Kid shot by cops? Just on the news...

Subject: Just Curious

I grew up in the waterfront area of Sunset Park and may have seen more then I wanted to.

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, In response to you suggesting that I'm making it "sound" like cops are on safari the way they shoot Black men, You're right!

It not only sounds that way, but doesn't it seem that way? Even hunters out on safari don't go after an animal five on one and spray it with 20+ bullets....

In fact, it seems that hunters are actually more humane when killing their prey since they take fewer shots and use fewer bullets...

And what I am saying is that this safari language, while it feels right, is not true and not helpful if your goal is to make young black men safer.

It's not true because the police do not *set out* to kill anyone, including black men.

It's not helpful to say that the police are *setting out* to kill young black men when they are not for a lot of reasons. It misidentifies the problem. It creates division when there could be unity, and forgets that the cops never wanted to shoot the kid in the first place. It keeps the cops defensive and misunderstood, when they could be talking about what made them think that many shots were necessary, and that could open a dialogue about how to handle similar situations so that kids don't get shot.

I completely understand that everyone needs to do something, and not just black men. One thing we can all do is talk openly about what is actually happening here.

Boys are getting shot at twenty times when there is no real threat, and that is outrageous and wrong, and perpetuates a racial division that creates nothing but muck.

Cops are being mischaracterized as actual hunters of young black boys, and that is also outrageous and wrong, and perpetuates a racial division that creates nothing but muck.

Both sides--the cops who shot and the outraged people who call the cops hunters--acted thus because they perceived a threat, not because they are evil or inhuman.

We are all caught in the same trap. We are all acting badly.

The problem with your comparison is that one leaves bodies full of bullets and the other one doesn't. Freedom of speech is understandable shooting people 41 and 20 times is not. The words didn't ever cause a cop to shoot an unarmed person, so your creation story is a hard sell. Most cops are good and responsible, but like every other job you have some punks, cowards and crooks.

I understand what you're saying, but I am not talking about creation, and am not talking about the equal *moral weight* of these two actions.

What I am trying to say is that both actions *perpetuate* the violence equally. One party has the gun, but both parties are involved in creating the violence.

It's like being in an abusive relationship with a person. It's hard to see anything except the person doing the hitting as the wrong one, and the person being hit as the innocent victim, and in *moral* terms this is true. But that way of looking at the problem tends to at least perpetuate and often escalate the actual hitting. Generally, only the victim can make the hitting stop.

That is both because the victim is playing an active role in being abused, and paradoxically, because of the moral strength of their position, has a lot more power than the abuser.

It takes superhuman strength to let go of that moral power and trust that in doing so you gain a much larger power, but we all know from watching our own families that you can only get so much power and about zero happiness as a martyr.

What I am saying is that it's imparative to turn that moral strength of victimhood into an active tactical strength that will actually work to solve the problem. MLK and Ghandi did this.

Al Sharpton is not. He's merely a manipulator of emotions, and is mostly working to service his own ego.

eberri, I gave this post a lot of thought and I think what I most disagree with and maybe what others have a hard time accepting is this part

“but it does explain how tremendously challenging it is to overcome especially if given little to no help/direction/guidance from ones immediate family or even society as a whole.”

While I and other posters have either witnessed or can imagine situations where one’s own family is your own worse enemy, I don’t see how you can say that Society doesn’t tell you what it expects from you and tells you what you have to do to get ahead.

Even if your knowledge of society is limited strictly to just TV and movies – how can you not get with the program? As a kid I watched Good Times religiously (I’m old) – the Evans’s never had money and we saw James Sr. go from shitty job to shitty job and maybe get a decent job only to be laid off through no fault of his own. Money was always tight, they lived in rundown not too safe projects, but the message was always there – go to school, be respectful of others and yourself, life’s not fair and you work hard, but never give up. And that message has basically been repeated in every TV show ever put on air.

What show has ever told poor people to just give up? Or turn to a life of crime? Or that crime pays? And if you make the assumption that you only ever watch “Black shows” like on UPN or BET – those TV families are even more wholesome and hardworking than their White counterparts. If all you watch are violent New Jack City type movies, the bad guy always loses and the cops win and there’s usually a cool Black cop in the mix as well. There are condom ads and No To Drugs ads on TV and billboards.

