Bloody Weekend in Chicago - Where's Obama?

[frankq]

Yeah, all that gun control is making people safer in Chicago isn't it?

And although I admit my first thought was "Sweet Ronald McDonald, I've committed suicide for a burger.", my Canadian PC conditioning (which some might call lack of self-preservation) paid off. I thought "must... not... give in... to... racial... stereotypes" and stood in line with everybody else as though nothing was amiss. And within a minute nobody cared that I was there anymore, so I'm glad I didn't chicken out. But if Pres. Obama thinks he's the only one who's ever been followed in a store or eyeballed because of his race, he's sorely mistaken.

Hey Virgil, the reason you made out ok is that they thought you must have been a cop......

[The Captain]

For everyone who considers' it just shit stirring - President Obama got his start as a political and social activist in Chicago's minority community.  He got his start in elected office by being elected as a state senator by a minority/majority district.

He built his political career on the premise of representing Chicago's minorities.  

I (as do some of some of my "minority" friends) find his lack of commentary on Chicago black on black violence very disturbing.  

It's like he got what he wanted out of them and has forgotten his roots (not my words).

I would hope that if there was a problem in my adopted hometown I would be brave enough to address it.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 12, 2013 20:43:35 GMT -5 The Captain said:

For everyone who considers' it just shit stirring - President Obama got his start as a political and social activist in Chicago's minority community.  He got his start in elected office by being elected as a state senator by a minority/majority district.

He built his political career on the premise of representing Chicago's minorities.  

I (as do some of some of my "minority" friends) find his lack of commentary on Chicago black on black violence very disturbing.  

It's like he got what he wanted out of them and has forgotten his roots (not my words).

I would hope that if there was a problem in my adopted hometown I would be brave enough to address it.

As much as you like to think otherwise, the United States and the rest of the world does not revolve around Chicago.  

The problem is best addressed by the governor of Illinois, the mayor of Chicago, its city council, and most of all, its citizens..

[The Captain]

Actually I don't think the world revolves around chicago, but the point is he saw fit to address a single incident and even pointed out the boy could have been his son...however the dozens of black kids that are getting shot up in his home town (who could also be his son/daughter) don't merit a single word?  I sure the parents of those dead kids think the world used to revolve around them.

By your words Tennesseer the incident in FL was best addressed by local police, and Florida state attorney yet the White House deemed fit to get involved with that case and you didn't use the same line there... not once.

What's the difference beside the color of the person who pulled the trigger and the body count?  Or do black kids only matter in your world if they are killed by a hispanic or white person?

[Opti]

The single incident concerning Trayvon and George was part of the national stage due to the fact that George wasn't charged and it reached the DOJ. I think commenting on local issues should be reserved for local folk unless it becomes a national issue otherwise it looks like favoritism from the person doing it.

The thing is there is black on black violence in probably every major city in the US. Why is Chicago important but not Philly, Newark or Baltimore? Its because some people think he should be addressing issues for a job he never really had and doesn't have now. Its really rare that congress critters at the federal or state levels ever address local violence head on. It is usually mayors and police forces that take on that issue.


Remember when Bush addressed the Terry Shiavo case? That was because it made the national stage. He didn't address similar cases in Texas or anywhere else because they were not national issues.

[Opti]

Thecaptain I'm really curious as to what you and your friends think Obama should do concerning the violence in Chicago. I'm not that familiar with his career in Chicago politics. Was he regularly addressing the black on black violence issue then? Did he start some programs and they've been dismantled when he left?


His jurisdiction is federal now. Anything he does can only be done at a federal level not state, not city. The DOJ has a narrow ability to interfere on the basis of justice that might be missing due to racist issues. Black on black violence, white on white violence, hispanic on hispanic violence, does not fit that mandate. Not in the federal jurisdiction.
Unless they are federal crimes. Then the standard this is a federal crime not a state one stuff takes over.



