before they'd believe it, and even then it isn't a sure thing.

So yes, a lot of time is spent babysitting the kids. Many of them just don't know how to behave or take care of themselves properly (my mother teaches second grade). Those kids take up time that could be going to teaching.

Telling kids to behave can also be a real headache. It isn't so bad where my mother teaches because it is a private school. Public schools though are said to have a major problem with discipline. One of the high schools around here is so bad that they actually have police officers patrolling the halls. If that doesn't just scream that something is seriously wrong I don't know what will.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote: " A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids

are doing ought to be paying more attention, and ... <snip> ... "

Stan responded: " I'm in favor or parental supervision, but there are

some things that parents aren't going to have the time to supervise.

An example is the strategy of a video game, unless the parent is a

video gamer. If the parent is a video gamer, there wouldn't be an

issue of supervision anyway. "

Only a lazy parent would not bother to acquaint himself or herself

with the activities that are of interest to their child/ren. If one

cannot gather the information personally, there are a number of

resources a parent can access to gather such information. The parent

need not be a 'video gamer parent' as you insist but rather the

parent needs to be an 'involved' parent.

Tom wrote: " They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a

way so that beating homeless people to death is not within their

scheduled activities, and ... <snip> ... "

Stan responded: " Yeah, if I did that, I'd lose my driving privileges

for a week. "

That would be your choice and as such, you would also have to

shoulder the natural consequences of such a choice.

Stan continued: " Seriously, the activity time is " out with my

friends " . How does a parent limit that? "

An involved parent has set the ground work for this long before the

child reaches the age where he or she can drive a vehicle and long

before a child hangs " out with [my] friends " without adult

supervision. In fact, an 'involved' parent acquaints himself/herself

with his/her child/ren's friends and continues to mentor and guide

his/her child/ren until the child/ren is/are contributing members of

society as responsible taxpayers.

But if you think that an 'involved' parent can't limit activity time

such as you have described, then you have no idea how effective

an 'involved' parent can be.

Tom wrote: " C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more

carefully, and ... <snip> ... "

Stan responded: " This presumes that " It was like a video game " is

the same as " The video game made me do it. "

No, Stan, it presumes that desensitization towards violent acts as

does happen with the relentless onslaught of violent acts witnessed

by children will have a negative effect on growing minds. It does

not shirk the responsibility of one's actions onto anyone else's

shoulders. If the industry would police itself appropriately, the

desensitization of a generation of single-digit aged children would

not be as serious a situation as it is at present.

Garbage in, garbage out. Sayings become sayings for a reason, Stan.

If you feed a young mind garbage, this is what they know and what

they mirror back to their world. Minimize the violence in games for

these children and you will see a reduction in violent reactions by

these children.

I was reading an article earlier today that says children today are

considerably more violent than their same aged counterparts were 50

years ago. I will see if I can find the article again and post it to

this group.

Tom wrote: " D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors

when they attempt to purchase these games. "

Stan responded: " Why does a kid need ID to purchase a video game? "

So he or she does not purchase age inappropriate content video

games. If the parents wish the child to play such games, the parent

is responsible for not only contributing to the delinquency of the

minor child -- their own flesh and blood -- but also encouraging

behaviours which are not in the child's best interests.

It would be no different than having an ID in order to purchase

alcohol. Parents may choose to serve their own children alcohol

within the confines of their own home if they choose to do so, but a

person who has not reached the age of majority is not legally

entitled to purchase alcohol on his or her own.

It would be the same with video games.

Stan continued: " ... <snip> ... Still, it's unrealistic to conclude

that video games cause kids to kill homeless people ... <snip> ... "

Desensitization to violence in a video game is a contributing factor

to kids killing homeless people as evidence by the article. It is

not different psychologically speaking than training your body to be

able to run a marathon. The first few weeks of training are

grueling, but every day after you reach the point where training is

pleasurable at some level, the more you are able to push your body

without giving it a second thought.

Tom wrote: " ... <snip> ... Well, these parents have a reason to be

concerned don't they? Some of their kids are beating people to death

with golf clubs and baseball bats, and , according to one of these

kids, it feels like playing a videogame. "

Stan responded: " Everyone, if you have a kid who beats people to

death with golf clubs and baseball bats, don't let him play video

games. But that does not mean that a kid playing a video game is

going to get bored and start killing real people. "

No it does not mean that. You are correct, Stan. However, a child

who has been desensitized to violence will be less averse to

dismissing violence in his life and more accepting of violent

behaviour by others as well as at his own hand.

Tom wrote: " How would you like to find yourself getting beaten up by

kids who think they are just playing some extrapolated version of the

video games you like to play? "

Stan responded: " Sociopaths, not gamers. If they think they're

playing some extrapolated version of a video game, they're beyond

BPD. "

Whenever a group of people are presented to the impressionable mind

as being lesser people, it is easy for that impressionable mind to

dehumanize the entire group of people. This is what happened in Nazi

German. This is what has happened repeatedly in history. The way to

undo an entire nation is to paint its people as being lesser beings

making it easier for others to do away with them and not feel remorse

or regret for having done so.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids are doing

ought to be paying more attention, and

Stan replied:

" I'm in favor or parental supervision, but there are some things

that parents aren't going to have the time to supervise. An

example is the strategy of a video game, unless the parent is a

video gamer. If the parent is a video gamer, there wouldn't be

an issue of supervision anyway. "

To which I say:

I believe you are on the Board of Directors at a school for young

Aspie children. Am I right?

