Reprehensible!
Those Damn Guns Again II - Chicago
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Chicago baby, shot 5 times
with father during a diaper change, dies
In Chicago, certain names have become synonymous with a specific type of tragedy for girls, which can be recalled with bleak and brief synopsis:
Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old majorette, shot in the back after coming home from President Obama's inauguration;
Janay McFarlane, 18, gunned down while walking with friends -- her 14-year-old sister had just heard the president give a speech about gun violence.
Now there is another name to add.
Six-month-old Jonylah Watkins died at a hospital Tuesday morning after being shot while getting her diaper changed by her father, who was shot too.
She is survived by her 20-year old mother -- who had once been shot in the leg while eight months' pregnant -- and her father, Jonathan Watkins, 29, who remained in the hospital in serious condition, officials said.
"This is another tragedy, because no child, and certainly not an infant, should be the victim of gang violence," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said at a televised news conference. "Which, by the way, at this point, although there's a lot of angles that we're pursuing, there are very strong gang overtones to this particular event."
Police said Watkins had parked his van on the street to change his daughter's diaper when the gunman approached from behind and fired several shots into the van. The shooter then ran through an empty lot and into a blue minivan, speeding away.
"Based on the ballistics and the position of the father and the baby in the car, he was shooting at the father," McCarthy said.
He added, "Right now, we don't have one real good witness at this point."
The death comes a day after McCarthy started a push for a "broken windows" law-enforcement strategy in Chicago that would punish more small crimes in the hope that the effort will prevent bigger crimes -- the idea being that allowing just one broken window will lead to many more broken windows.
According to the latest available mortality data kept by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 20,033 women and girls were killed in gun homicides between 2000 and 2010, with gun homicides against women at its lowest rate in 2010.
Black women and girls were 3-1/2 times more likely to have been killed in a shooting than white females, according to the data, with their deaths most likely coming in their 20s.
SOURCE: L.A. TIMES
This shooting screams of a hit, and not of a random act. This seems to have little to do with any gun law.
This is not to take the innocent life lost lightly. But the use of a gun in this instance seems to be a tool, not the predicate offense.
These shootings are the result of prohibition, IMO, and not just because some have access to firearms. Now seems to be no different than during prohibition.
Yeah, I know F.A.Y.; the Gun didn't kill this baby;
a hitman did it
the prohibition did it
unequal access did it
anything, but the gun
.
I was riding with you here but then you had to steer right into political/philosophical nonsense...
How would the father possessing a gun (I didn't see it say he was unarmed) have changed the outcome here?
Since you disagree that a gun is an inanimate object with no volition of it's own, maybe you can tell us why the gun killed the child?Yeah, I know F.A.Y.; the Gun didn't kill this baby;
a hitman did it
the prohibition did it
unequal access did it
anything, but the gun
.
I can't, he's dead because the arbitrary limitations on people's lives, that you support, killed him.
Are you done now?
. . . the Gun didn't kill this baby;
a hitman did it
the prohibition did it
unequal access did it
the minimum wage law did it
anything, but the gun
.
If you weren't done, then you should have explained the motivations of the gun to target a child.. . . the Gun didn't kill this baby;
a hitman did it
the prohibition did it
unequal access did it
the minimum wage law did it
anything, but the gun
.
Yeah, I know F.A.Y.; the Gun didn't kill this baby;
a hitman did it
the prohibition did it
unequal access did it
anything, but the gun
.
The gun did not aim itself, nor pull it's own trigger. But actually, what I'm saying is that this was the instance of someone looking to do someone else harm. No matter what weapon they had at thier disposal (Gun, Knife, Bat, Car, objects from roof...), they were looking to do that guy in and they had ZERO concern for the child. The tool they used to carry it out with would not have changed that.
I was riding with you here but then you had to steer right into political/philosophical nonsense...
How would the father possessing a gun (I didn't see it say he was unarmed) have changed the outcome here?