I think some folks emotions and desires are blinding them to what the job Obama has now covers. The jobs before IMO didn't even cover black on black violence. He could have commented then and it at most will have the weight of a celebrity at best. Somehow I don't think gang members or the recently convicted mobster in Boston overly care about what any political figure says or wants. They are more concerned about power and making money from their crimes.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2013 6:15:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Actually I don't think the world revolves around chicago, but the point is he saw fit to address a single incident and even pointed out the boy could have been his son...however the dozens of black kids that are getting shot up in his home town (who could also be his son/daughter) don't merit a single word?  I sure the parents of those dead kids think the world used to revolve around them.

By your words Tennesseer the incident in FL was best addressed by local police, and Florida state attorney yet the White House deemed fit to get involved with that case and you didn't use the same line there... not once.

What's the difference beside the color of the person who pulled the trigger and the body count?  Or do black kids only matter in your world if they are killed by a hispanic or white person?

It is of no concern to me if you are unable to tell the difference between a singular incident and a continuing problem.  Most unblinded folks are able to do so.

[The Captain]

Tennesseer

Rather than continously resorting to veiled personal attacks how about engaging in the debate, unless that is not your real intent in these discussions?

As far as the singular incident you address, I thought the fact that it WAS part of a perceived continuing problem that caused it to make national headlines...at least that was your agrument in those threads.  What am I missing here?

Finally, I go back to my original point, President Obama is FROM Chicago, it's his hometown - he still maintains a residence here.  He was a social activist in these areas.  He built his political base less than miles from where these murders are happening yet is strangly silent on the epidemic of black on black violence except to use it as a platform to tout more gun control.

www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-personalizes-gun-violence-in-chicago-87726_Page2.html

And yes, even the article I posted above states very clearly that the murder of the young lady who sang at his inaguration brought the issue into the NATIONAL spotlight, so even the press acknowledges it as a national issue, just like the Florida shooting.

[Tennesseer]

You post a link about the president mentioning the Chicago girl's shooting in his 2013 State of the Union address along with meeting with her mother.  The president calls for gun control to help stop the shootings.  the press prints the story.  Yet the president hasn't addressed the shootings in Chicago, his adopted home town.  


What do you want the president to do?  Would a daily press conference of Obama weeping, wailing, and gnashing his teeth over the shootings in Chicago appease you?

[workpublic]

the POTUS pointing out chicago black on black crime would publicize the futility/failure of gun control laws.

[The Captain]

Aug 13, 2013 8:45:28 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You post a link about the president mentioning the Chicago girl's shooting in his 2013 State of the Union address along with meeting with her mother.  The president calls for gun control to help stop the shootings.  the press prints the story.  Yet the president hasn't addressed the shootings in Chicago, his adopted home town.  


What do you want the president to do?  Would a daily press conference of Obama weeping, wailing, and gnashing his teeth over the shootings in Chicago appease you?

 Valid points. 

Since you've asked what I'd  like the president to do, is acknowledge we have a situation in Chicago that needs to be addressed somehow - perhaps some functional ideas as well.  AND not focus only on Chicago but address that the issue of black on black violence needs to be examined and solutions found. 

It is a national problem that (at least IMHO) destroyes more lives then racism does.

It's not just Chicago, but Detroit, New Orleans, Milwaukee, St. Louis etc.  I understand that you are more likely to be murdered by someone whom you know, or lives near you, but the group under discussion make up about 13% of the total population but account for about 50% of all homicides.  The fact that this is not a major discussion in the national arena absolutely confounds me.

I'm more concerned about people becoming numb to this type of violence than anything else.  I'm saddened that there isn't more outrage over this.  It almost seems like it's become acceptable because the folks impacted are black.  Yet we have one young man shot, and because it wasn't another black man who shot him, it becomes newsworthy. 

[mmhmm]

Personally, I don't want to see the head of state pick out a particular city and speak about the violence in that city.  I particularly wouldn't want the president to speak about that city's violence because it was his "home town".  If he's going to speak to the issue of violence, it should (IMO) be about all violence, everywhere.

[hurley1980]

Wait, I'm confused....do you want Obama to address every friggin violent act in every city in America, or do you want him to do his job, like reducing the budget, creating jobs, etc?  Lets face it, when it comes to conservatives, Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. 