Those same said messages are repeated ad nausem in schools and out of the words of politicians and preachers. If you live on a shitty block every dealer you know winds up getting shot or going to jail. Every junkie winds up dead or in jail. Everybody who’s a teen parent and drops out of school goes nowhere and has no money.

So some people choose to ignore every message thrown at them by TV, movies, school, church, city hall and the evidence they see with their own eyes.

So you can see where everybody else who’s gotten with the message, including the majority of other poor folks, kind of throw their hands up in the air and wish that these knuckleheads would just go away.

There are deep and serious flaws in the system currently in place , but there’s tons out there – mentoring, after school programs, scholarships, Big Brothers and Sisters, church groups, volunteer groups, free pre-natal screening, detox and drug/alcohol counseling and 12 steps, etc.

Because what do we do with them – force them into education camps, like when the US forcibly sent Native children to learn English and Christianity?

eberri wrote: So, according to what you wrote, people should learn what they need to from movies, TV and billboards right? And if they don't get the message, its on them....

No the point of going on about TV, billboards, etc. was in response to posts which made it seem that current society actively works to hide how one should get ahead and improve their social and financial lot. Directly and indirectly, mainstream popular culture shows you what you should and should not do to get all the new shiny stuff they show you on commercials. Stay in school, pay attention in school, obey parents and authority figures, no crime, no drinking too much, no drugging too much, no teen babies, working your job right until you get a better job or promotion, no jail time - however corny those messages may seem - they've been repeated endlessly since Day One.

And it'd be hard to argue that one would be better off doing the opposite of any of those.

Basically I don't think anyone can claim that they don't really know what it is that they're supposed to do to not flounder in society. I'm not advocating that if you do flounder that you should be run out of town or starved to death, but if you are floundering then you really need to look at yourself and your surroundings and figure out what can and can't be fixed.

eberri wrote: I can't believe you even referenced "Good Times", a show from the '70's based on life in the projects with a studio audience and a laugh track. I'm not sure where you are from, but believe that "Good Times" bears no resemblance to the Marcy Projects. One key factor of the show that you are overlooking is that what got the family through their challenges every week was not the fact that life in the project wasn't so bad or that society wasn't a challenge, it was that they had the support of each other, family, which made the difference, which again, not everyone has. So what do you do with those kids, who grow up, become adults and have nothing to offer the world except what they learned from their lifetime in the ghetto? I guess some posters (and thanks for speaking for so many of them) too obsessed with finding a good cheese or wine shop while sending their kids to private school really give it any thought....

As I read that part of your post – what it sounds like is - What to do with people who are failed by their own families?

As I argued in my earlier posts "Society" tells us what it expects of us all. The message is everywhere, suffused in everything we read, see, hear and are taught.

As flawed and overrun as systems may be Society has created and maintains massive official relief mechanisms - WIC, social security, Medicare Medicaid, public schools, etc. On top of these officially mandated orgs. there are tons of privately run and supported groups - mentoring, church groups, civic groups, etc.

So with all the above going on, if you fail then one is likely to surmise that it's due to your own actions/failings or those of your family.

Or more bluntly put, it’s not society's fault. Or it's certainly not 100% or even 80% society's fault - it's you and yours.

Basically you're calling for society to be a 1000x more intrusive in the lives of the at-risks, and how is that not going to cause a lot more problems?

Do we pull children out of their homes and environments, and put'em in group homes and drill them in math, reading and life skills? Do we test and then force ill-educated parents to attend educational and parenting classes? How about forced drug and alcohol tests followed by forced detox? Forced psych screenings and subsequent treatment for those with mental issues?

Who decides who's in trouble or which family gets the meddling?

To be 100% fair, it would have to be that every single household in NYC is visited by a troupe of social workers, nurse and specialists. Too much, how about just the families of anyone who's arrested for any reason? Or kids with less than a Bminus avg in school? Or any minor who's either pregnant or listed as a father? Or anyone who hasn't filed a 1040 or worked a steady job in x years?

See where I'm going? What would you have us do? How do we keep tons of people from not constantly shooting themselves in the foot?

I really didn't want to respond to BoogieKnight's "Good Times" reference so thank you for pointing out the sheer idiocy of it. If only a television show or movie could fix all the problems in society... If anything contemporary media reinforces the stereotypes these kids find difficult to escape. Do you think these kids are watching "Everybody Loves Raymond" or "Greys Anatomy"? How many songs or videos do you see telling kids to stay in school and go to college?