As someone who was certified to teach in the State of Illinois, who

went through teacher training (part of that training involving

extensive psychology, educational psychology, behavioral learning,

and educational measurement classes) and who did the standard run of

clinical experiences, observations, and student teaching, I must say

that the data I was able to gather from teachers (especially those

that have been teaching for more than 20 years) was straight

forward: Part of the reason kids learn less these days is because

teachers spend an increased amount of time baby-sitting and less

time teaching, primarily because parents have spent less time

mentoring and teaching their kids about how to behave correctly in a

classroom setting.

One can posit from the increasing degree of violence taking place in

today's schools that morals, values, and ethics are not being as

ingrained in children at home.

's supposition that a lack of parental involvement in the

lives of their children has been proven out in the minds of the many

teachers I have worked with.

When I was a kid, my parents looked at the video games I played, and

if they saw me get tense or aggressive after using them, they either

stopped me from playing them, or simply gave them away and forbid me

from playing them any more. This, I believe, was a good thing,

because instead of spending my time in front of the TV set playing

video games, I read, or drew, or did artwork, or road bikes with my

friends, or played a game of scratch baseball if we could find

enough people to play with.

In other words, I learned more things NOT playing video games than

playing them. In this way, I learned to see video games as a toy to

be played with, and, like any other toy, one to be played

periodically. I never came to my video games like an addict coming

to get its fix. In this day and age, many kids throw a tantrum if

they cannot play their games each day. If you think about it, this

is the reaction addicts get when they can't have their coffee in the

morning, or when their cigarettes run out and the store is closed,

or when they really need a martini and the liquor cabinet is empty.

I said:

" They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

activities, and

Stan said:

" Seriously, the activity time is " out with my friends " . How does

a parent limit that? "

I reply:

A parent limits that by mentoring what friendship is and what

friends do long before a kid is able to go out with his friends. A

parent screens the child's friends so that bad influences are not

part of the picture. A parent asks where the child is going and when

the child is planning to return. The parent gives his child a cell

phone and checks randomly to see if the child is where they are

supposed to be, and makes sure the child checks in at appointed

times.

As much as this would seem abusive if a husband did this to their

wife or wife did this to their husband, one must remember that

children are children and many of the things they will see in their

lives will be situations they have never encountered before. It is

our duties as parents to provide them with as much knowledge and

ammunition as necessary to deal with these new situations.

Ammunition comes in the form of morals, values, ethics, and self-

assurance through positive mentorship. This is seldom given to a

child in a violent video game. In fact, I rather doubt these

important things can be found in a video game at all.

I said:

" C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more carefully,

and "

Stand said:

" This presumes that " It was like a video game " is the same as

" The video game made me do it. "

I reply:

It actually does not presume anything. A video game manufacturer

runs the risk that someone who buys a game will take something from

the game and attempt it in real life. Although they can probably

legally defend themselves in some way to avoid responsibility for

such a thing, it is in the interest of the manufacturers to ensure

that people most likely to emulate what they see in one of their

games do NOT receive one of those games.

Stand said:

" 1. " It was like a video game " just means that the kids didn't

consider it a big deal. To these kids it was no different than

" Take off every ZIG. " There is nothing in the " like a video

game " statement that indicates that a video game made it easier

to beat up homeless people; nothing that indicates that video

games gave these kids the " skills " to beat up homeless people.

They didn't even use phasar weapons. "

I say:

I disagree.

The child in question didn't say " It was like something I saw on

TV. " In this case, the reference was specific. If the video game is

the first thing to come to the child's mind as a comparative, then

it would stand to reason that it was the video game which was the

primary source of influence for the child.

Stan said:

2. There are people who are not sociopaths who enjoy these games.

Why should a parent stop their kid from playing a video game because

a *different* kid who beats up homeless people talked about a video

game? I'll bet that kid who beat up homeless people also watched a

television. "

My reply:

A parent should stop their kid from playing such a game for the same

reason a parent would prevent a child's exposure to

1) Drugs

2) Pornography

3) R Rated movies

4) Irresponsible use of alcohol.

5) Underage tobacco use.

Expose a child to these things and the result for children is that

they are saddled with adult problems when they only have the ability

of a child to cope with such problems.

I said:

" D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors when they

attempt to purchase these games. "

Stand said:

" Proper English translation: Why does a kid need ID to purchase

a video game? "

My response:

For the same reason that a person needs an ID to purchase alcohol

and tobacco, and for the same reason that children under 17 should

not be admitted to R rated movies and children under 18 WILL NOT be

admitted to NC-17 movies. Violent video games can be traumatizing

to children. If we want to play Russian roulette with their minds,

then by all means, a parent should expose them to that sort of

thing. But since studies show that this sort of thing hurts kids, I

do not think it is wise at all.

Stan said:

" Still, it's unrealistic to conclude that video games cause kids

to kill homeless people. "

My response:

It may seem that way, yet we have a case here where a child

described his killing of a homeless person as being " like a video

game. "

That you think it is unrealistic doesn't matter in terms of the

presented facts of this particular beating of a homeless person. It

has already happened.