First everyone is bitching because he made a few statements on nationwide issues he was asked about, and now you are expecting him to go out and make statements about the violence problem in inner city Chicago  Why don't you become a journalist and ask him then?  I'm sure he would respond if the question was brought forth, just like he responded to questions about TM, Sandy Hook, etc.

[hurley1980]

Aug 13, 2013 11:03:48 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 13, 2013 8:45:28 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You post a link about the president mentioning the Chicago girl's shooting in his 2013 State of the Union address along with meeting with her mother.  The president calls for gun control to help stop the shootings.  the press prints the story.  Yet the president hasn't addressed the shootings in Chicago, his adopted home town.  


What do you want the president to do?  Would a daily press conference of Obama weeping, wailing, and gnashing his teeth over the shootings in Chicago appease you?

 Valid points. 

Since you've asked what I'd  like the president to do, is acknowledge we have a situation in Chicago that needs to be addressed somehow - perhaps some functional ideas as well.  AND not focus only on Chicago but address that the issue of black on black violence needs to be examined and solutions found. 

It is a national problem that (at least IMHO) destroyes more lives then racism does.

It's not just Chicago, but Detroit, New Orleans, Milwaukee, St. Louis etc.  I understand that you are more likely to be murdered by someone whom you know, or lives near you, but the group under discussion make up about 13% of the total population but account for about 50% of all homicides.  The fact that this is not a major discussion in the national arena absolutely confounds me.

I'm more concerned about people becoming numb to this type of violence than anything else.  I'm saddened that there isn't more outrage over this.  It almost seems like it's become acceptable because the folks impacted are black.  Yet we have one young man shot, and because it wasn't another black man who shot him, it becomes newsworthy. 

Also, it wasn't gang related. The child in question was unarmed, the man who fired the shot was recorded multiple times by police as profiling and following him, and then got off on a self defense law. But there is a whole different thread on this, so I don't think we really need to get into the difference between a gang shooting in chicago, and the TM case. 

[The Captain]

Aug 13, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Aug 13, 2013 11:03:48 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Also, it wasn't gang related. The child in question was unarmed, the man who fired the shot was recorded multiple times by police as profiling and following him, and then got off on a self defense law. But there is a whole different thread on this, so I don't think we really need to get into the difference between a gang shooting in chicago, and the TM case. 

Just because someone is black it means they are in a gang, really?  WOW what a leap.

A lot of the people who are killed are not in any gangs, they are innocents caught in the cross-fire.  Even so, does the fact that someone is in a gang make killing them ok?  I don't get that.

You call the person in question a child at 17, if that is your cutoff then the percentage of those children murdered in Chicago is roughly 25% (up from 10% in the 60's) so people are dying younger in greater numbers. I don't get why this is even remotely ok.

[Virgil Showlion]

He shouldn't have said anything about the George Zimmerman case except "Mr. Zimmerman was tried and acquitted. I have faith in the Florida justice system. I respect their autonomy."

He shouldn't be expected to comment on the ongoing violence in Chicago every few weeks.

Agreed? Agreed.

[hurley1980]

Aug 13, 2013 12:07:21 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 13, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Also, it wasn't gang related. The child in question was unarmed, the man who fired the shot was recorded multiple times by police as profiling and following him, and then got off on a self defense law. But there is a whole different thread on this, so I don't think we really need to get into the difference between a gang shooting in chicago, and the TM case. 

Just because someone is black it means they are in a gang, really?  WOW what a leap.

A lot of the people who are killed are not in any gangs, they are innocents caught in the cross-fire.  Even so, does the fact that someone is in a gang make killing them ok?  I don't get that.

You call the person in question a child at 17, if that is your cutoff then the percentage of those children murdered in Chicago is roughly 25% (up from 10% in the 60's) so people are dying younger in greater numbers. I don't get why this is even remotely ok.