The core of the problem is a lack of a supportive family structure. The glorification of irresponsible behavior, greed and violence has created a subculture where dysfunctional families are the norm and children are not even exposed to the value of education. Their own expectations and those of the society around them are low and time horizons are short.

That's not to say people bear no responsibility for their actions. If someone does something that is illegal they should suffer the consequences. The problem is that the consequence (jail) is no longer a deterrent for many. I know a kid who said he didn't mind going to jail because all his friends were there. It's a coming of age event for a certain segment of the population. Luckily a small segment but for that group's reality is very different from that of mainstream America and I think it is difficult for some to really understand the struggles these kids go through.

Boogie Knight, your "Society" is not the same as everyone else's... Some kids grow up in an environment where the only people they see doing well are on the corner. Where the only doctor visits are at the emergency room. Where college isn't even considered an option because high school isn't a foregone conclusion. I wish it wasn't the case but I think some posters may not have the ability to really understand the situation at hand because their own reality is so far removed from what really goes on.

Getting back on topic... I think most (if not everyone) can agree that firing 20 shots at an unarmed suspect (with 10 hitting the suspect) is excessive force. The fact that no one (Black or White) is surprised goes to show how little value is placed on the life of Black man. It reinforces those low expectations and creates tension between the police and the citizens they are supposed to protect. Do you think the public's response would be the same if these victims were White?

Of course we need to fix the school system... We need to change the way school's are funded, we need better early childhood learning classes, we need better prenatal care and parenting courses... We need to change the way drug offenses are prosecuted, we need to make changes to the way the welfare system works, we need more mixed income affordable housing developments...There are ways to improve the situation without being overly intrusive but you have to start early.

Carlton Banks wrote: I really didn't want to respond to BoogieKnight's "Good Times" reference so thank you for pointing out the sheer idiocy of it. If only a television show or movie could fix all the problems in society... If anything contemporary media reinforces the stereotypes these kids find difficult to escape. Do you think these kids are watching "Everybody Loves Raymond" or "Greys Anatomy"? How many songs or videos do you see telling kids to stay in school and go to college?

Oh come on now, twice I tried to explain that the point of the Good Times reference is pointing out that 99% of the message put out by the media and popular culture is in the law abiding - work hard-stay in school-say no to drugs vein (excuse the accidental pun).

I never said the solution to life's problem is to be found in tv and movies.

Since you're so certain that these kids are not watching Raymond or Grey's, pray tell, what are they watching. What tv shows and movies regularly glorify antisocial or criminal activity and actively discourage kids going to school? How many tv shows and movies show criminals and never do wells getting away with it and leading happy go lucky lives (I'll give you 3 - Ocean's 11 thru 13 - real realistic those movies)).

Please let me know, I'd like to check them out.

If these kids are actively avoiding 99% of everything broadcast on tv and cable and ignoring intelligent acts like Mos Def, Badu, Common, Jill Scott etc. and just listening to guns and ho crap - how is that society's fault?

Again, these kids face real problems. What I'm saying is that what's on tv, movies, radios, etc. are not the problem. The messages put out by mainstream society - are not the problem.

If the problem is that these kids and ther families have locked themselves into a worldview that actively excludes and ignores what 95% of every single other person in the city, country and the world are seeing and hearing - then you have two options.

You forcibly drag them into a classroom or somesuch and make sure they understand what the rest of us have been hip to since we were 6 years old, or you let them be.

I'm actually more inclined to be all up in their business and make sure they get their shit together, but that is mighty intrusive and is bound to piss off a whole lot of people for a ton of very valid reasons.

Boogie Knight, I appreciate the effort but you are so far removed from their reality you don't seem to have the ability to understand (as evidenced by the almost offensive "Good Times" reference). You have no idea what kids are watching and listening to. I suggest you actually meet some of these kids before you feign any knowledge of the situation. I think you are on the right side of the problem but you're clueless with regard to the reality of these kids.

Again, there is no substitute for personal responsibility but understand that these kids grow up in an environment where violence and crime are the norm and there may not be anyone around to tell them otherwise. I know you tried to explain the "Good Times" reference but your explanation is lacking... The media is not a substitute for the guidance of family and role models.

I'm not going to watch television and learn how to be a "good citizen". If that was the case the counterculture of the 1960's would not have occurred because at the time everything in mainstream media was "wholesome".