The prohibition I am talking about is the one on certain drugs. The vast majority of gun violence is the result of the drug trade.
And much of the other beef comes about indirectly from the drug trade (beef over money owed...).
What we are seeing is no different than what went on during the enforcement of the Volsted Act. Right down to the argument of gun availability, what to do about young hyperviolent offenders, keeping the impressionable away from such perils, etc.
It will not end. There is a lucrative business out there with millions of willing customres with billions of dollars they wihs to spend. Prohibitionists are just trying to ice skate uphill.
Perhaps, F.A.Y. But I think its a real streetch for you to conclude that the result would not have been different, had the criminal in this case used some other instrumentality.
As we saw during the Great Drive-By Era, many if not most of those injured/killed were innocent by-standers and passersby. In almost every drive-by there were stories that followed of who the shooters we're "really trying to hit."
In this incident, neither of us know what was in the mind of the attacker, i.e., we don't know who the attacker wanted to harm, we don't know why the attacker wanted to cause harm, and we certaintly don't know whether the infant was an intended victim. We do know, however, "the gunman approached from behind and fired several shots into the van"; and that the baby could not have testified to anything that she saw, hence, it takes more than a leap to conclude that the attacker intentionally targeted the baby. Thus, it could reasonably be argued that had the attacker used something other than an instrument notorious for bringing the innocent within its wrath, the infant might be fatherless, but alive.
'
While I too assume the father was either living foul or was confused for or connected to someone that is, we don't know that unless you've seen some subsequent reporting saying so.
They could have run up on his vehicle and stabbed him to death but they most likely wouldn't have killed the baby too.
But I do think we can reasonably say the baby wasn't the target. Street thugs aren't known for being marksmen.
It isn't the guns killing people, it is people doing dumb shit to another person that gets them killed. There are some dumb ignorant people that should be in prison.
Some people can't empathized or comprehend the effects of their actions. They are like children that do whatever thought comes to their mind without the self awareness. Unfortunately sometimes you are forced to interact with some of these people.
Based on my personal experience, I seen people do all kinds of foul shit like destroy property, have me fired on their birthday, illegal surveillance, abnormal obsession, or gangstalk. I understand now why there is violence and killing in cities. My gut reaction is to do what you see people on the news do, however, you have to go somewhere to calm down.
If people put some thought into their actions, gun violence would drop 99%.
1. Don't mess with personal property
2. Don't spy on people illegally
3. Don't sleep with that person's spouse or girlfriend
4. Don't harass somebody daily
We need to teach this in schools. Have a video that show the cause and effect of your actions.
Some people can't empathized or comprehend the effects of their actions. They are like children that do whatever thought comes to their mind without the self awareness. Unfortunately sometimes you are forced to interact with some of these people.
Based on my personal experience, I seen people do all kinds of foul shit like destroy property, have me fired on their birthday, illegal surveillance, abnormal obsession, or gangstalk. I understand now why there is violence and killing in cities. My gut reaction is to do what you see people on the news do, however, you have to go somewhere to calm down.
If people put some thought into their actions, gun violence would drop 99%.
1. Don't mess with personal property
2. Don't spy on people illegally
3. Don't sleep with that person's spouse or girlfriend
4. Don't harass somebody daily
We need to teach this in schools. Have a video that show the cause and effect of your actions.
Last edited:
I hear what your saying, but I am not in the camp of looking at the symptom (people using guns), but at the problem (people intentionally hurting other people).
I was hoping you would have adopted here what I thought was an excellent response to this question in the Affirmative Action thread:
. . . where you stupendously! noted:
You are very good, Mr. Ex.
I was hoping you would have adopted here what I thought was an excellent response to this question in the Affirmative Action thread:
. . . where you stupendously! noted:
FIghting inanimate objects makes about as much sense as the"war on terror"
No one is fighting guns but the irrational, nearly unchecked availability of them.
"irrational, nearly unchecked availability"?