Where did I say that?  I mentioned nothing about being black, you did.  I mentioned that it wasn't gang related incident, whereas a lot of the crime in Chicago is gang related, and the spike in homocides has been blamed on said gang problems. Gang problems are not typically covered on a national level UNLESS a bystander or officer is caught in cross-fire.  If every gang murder was on tv, its all we would see on the news day in and day out.  If the President commented on every gang murder, he would never get anything done!!!  That is what the police and local officials are for.  It doesn't make it okay, I never said it did, so quit putting words in my mouth.  All I was saying is the reason the TM case got such publicity versus a typical gang shooting in Chicago, is because it was out of the norm, and sadly, gang shootings are somewhat of a norm for Chicago now it seems.

And yes, I do believe 17 is a child.  And it is aweful that 25% of the murders in Chicago are children, but it is something the City needs to deal with.  Not the president.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Yet we have one young man shot, and because it wasn't another black man who shot him, it becomes newsworthy.

No, it was newsworthy because we had a guy shoot an unarmed teenager and he wasn't charged with anything.  If he'd been arrested on the scene and charged with something nobody outside of Florida would have ever heard about the case.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Even so, does the fact that someone is in a gang make killing them ok? I don't get that.

It would be one way to tackle our gang problem.  The people living in those neighborhoods know who the bangers are.  They know which guys stand on the corners and peddle poison to their kids, they know which ones are terrorizing them.  If the law abiding citizens in those neighborhoods started gunning them down on sight, or running them out of town, they could clean up their neighborhoods.

No programs, no pleading, no early intervention, no counseling, no prison time and pray they shape up, a simple 10 cent rifle bullet from 50 yards and you'd have one less thug destroying the neighborhood.  After a few dozen of them get gunned down they'll realize that the community isn't going to stand by and put up with their bullshit anymore.

[djAdvocate]

Newark is a top 10 murder rate city.  should we blame Christy?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2013 13:40:06 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Yet we have one young man shot, and because it wasn't another black man who shot him, it becomes newsworthy.

No, it was newsworthy because we had a guy shoot an unarmed teenager and he wasn't charged with anything.  If he'd been arrested on the scene and charged with something nobody outside of Florida would have ever heard about the case.

palmbeachpaul kept on trying to make the Zimmerman/Martin disaster a black-on-black incident by noting Zimmerman's great-grandfather was Afro-Peruvian.

[swamp]

Aug 13, 2013 14:13:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Newark is a top 10 murder rate city.  should we blame Christy?

No, he's a republican. It's not his fault. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 13, 2013 18:01:36 GMT -5 swamp said:

Aug 13, 2013 14:13:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Newark is a top 10 murder rate city.  should we blame Christy?

No, he's a republican. It's not his fault. 

oh yeah, that's right.  thanks for reminding me.

[EVT1]

Why is this a topic?  Is it A) Because Obama commented on the Zimmerman case and the issue deflection took hold, or B) Because he was from Chicago or a mixture of the two?

[Artemis Windsong]

During DH's research on the Zimmerman/Martin demonstrations, he found that there had been 7,000 black on black murders and no one was marching and protesting in Chicago for those.

[billisonboard]

Aug 13, 2013 20:08:09 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

During DH's research on the Zimmerman/Martin demonstrations, he found that there had been 7,000 black on black murders and no one was marching and protesting in Chicago for those.

How many were cases in which the perpetrator was known and no charges were filed?

[mmhmm]

Aug 13, 2013 20:08:09 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

During DH's research on the Zimmerman/Martin demonstrations, he found that there had been 7,000 black on black murders and no one was marching and protesting in Chicago for those.

Those two matters have nothing to do with one another.  I simply don't see the comparison.

[Artemis Windsong]

billsonboard - I have no idea.

The comparison is someone killed another person.  There was probably a trial and verdict.  There was silence.  No TV cameras on people in the streets carrying banners and shouting how unfair and biased.  Racial motivation was the cause.

[billisonboard]

Aug 13, 2013 20:22:09 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

billsonboard - I have no idea.

... Racial motivation was the cause.

I agree you have no idea.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2013 20:08:09 GMT -5 Artemis Windsong said:

During DH's research on the Zimmerman/Martin demonstrations, he found that there had been 7,000 black on black murders and no one was marching and protesting in Chicago for those.

When you say marching-do you mean Chicagoans marching against all the shootings taking place there or do you mean something else?