Stan said:

" Sociopaths, not gamers. If they think they're playing some

extrapolated version of a video game, they're beyond BPD. "

My reply:

And yet, as the article states, there was no indication that any of

these children were sociopaths.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to address one more part of Stan's post:

I said:

" Then perhaps you will wonder why you supported the company that

manufactured these games with your consumer dollars. "

Stan said:

" And what about the people who made the golf club and baseball

bat? "

Tom says:

A baseball bat and golf club company do not manufacture or market

their product in such a way as to suggest they should use them to go

and beat people to death.

Neither do video game manufacturers.

However, many video games ARE about killing people in new and

gruesome ways, and with the development of newer and more realistic

types of 3d software, the lines between what is real and what isn't

are being blurred.

An adult can play such a game and know it is just a game they are

playing, but for a child, often times the real world and the fantsay

world are close together.

Remember, children believe in ghosts, they beleive in monsters under

the bed, the boogie man in the closet, and the tooth fairy and Santa

Claus.

Interestingly, while a child may cry sometimes when they discover

this is no Santa Claus they go on believing in the supernatural and

superstitious for a long time. The reason young children will freak

out at gory movies is because they beleive what they see can really

happen in real life.

When they encounter a video game that is gruesomely violent, and

when they see that the characters in them suffer some sort of

superficial pain and the attacker gets rewarded with money and

prizes and points, the result is that perhaps the child will believe

that the same lack of pain and the same pleasure of killing COULD be

the way it is for real. Not that a child would actually g out and

kill someone, yet some have.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" When I was a kid, my parents looked at the video games I played, and

if they saw me get tense or aggressive after using them, they either

stopped me from playing them, or simply gave them away and forbid me

from playing them any more. "

That is what happens in my house too - my son has now realised that

if a game is causing him to feel such a way (and not neccasirily

games with violent content) that he needs to take a time out from

them and he does. However anything that causes my son to have

inappropriate behaviour isn't going to last long in my house and my

son knows this. He does enjoy playing his games - he also really

enjoys being creative and does a lot of art/creative stuff too.

" As much as this would seem abusive if a husband did this to their

wife or wife did this to their husband, one must remember that

children are children and many of the things they will see in their

lives will be situations they have never encountered before. "

I'm not necesarily sure it would be abusive for a wife to check in

with her husband from time to time - if that is what you are

referring too.

I guess it depends on the situation - if it was forced imposed, as in

a jealous husband/wife maybe - however when I have been in long term

relationships (living together) and went out without my partner, I

would ring from where I was just to let them know I am okay and when

I would be likely to return - kind of like a curtesy call. I guess

though this is how I have been brought up - if I went out whilst I

was living at home I would ring my mum from wherever I was to let her

know I was okay and what time I would be returning - I guess I just

consider it common curtesy and stops people worrying too. Plus I feel

it is safer to let people know where you are and who you are with.

" It may seem that way, yet we have a case here where a child

described his killing of a homeless person as being " like a video

game. " "

The games have an age rating for a reason - I remember in the 1980's

some children were viewing what are considered 'video nasties' - I

can't help wondering why such was allowed to happen. Also something

else I find myself questioning is the realistic portrayal in these

games, why are games being made depicting violence and death towards

other humans? and such is considered entertainment? Okay, I don't

know much about the game in question - was it a game where people

actually beat up homeless people? Why is such considered

entertainment?

>

> A) Parents who are negligent in watching what their kids are doing

> ought to be paying more attention, and

>

> Stan replied:

>

> " I'm in favor or parental supervision, but there are some things

> that parents aren't going to have the time to supervise. An

> example is the strategy of a video game, unless the parent is a

> video gamer. If the parent is a video gamer, there wouldn't be

> an issue of supervision anyway. "

>

> To which I say:

>

> I believe you are on the Board of Directors at a school for young

> Aspie children. Am I right?

>

> As someone who was certified to teach in the State of Illinois, who

> went through teacher training (part of that training involving

> extensive psychology, educational psychology, behavioral learning,

> and educational measurement classes) and who did the standard run

of

> clinical experiences, observations, and student teaching, I must

say

> that the data I was able to gather from teachers (especially those

> that have been teaching for more than 20 years) was straight

> forward: Part of the reason kids learn less these days is because

> teachers spend an increased amount of time baby-sitting and less

> time teaching, primarily because parents have spent less time

> mentoring and teaching their kids about how to behave correctly in

a

> classroom setting.

>

> One can posit from the increasing degree of violence taking place

in

> today's schools that morals, values, and ethics are not being as

> ingrained in children at home.

>

> 's supposition that a lack of parental involvement in the

> lives of their children has been proven out in the minds of the

many

> teachers I have worked with.

>

> When I was a kid, my parents looked at the video games I played,

and

> if they saw me get tense or aggressive after using them, they

either

> stopped me from playing them, or simply gave them away and forbid

me

> from playing them any more. This, I believe, was a good thing,

> because instead of spending my time in front of the TV set playing

> video games, I read, or drew, or did artwork, or road bikes with my

> friends, or played a game of scratch baseball if we could find

> enough people to play with.

>

> In other words, I learned more things NOT playing video games than

> playing them. In this way, I learned to see video games as a toy to

> be played with, and, like any other toy, one to be played

> periodically. I never came to my video games like an addict coming

> to get its fix. In this day and age, many kids throw a tantrum if

> they cannot play their games each day. If you think about it, this

> is the reaction addicts get when they can't have their coffee in

the

> morning, or when their cigarettes run out and the store is closed,

> or when they really need a martini and the liquor cabinet is empty.