I don't blame mainstream society, but again, they are not really part of mainstream society. I'm just trying help individuals such as yourself better understand the situation at hand.

I'm going to let you know so you can check it out... No they don't listen to Mos Def or Talib Kweli or Jill Scott. That audience is very different... More of the "NeoSoul" crowd which tends to be more educated and not part of this subculture. Do you know any Black kids under the age of 21? Here's what they listen to:

Jay Z
Freeway
T.I.
50 Cent
Cassidy
Plies
T-Pain
Fat Joe
Lil Wayne
Fabolous
Playaz Circle
Gucci Mane
Styles P

Most of these artists glorify a lifestyle you wouldn't consider "mainstream". Kanye is probably the only hip-hop artist with a decent message that kids listen to.

Here's what they watch:
BET
MTV
American Gangster
Any mafia/gangster movie you can think of (ex. Scarface, the movie and video game)
Reality television (American Idol)
Movies like "Snakes on a Plane" and "Transformers"

Other than reality shows no kids watch broadcast television, especially boys. You also have the video games a previous poster mentioned.

Again, I'm not trying to "blame" anyone just giving you and idea of what's going on because regardless of the media, their reality is what it is. You can't "be all up in their business". It's sad to say but I'm of the opinion you have to let those who are set in their ways go... We have to focus on kids before they buy into destructive behavior.

I'm a mentor with a program called Girls Quest. I have a wonderful, bright 13-year old mentee who comes from a single-mother household. Her mother is great. She's hands-on and as involved as she can possibly be given her extremely challenging work schedule. It was her idea to get her daughter into a mentoring program and I work closely with her in terms of scheduling activities with her daughter.

It's a challenging but very rewarding experience. I encourage anybody who has the time and commitment to volunteer their time and perspective.

Sorry, I pressed submit before addressing all of your questions! I see my mentee twice a month for about 4 hours each time. I have planned days that consisted of:

lunch and MoMa
spa afternoon for a manicure and pedicure
museum of the moving image
dance performance at BAM
the bronx zoo
yankee game


I try not to do the same thing twice and try to do something she is interested in. I really enjoy our time together!

From my reading of this thread, I don't think Boogie Night is being defeatest, he is noting that the kids that Carlton Banks wants to give up on because they are "set in their ways" will still need to be focused on, and short of enrolling them in locked down dorm schools, what can be done about such kids. He is posing a question. I think he is correct in saying that such kids will likely behave the same way no matter what we do, unless they are forced to go to school and do their work.

Clearly, the real fault here lies with absentee fathers, plain and simple. To say drug laws need to be revised is debatable, sure, but fathers shouldn't be doing drugs to begin with.

Is it true that the amount of money allocated to different NYC schools is not dependent on the property tax roll of the area in which the school is located, but rather that there is an overall budget allocated proportionately amongst the public schools? If that is the case, then there is a separate problem with the teachers, adminstrators and/or the parent/study population at the schools.

Boogie Knight,

I'll address each point you made...

I agree... There's no way to save every kid. The long term ideas I mention are meant to change the systemic nature of the cycle of poverty, meaning they look to help future generations. They are not meant to implemented quickly or be intrusive. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's very difficult to change those who are already set in their ways.

Mentoring is effective in changing the outcomes of at-risk kids. Again, my exact quote was "Mentoring is one way to fight the problem." It is not a scaleable solution that addresses the underlying systemic issues previously mentioned. That being said, it's still a very positive way for individuals to affect change and is very rewarding on a personal level.

With regard to the de facto segregation of housing and the introduction of more mixed income housing, you are looking at things in a very simplistic way. You are also neglecting current economic trends which are bringing more mixed income neighborhoods through the invisible hand of Adam Smith (simple economics or market forces). Of course you don't force a middle income family into Marcy Projects. You don't have to. If you look at Bed Stuy today the neighborhood is changing and no one is forced to move there.

Another example, Fort Greene. The neighborhood has the largest contiguous block of projects in all of NYC. It is also one of if not the most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC. Escalating real estate values have driven middle class families to what used to be a low/middle income neighborhood. Brownstones in the area go for over a million dollars now. Relatively rich newcomers live next door to longtime residents. Look at Myrtle (formerly "Murder") Avenue. Mixed income doesn't necessarily mean moving rich people into the projects.