Gee, I wonder who is making guns available........Wasn't our govt (ATF) just involved in a scandal that allowed guns to "walk" to our friends south of the border.
And yes, our govt is fighting guns, stop being naive
"irrational, nearly unchecked availability"?
Gee, I wonder who is making guns available........Wasn't our govt (ATF) just involved in a scandal that allowed guns to "walk" to our friends south of the border.
And yes, our govt is fighting guns, stop being naive
A mostly right wing media "scandal"? Yes, they were.
But it's not our government flooding cities with firearms (unless you know something no one else knows), it's gun sellers, buying guns legally on one hand and selling them illegally with the other.
No one is fighting guns. You can't fight guns, you fight with guns.
Is this an admission the govt allowed guns to "walk" across the border?
Of course, Eric Holder had no knowledge of any of this.
Coincidentally, he also can't find a single person to prosecute at HSBC for laundering money for the Mexican Cartels
How do you know it's not the govt flooding the cities with guns?
They did a good job flooding the cities with drugs
William Casey - CIA Director
Bruh, seriously
update your information
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
I don't have one bit of energy to waste trying to prove/disprove negatives. Either you know something or you're in the straw grasping business.
How do you know Ron Paul is not a flaming racist?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/26sprb4Vi44" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
source: Think Progress
Ron Paul Suggests We’d Be ‘Better Off’ Without The Civil Rights Act
But in an an interview just minutes later yesterday evening, Paul outdid himself by telling MSNBC host Chris Matthews that he wouldn’t have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it was unfair to property owners. When Matthews asked if Paul thought it should be legal for a store to refuse to serve African Americans, Paul dodged, saying, “that’s ancient history.” Finally, when asked if he thought we would be better off without the Act and other government programs like Social Security, Paul replied we would be “better off” if government stayed out of such matters:
MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn’t have voted for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.
MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?
PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?
PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.
Watch it:PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.
MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?
PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?
PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.
<CENTER></CENTER>
Paul has expressed opposition to the Civil Rights Act on numerous occasions in the past, even taking to the House floor on the 40th anniversary of the law’s passage to give a speech calling it an unconstitutional attack on “individual liberty”:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
He later appeared on Meet the Press to defend his position. But it’s noteworthy that he took such an extreme position on the same day he announced his run for president. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), got in trouble during his Senate campaign last year for also opposing the Civil Rights Act from a similar libertarian position. He eventually recanted and said he would have voted for the landmark law
Last edited:
I find it strange how easy it is to find guns and drugs in black communities...
but it so hard to find bookstores, bank credit, and investment.
Was talking to someone about how easy it is for these ignorant, limited, people to find all these weapons, yet they can't manage to find a job or a better future for themselves.
Funny how that always seems to work in black communities (but not white ones).
but it so hard to find bookstores, bank credit, and investment.
Was talking to someone about how easy it is for these ignorant, limited, people to find all these weapons, yet they can't manage to find a job or a better future for themselves.
Funny how that always seems to work in black communities (but not white ones).
Common f*ckin sense bruh
Love Your Gun? Thank the Black Panthers
In his research for “Gunfight,” Winkler also noted a close intersection between guns and racism. “It was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.” he said. “The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time – either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.”
You're wasting your time debating with people who are emotionally connected to the left.
This is certainly not to excuse the policies of the Chicago Housing Authority Police Department or the Chicago Police Department itself. But you're arguing that the crime sweeps by the Housing Authorith Police was a racist plot by whites against blacks ???
The Chicago Housing Authority Police Department, also known as the CHAPD, was created as a supplement to the Chicago Police Department (the CPD) . . . and was envisioned by Chicagoan Vince Lane, who had served as Chairman and Executive Director of the CHA from May 23, 1987 to May 26, 1995.
Developer Vince Lane, left, and Rudy
Nimocks, of the University of Chicago
Police and WPIC board, were part of
the housing discussion