>

> I said:

>

> " They ought to limit their kids' activities in such a way so that

> beating homeless people to death is not within their scheduled

> activities, and

>

> Stan said:

>

> " Seriously, the activity time is " out with my friends " . How does

> a parent limit that? "

>

> I reply:

>

> A parent limits that by mentoring what friendship is and what

> friends do long before a kid is able to go out with his friends. A

> parent screens the child's friends so that bad influences are not

> part of the picture. A parent asks where the child is going and

when

> the child is planning to return. The parent gives his child a cell

> phone and checks randomly to see if the child is where they are

> supposed to be, and makes sure the child checks in at appointed

> times.

>

> As much as this would seem abusive if a husband did this to their

> wife or wife did this to their husband, one must remember that

> children are children and many of the things they will see in their

> lives will be situations they have never encountered before. It is

> our duties as parents to provide them with as much knowledge and

> ammunition as necessary to deal with these new situations.

> Ammunition comes in the form of morals, values, ethics, and self-

> assurance through positive mentorship. This is seldom given to a

> child in a violent video game. In fact, I rather doubt these

> important things can be found in a video game at all.

>

> I said:

>

> " C) The game manufacturers need to police themselves more carefully,

> and "

>

> Stand said:

>

> " This presumes that " It was like a video game " is the same as

> " The video game made me do it. "

>

> I reply:

>

> It actually does not presume anything. A video game manufacturer

> runs the risk that someone who buys a game will take something from

> the game and attempt it in real life. Although they can probably

> legally defend themselves in some way to avoid responsibility for

> such a thing, it is in the interest of the manufacturers to ensure

> that people most likely to emulate what they see in one of their

> games do NOT receive one of those games.

>

> Stand said:

>

> " 1. " It was like a video game " just means that the kids didn't

> consider it a big deal. To these kids it was no different than

> " Take off every ZIG. " There is nothing in the " like a video

> game " statement that indicates that a video game made it easier

> to beat up homeless people; nothing that indicates that video

> games gave these kids the " skills " to beat up homeless people.

> They didn't even use phasar weapons. "

>

> I say:

>

> I disagree.

>

> The child in question didn't say " It was like something I saw on

> TV. " In this case, the reference was specific. If the video game is

> the first thing to come to the child's mind as a comparative, then

> it would stand to reason that it was the video game which was the

> primary source of influence for the child.

>

> Stan said:

>

> 2. There are people who are not sociopaths who enjoy these games.

> Why should a parent stop their kid from playing a video game

because

> a *different* kid who beats up homeless people talked about a video

> game? I'll bet that kid who beat up homeless people also watched a

> television. "

>

> My reply:

>

> A parent should stop their kid from playing such a game for the

same

> reason a parent would prevent a child's exposure to

>

> 1) Drugs

> 2) Pornography

> 3) R Rated movies

> 4) Irresponsible use of alcohol.

> 5) Underage tobacco use.

>

> Expose a child to these things and the result for children is that

> they are saddled with adult problems when they only have the

ability

> of a child to cope with such problems.

>

> I said:

>

> " D) The stores that sell videogames need to " card " minors when they

> attempt to purchase these games. "

>

> Stand said:

>

> " Proper English translation: Why does a kid need ID to purchase

> a video game? "

>

> My response:

>

> For the same reason that a person needs an ID to purchase alcohol

> and tobacco, and for the same reason that children under 17 should

> not be admitted to R rated movies and children under 18 WILL NOT be

> admitted to NC-17 movies. Violent video games can be traumatizing

> to children. If we want to play Russian roulette with their minds,

> then by all means, a parent should expose them to that sort of

> thing. But since studies show that this sort of thing hurts kids, I

> do not think it is wise at all.

>

> Stan said:

>

> " Still, it's unrealistic to conclude that video games cause kids

> to kill homeless people. "

>

> My response:

>

> It may seem that way, yet we have a case here where a child

> described his killing of a homeless person as being " like a video

> game. "

>

> That you think it is unrealistic doesn't matter in terms of the

> presented facts of this particular beating of a homeless person. It

> has already happened.

>

> Stan said:

>

> " Sociopaths, not gamers. If they think they're playing some

> extrapolated version of a video game, they're beyond BPD. "

>

> My reply:

>

> And yet, as the article states, there was no indication that any of

> these children were sociopaths.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/2007 12:12:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Desensitization dehumanizes and as such, there are those who *DO NOT KNOW* that killing the homeless is *WRONG* because those people aren't really people anyway. Besides:1) gangsta rappers are put on a pedestal for glorifying the 'virtues' (using that word exceptionally loosely here) of getting rid of lesser beings;2) movies show no consequences for senseless killings or for unwarranted attacks;3) video games reward players with points for killing of certain sorts of characters in the game, and in order to become the great gaming god, the more the player kills in the shortest amount of time is the winner. Remember, accuracy counts! (gag)

There are also rarely consequences for getting shot or hurt either. The characters get out of cars after massive accidents, get beat up but in a few minutes are fine and even get shot but after a few minutes of pain are running around just fine. That very rarely happens in real life. People die in car crashes. A beating can kill you even days later if something vital was damaged.