In addition, look at the new projects being built. In today's NY Times there is an article discussing the new residential project at BAM and the fact it's a mixed income development. The new Ratner project (whether you support it or not) will bring more mixed income housing. The housing along Cumberland and S. Oxford between Atlantic and Fulton is mixed income. My desire for more mixed income areas is so people are exposed to each other and coexist. In additon, mixed income areas bring a higher tax base and improved services. It's not a coincidence that crime decreases (roads get repaved, mail services improve, etc.) in areas of gentrification. For a variety of reasons, the city puts more resources in areas with higher tax bases. It's not about forcing people to do anything. The market forces behind gentrification are forcing the issue not government.

When it comes to schools, the same phenomenon occurs over the long term. Middle income families move into a neighborhood and become actively involved in the local public schools (at least at an elementary and middle school level, high school is another story). Many of these parents have more time to volunteer, interest in their child's education, resources to invest in the school and desire to make the school better. You can't fix these problems in a day or a week or a year. Over time the schools do improve. I'm not trying to force kids into sub par schools. Again, the focus is long term. P.S. 20 in Clinton Hill is a good example.


Unions and firefighters and cops... Again your argument is very simplistic and short-sighted. Of course you don't have exclusionary hiring practices until there is racial/sexual parity. That's ridiculous and discriminatory towards White applicants. You can find out why historically minorities and women have been underrepresented, address those factors and make sure that each new class has racial/sexual parity and over time the complexion of these groups will change. The NYFD and NYPD have already implemented many of these changes and we will see the results over the next 5-10 years.

Parenting and sex ed... With education it's about starting early. You can't force kids to listen to anything. Forcing the issue usually creates a negative outcome which is obviously not the intention. The focus is on kids who have not yet made life altering decisions to drop out of school or have a baby. The idea of withholding public assistance is a thought, but do we want people to starve or lose their apartments because they can't control their child? I would lean towards an incentive based system rather than one based on punishment but that's debatable and you could probably structure a combination of the two.

You may not be defeatist but you seem to be focused on "forcing things":. "Force middle class families into the projects"..."drop a 7th grader from a failing school into a successful school"..."round'em up and force them to listen to the lecture"..."only hire and train people of color for the next few years"... You have to play with the cards you've been dealt but in this game there is more than one hand to be played...it's more like a tournament and hopefully you can stack your chips over time.

You can't force anything. These are solutions that change longstanding systemic problems. It will take time. As I stated earlier, it is very difficult to change an individual's behavior once they are set in their ways. You can't save everyone but hopefully, over time, you can make fundamental changes to the underlying system which in its current form sustains inequality.

Parenting and sex ed... With education it's about starting early. You can't force kids to listen to anything. Forcing the issue usually creates a negative outcome which is obviously not the intention. The focus is on kids who have not yet made life altering decisions to drop out of school or have a baby. The idea of withholding public assistance is a thought, but do we want people to starve or lose their apartments because they can't control their child? I would lean towards an incentive based system rather than one based on punishment but that's debatable and you could probably structure a combination of the two.

See this is where I start to disagree with you. Parenting problems don't start when kids are eleven, twelve or thirteen. They start when the kids are babies. When you have a parent who is putting soda in their child's baby bottle, or sitting out on their stoop at 2am with their 18 month old running up and down the street, or a parent who is calling their three year old "that little m*!(&$f^@#er"; (all of which I've seen) the kids are already lost.

Giving people incentives for "good" behavior is a start, but the fundamental problem with that is that people have to believe that the incentive is worth it. I think that what the city is going to find is that the parents they are reaching are folks who are already doing the right thing. Parents who believe that its okay to feed thier toddlers McDonalds every day will probably not change that behavior for the promise of $50 or $100. When the kids are under the age of ten I really think that punishing the parents is the better way to go. Three and four year olds that are morbidly obese aren't that way because they won't listen, they are that way because their parents overfeed them and feed them crap.

Carlton Banks, I mean this as respectfully as possible, but I don't think a lot of the comments from others are directed at you or at what you're saying. People don't seem to want to argue, but to discuss how those who don't seem to want to take advantage of any program offered will get ahead. I wouldn't take suggestions and questions as personally as your replies suggest. This has been a good thread the past couple of days, but snarky comments like "If you had read my comments..." come across as someone looking for an argument, not a dialogue.