Getting shot is more complicated, but it hurts. I have a police friend who shot a man 3 times with his 9mm and the man kept running, but another officer shot a man with a shotgun and dropped him. These were both men trained to do that kind of thing, but neither liked doing it in the least. I've been shot at once by a poacher and that was really scary. I shot back too, but I didn't hit anything.

But no, I don't think a lot of kids know right from wrong because it isn't PC to teach them that. There are also cultures that value violence and criminal activity over civil society.

Ice - T is an interesting case. He was a big rapper in the late 1980's and early 1990's when I was listening to it. He openly said that he was a former gang member and just barely got out before he was killed. His music was against the gang scene by showing it like it was. Most of the other rappers glorified it, but showed what it was like to get shot and things like that. I can say about his last albums though because he did make one or two after I gave up on rap. He did make several movies though that were anti-gang. I have a lot less trouble with him being on TV than I do about Sista Soulja or Queen Latifa. Both of them had very racist lyrics about murdering white people and police. They said things that even Duke wouldn't dare say because he'd probably get shot in the streets for it.

Raven said:

) Unless it's a severe enough crime, the police won't investigate;2) If the police investigate and you are a lower income person, the stereotype is that:a) "those types of people" are always making trouble; lack of income equals lack of intellect;c) the parties involved must all be criminals on some level anyway.3) If someone is arrested and they make bail, they will come back and retaliate against the person who provided the police with the information that led to the arrest in the first place;4) If someone is arrested and they do NOT make bail, their friends will come over and retaliate against the person who provided the police with the information that led to the arrest in the first place.Don't tell me that this doesn't happen because it does and it happens even in nice little countries like Canada and in nice little town like borough. You were not posting here a couple years ago -- I do not think so anyway -- when I was having horrendous problems with the neighbours in this townhouse complex.

This goes on here too. For a long time we would hear gun shots regularly from the welfare housing around the way. We never bothered to report it because the police would never come. It had been quiet for a while, but lately that has started up again. I don't know if it is just people fooling around or what it is, but I'm not bothering to call the police. Crime is so bad in places, that delivery places won't go to large parts of the city. Repair men and contractors don't like going over there either because people try to get into their vans and steal stuff, sometimes in a mob they can't do anything about. Police do respond fairly quickly here though.

Sorry to hear about those scum you have to deal with Raven. In my opinion, "people" like that should be given a warning to shape up. If they refuse, they should be carted off some place else. I'm thinking were should wall off a lost city, something like Detroit, and shovel the bad people into it.

Really we should have cracked down on all of this 40 years ago. As it is, it is looking like cities will have to be abandoned to the vermin. Problem there is that historically, when the cities are abandoned, collapse is not far off. Personally, I'm all for taking them back.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/2007 12:44:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

You and I live in the same part of the country. I live in the northern 'burbs and you live in Chicago. Whites are now a minority in Chicago with Hispanics outnumbering whites and blacks coming in at about the same percentage as whites. What I know is that the whites who have moved into my neighborhood from Chicago say they have moved there because in the last twenty years, these minorities have managed to instill a reign of terror in white neighborhoods that had previously been in existence since the birth of Chicago.

Where I live minorities have always been the majority. It has been like that since before the Civil War. However, it was also a nice town up through about the 1960's. Since then, crime has been up, while education and family has gone down. Out of 11 public schools, only 3 passed state certification. Teen age births are common as are births to as young 12 and 13 year olds. I still don't know if we have seen the much predicted 10 year old birth yet.

They know how to use terror all right. After Hurricane Isabel, there were rumblings riots a mere two days after that storm devastated the whole area because they didn't have power back on. They got it quick. It took 2 weeks for us to get it and the main power lines and junctions aren't far from here. I actually mounted an armed patrol for the day after the storm and just being seen with a rifle caused the suspicious looking people to leave. There was no looting in this part of town, the better neighborhoods, but I can't say about the rest.

The population here is declining. People are moving out and middle class and up won't move, especially if they have kids. Why put them in schools where they won't learn anything and white kids get beaten up on an almost daily basis?

Like Tom said, this isn't racist, it is what is going on. There are a number of decent black families that live here, including one next door to me. The bad people live in the apartments, the welfare place a couple of blocks over and some of the small houses that used to be GI housing. Crime here is very low, but we do have to keep wary because we know that the bad people come through here. Sad thing is, we can't do anything about them. We call the police, they show up, but rarely does anything get done. Granted they did catch the ones who broke into my house, but that was because those kids got careless and were caught in the act.

Like I said in the other post, if this crime mess isn't sorted out, the cities will end up being abandoned and we'll end up looking like the Third World. Sounds harsh but I think it will happen. We see the trend already in the US where cities like Los Angeles barely has a middle class anymore because they are moving out. Other cities are seeing the same thing happen. It should be telling that so many of the people who left New Orleans after Katrina did not go back because the other cities were safer and jobs paid more. I'm not surprised since New Orleans had a 12% success rate at solving murders let alone other crimes.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

wrote: " My mother is a teacher and she says that every year

it seems like more and more kids are becoming more and more, what is

her word for it?, well I'll just say soft. That's not her word of

course. What I mean is that more and more kids are coming to school

not knowing pretty basic things. "

A lot of that is because they are being raised by a generation of

parents who feel entitled to EVERYTHING in life and so they pass this

on to their children along with catering to their every whim

regardless of whether that is in the child's best interest.

wrote: " [The children] know that if they whine enough, their

parents will do whatever they want. There are several that are real

problems but the parents won't hear anything other than their kids

being perfect angels. "

That's because parenting is HARD WORK and most adults who go on to

have children are not prepared to work that hard at parenting. It's

easier for them to just let the kid have his/her way and be done with

it rather than lay down the law and PARENT.

wrote: " You practically have to have video of them beating

up another kid before they'd believe it, and even then it isn't a

sure thing. "

What you hear most often if you can produce evidence that proves what

the child has done is a parent who says that someone else MADE their

kid that mad so you can't really blame their kid. Yes, you can.

Ultimately, the child chooses how he/she will react to the stimulus

and the child is most assuredly accountable for his/her actions.

wrote: " Telling kids to behave can also be a real headache.

It isn't so bad where my mother teaches because it is a private

school. Public schools though are said to have a major problem with

discipline. One of the high schools around here is so bad that they

actually have police officers patrolling the halls. If that doesn't

just scream that something is seriously wrong I don't know what will. "

Adults have mistakenly and erroneously given children too much power

as well, . The Child Protective Services people and social

workers are constantly telling children that if things aren't going

the way they want them to go, they can phone up CPS or other

authority figures and make a claim of child abuse or child neglect

against the parent.

I remember years ago when an acquaintance of mine was at odds with

her 14-year-old daughter over everything including sneaking behind

her back to 'see' a man who was in his early 20s. Her daughter, upon

hearing she was grounded yet again one afternoon, told her mother

that CPS and social workers had talked to all the kids during school

assembly earlier in the year and that if she made a call to CPS, they

would remove her, place her in a foster home, and she could do what

she wanted that way.

My acquaintance suggested that she was bluffing so her daughter

picked up the phone, set to dial CPS. My friend picked up a writing

pad and a pen and waited patiently for the number pad to be used.

Her daughter looked at her oddly and finally asked her what in

[insert massive profanities here] did she think she was doing. Her

answer?

" I'm taking notes. "

Her daughter looked at her, half confused, half angered by her

mother's words and demanded to know what she meant by " taking notes. "

" Well, " her mom said calmly, " I wouldn't want to make you out to be a

liar, honey, so whatever you tell CPS I've done to you I'm going to

make happen so they believe EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU TELL THEM. " She

paused slightly before continuing. " I figure it will take them at

least an hour to get here after you call so if you're going to claim

a beating, that should be just enough time to do a great job. "

Now, I know my acquaintance wasn't going to harm her child but her

child, ready and willing to lie to CPS about what her mother was

doing, had an epiphany. With nothing to lose, her mother might as

well beat her if that was what she was going to claim because if

you're going to do the time, you might as well do the crime.

It was the last time her daughter ever pulled that stunt and from

that moment onward, her daughter become more manageable and more

easily reasoned with regarding any situation.

The fear that children can put into their parents thanks to such

people as social workers and CPS is unbelievable if the parents are

willing to fall for blackmail and extortion. For those of us who

have never been stupid enough to bend to blackmail and extortion, it

only means that we also have idiotic adults with whom to deal.

As some of you know, swearing is a huge no-no around me. When Cub

has tried it, it results in a writing assignment and a physical

consequence (one paragraph for every explicative used with very clear

expectations concerning the content of the paragraph per word

followed by one floor cleaned on his hands and knees, with a bucket

of hot water and bleach and a rag). Other parents who know of this

consequence are aghast ... not because it is such an awful

consequence but because they are quite certain that CPS would look

unfavourably upon the consequence, thereby putting myself at risk

with CPS.

I say my child is my child and it is my responsibility to ensure that

he understands and follows my rules, my ethics, my morality, et al.

And if they don't like that, they can take it up with me personally

so I can educate them on what good parenting looks like.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> " Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

> of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

> baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

> playing a videogame. "

,

I don't buy it, their cop-out story of a video game taught them how to

be cruel. They got a thrill from thinking about doing it absolutly

knowing it was WRONG! Just as some underage drinkers get the thrill of

getting alcohol, it excites them even before they drink. I DO place

blame on parents who find it a burden to be actively involved in their

children's lives. To intrude on what they feel is their personal space

will lead to a heated debate that they would rather not have. Sorry

kid, this is my home and as long as you live here you are my

responsiblity! Your actions reflect and effect ME! There is right and

there is wrong, if you are doing the latter you have nothing to worry

about.

What does this say about our society. We are not responsible enough to

have a system in place to house the homeless who are willing to except

help. There is no money to be made so therefore it's a situation our

society ignores. We routinely turn away from crime, even when it occurs

in front of us. Don't become involved, let someone else take care of

it. Oh, there are exceptions to this but too few and far between.

> I think what is really worrying me is that videogames are not

> reality - so is this kid/young person basically saying what he did

> didn't feel real?

Baloney, they felt it and it was beyond real. They are trying to place

blame on anything or anybody but themselves.

> How have people/young people/children got so removed from reality?

> Have they really become so desensitized? Do they not realise the

> consequences of their actions? Do they not realize the difference

> between fact/real/reality and fiction?

Again, they are not out of it and knew exactly what they were doing just

like Leopold and Loeb did when they committed murder. It was calculated

and cruel.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Kim wrote: " I don't buy it, their cop-out story of a video game

taught them how to be cruel. They got a thrill from thinking about

doing it absolutly knowing it was WRONG! "

Ah, but that is an assumption on your part that these kids *KNOW*

what they are doing is wrong. If violence on television, in music,

in video games, et al teaches them that some people are lesser beings

and are " there " for their pleasure, they will be desensitized to the

fact that they are dealing with a fellow human being.

This is how Nazi Germany thrived when they brainwashed the populus

into believing that Jews and Homosexuals and Disabled persons were

lesser beings and worthy of being killed off because they

weren't 'really people.' Those who were exposed to this way of

thinking from an early age, easily and quickly believed this to be so

and had no problems whatsoever endangering those people's lives.

Desensitization dehumanizes and as such, there are those who *DO NOT

KNOW* that killing the homeless is *WRONG* because those people

aren't really people anyway. Besides:

1) gangsta rappers are put on a pedestal for glorifying the 'virtues'

(using that word exceptionally loosely here) of getting rid of lesser

beings;

2) movies show no consequences for senseless killings or for

unwarranted attacks;

3) video games reward players with points for killing of certain

sorts of characters in the game, and in order to become the great

gaming god, the more the player kills in the shortest amount of time

is the winner. Remember, accuracy counts! (gag)

This is why parental involvement is crucial and critical to the

formation of morals and ethics in their children. To abdicate this

responsibility is unconscionable and criminal.

Kim wrote: " To intrude on what they feel is their personal space

will lead to a heated debate that they would rather not have. Sorry

kid, this is my home and as long as you live here you are my

responsiblity! Your actions reflect and effect ME! There is right

and there is wrong, if you are doing the latter you have nothing to

worry about. "

Kim you are failing to take into account that a great number of

parents of teenagers grew up on violent games and movies and music.

Gangsta Rap has been a mainstay for over two decades now. Ice-T the

actor on Law & Order is the same Ice-T the gangsta rapper who

actively encouraged his 'homies in the hood' to take out authority

with guns and such. Those are some of the people out there raising

violent children. Do you really think that they take the time to

know right from wrong themselves, much less teach their children

right from wrong? No way. The world OWES THEM and so they teach

their children that the world OWES THEM and they teach their children

that some people have no value so it is no great loss when they are

killed or otherwise die.

Kim wrote: " We routinely turn away from crime, even when it occurs

in front of us. Don't become involved, let someone else take care of

it. Oh, there are exceptions to this but too few and far between. "

And here are some of the reasons why people do not get involved:

1) Unless it's a severe enough crime, the police won't investigate;

2) If the police investigate and you are a lower income person, the

stereotype is that:

a) " those types of people " are always making trouble;

lack of income equals lack of intellect;

c) the parties involved must all be criminals on some level anyway.

3) If someone is arrested and they make bail, they will come back

and retaliate against the person who provided the police with the

information that led to the arrest in the first place;

4) If someone is arrested and they do NOT make bail, their friends

will come over and retaliate against the person who provided the

police with the information that led to the arrest in the first place.

Don't tell me that this doesn't happen because it does and it happens

even in nice little countries like Canada and in nice little town

like borough. You were not posting here a couple years ago -- I

do not think so anyway -- when I was having horrendous problems with

the neighbours in this townhouse complex.

My next door neighbour had mounted a campaign against me because he

was convinced that because I did not do drugs, because I did not get

drunk every weekend, because I did not hang out and do nothing with

the neighbours all day, and because I invested all my time in my

child, that it was obvious that I was a NARC working for the police.

He backed up his assertion with the proof that the Narcotics Task

Force raided the complex regularly and carted many of them away to

jail every time, only to have them return to the complex once bail

was posted. What he failed to take into account was that BEFORE I

moved into the housing complex, the Narcotics Task Force had

oftentimes raided the complex and carted many of them away to jail on

various serious charges.

My child and I were terrorized. Our big plate glass window in the

front room was broken no fewer than four times, tenants would swarm

my townhouse if they knew that Cub was home from school and

was 'looking fragile' and they would never miss a chance to scream

obscenities and profanities and disgusting comments at us whenever we

left the relative safety of our home.

The adults (rolls eyes) routinely encouraged their minor children to

terrorize us because they knew that the police would not charge their

minor children and the adults would be able to continue their reign

of terror against us. And the police could do nothing because,

unless I could identify without a doubt and provide proof that would

stand up in court without blinking, there was nothing they would do

to help us.

Now tell me, Kim ... all these children have gaming systems and all

of them play violent video games (yes, you can always hear them

discussing the latest 'extremely violent' video game so you know they

not only have access to them but they are playing them as well). Not

one of them seems to have a conscience and all of them have the

attitude that children like Cub are there for their amusement because

he isn't 'normal' so it's ok to make his life impossible. It's ok

because if he was 'normal' he wouldn't be 'weird' and he wouldn't

be 'all f***ed up " [their terminology] and worse. But by virtue of

Cub not being what they consider to be 'normal' this makes him a

lesser being.

Since their parents encouraged them in the past to attack my child

verbally and physically, these kids have all the reason they need to

believe that what they think is not only correct, but their right to

carry out. And their parents feel the same way.

Get rid of the cripples. Get rid of the retards. Get rid of the

homeless. They're not real people anyway.

That's how they think. Tell me, Kim ... do you really believe these

children raised by violent, unethical, amoral parents actually *KNOW*

that what they are doing is wrong? No. They have every reason --

because of absent parenting, violent movies, violent music, violent

video games -- to believe that it's ok to kill " some " people.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> " Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

> of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

> baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

> playing a videogame. "

Actually, I wrote this part of it Kim. wrote everything else you

quoted.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> " Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

> of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

> baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

> playing a videogame. "

Actually, I wrote this part of it Kim. wrote everything else you

quoted.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim,

I actually wrote this:

" Well, these parents have a reason to be concerned don't they? Some

of their kids are beating people to death with golf clubs and

baseball bats, and , according to one of these kids, it feels like

playing a videogame. "

You responded:

" I don't buy it, their cop-out story of a video game taught them how

to be cruel. They got a thrill from thinking about doing it

absolutly knowing it was WRONG! Just as some underage drinkers get

the thrill of getting alcohol, it excites them even before they

drink. I DO place blame on parents who find it a burden to be

actively involved in their children's lives. "

You and I live in the same part of the country. I live in the

northern 'burbs and you live in Chicago. Whites are now a minority

in Chicago with Hispanics outnumbering whites and blacks coming in

at about the same percentage as whites.

What I know is that the whites who have moved into my neighborhood

from Chicago say they have moved there because in the last twenty

years, these minorities have managed to instill a reign of terror in

white neighborhoods that had previously been in existence since the

birth of Chicago.

Where you once saw tree-lined streets with neatly painted front

stoops, that had been there for as long as a hundred years, you now

find grafittied houses with the decorations on them smashed to bits,

litter in the streets, young, freshly planted trees stripped of

their leaves and branches, freshly layed sidewalks with footprints

and bike treads scarred through them, beat up cars with busted

windshields, with rapesm robberies, drug trading, and other crimes a

daily occurrence.

Daley's campaign commercials stating that crime in Chicago is down

is BS according to the folks who have moved here. According to them,

crime is simply being reported less because, if you're white, it is

assumed you've reported the crime and you get targeted, whether you

have reported the crime or not. And when the whites move out, the

Hispanics and blacks don;t report the crime because THEY are the

ones perpetrating it.

What they told me is that their black and hispanic neighbors said

they didn't clean up the yards because

A) They will only get dirty again, and

If you look like you don't own anything of value, you ill not get

targeted for a robbery.

They said their Black and Hispanic neighbors trained their kids to

fight, and act tough, and with out mercy, because anyone who attacks

them will fight, act tough, and without mercy.

And they said video games are a prime way to teach their kids the

reflexes and response necessary to fight in such a manner.

I hesitated to post this because I was sure that someone would wind

up saying that I am being prejudiced against Blacks and Hispanics. I

am NOT. It is the TRUTH I have posted here.

As much as Blacks and Hispanics would deny it to your face, what

they are teaching their kids and HOW they are teaching their kids is

well known by the white folks who were wise enough to move out and

attempt to re-establish what the violent segments of those two

minorities took away from them.

I truly believe the solution to this problem is to take the 12

million illegals in this country and throw them out. That would free

up jobs for those who do not have any. With more people working, and

more people making money, there would be fewer people on the streets

and less crime.

In my town, the population has gone down from 44,000 in 1970 to

37,800 now. Yet the number of police on duty and the number of the

patrol cars on the street have increased because of the criminals

spilling over the border from Chicago and causing crime here.

In my local newspaper, it is not uncommon for there to be blurbs

like " A man was arrested at Ace Hardware on Tuesday for stealing a

bolt worth $1.50. He was released on $500 bail and has a March court

date. "

Laughable, right?

Maybe. But yet most of the arrests that take place in this town are

of people passing through it.

This is because the people who live here know that police action

will be quick and swift. Also, if you are getting mugged, you

generally don't get busted if you fight back and beat the tar out of

someone who is mugging you.

It is also because many of the parents who live in this town are the

kinds of " stuffy " ones that won't let their kids play violent video

games or see PG-13 movies even if their kids are above the age of

13. And they don't let their kids out past curfew, which is 10:00.

And so their kids don't have the opportunity to cause trouble.

I have seen other people call this sort of parenting restrictive. I

don't see it that way. I see it as good parenting.

Although not all parents in this town tend to be this way.

In reading the police beat, I keep seeing juveniles arrested for

underage alcohol consumption and pot charges. Yet the names of these

kids tend to be those like " Jimenez " , and " . "

Not Hansen, and and .

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/2007 5:01:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

My area is also mutli-racial, and we have never had any racial tensions to speak of. Any harrassment the minorities get comes from out of town. There is a family of African Americans who moved in to a house near my old high school. When they moved here from Chicagp, they left no forwarding address sp their neighbors, who were drug runners and gang members. couldn't follow them. Eventually, they managed to figure out from the postman where the family moved to and then began harrassing them in my town.

Our problems are more local. It comes from the welfare housing nearby and some of the Section 8 people. The Neighborhood isn't as close as it used to be, but that is no great surprise. When I was a child, most of the people had lived here for a long time. Over the last 10 years or so, the turnover has been very high and over half of the people here have come within the last 4 or 5 years. We used to have a block party every year, but the last one of those was about 15 years ago. As you might guess, those people were the problem. They heard the music and a bunch of young thugs came over and forced their way in. they started a fight with the elderly men who tried to kick them out and the police came. The party broke up after that because we were afraid they were going to come back and shoot the place up. Since then, we haven't had another one. That's too bad too because that was a big chance for the new neighbors to be introduced. Now most people don't know each other.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.