PSA directed at gang members

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Dis99

Maybe if the CPD required an actual education to do the job things might go better?

And what consists of an "actual" education?

[ofcjim40]

Currently CPD requires 60 hours of College and it should not go below that. There are plenty of Officers that also have B.A.'s, B.S.'s and/or Master's degrees. But the MOST important asset is common sense and that's something that can't be taught or learned, it has to be a part of your character. It's not like you are just handed a Badge and gun and told to get out there. Depending what PD and Academy you go to, the academy can last 12-26 weeks and you are in a Field Training Program after that for 10-20 weeks where you ride and are taught by experienced Officers. So the average Officer has 5-8 months of training before they are ever on their own. There aren't many jobs out there that require that much training, and that underscores the importance and complexity of the job. The problem with some of CPD is some have "slid" through onto the job either to fill quotas or someone had juice and dropped a phone call. The majority of CPD is fine, but there's no doubt some shouldn't be doing this job (same with some Suburbs). If Chicago allowed CPD to test the way the majority of higher end Suburbs do, then this would take care of some of the issues. At that point you truly will get the top of the pack. When politics, political favors, quotas and pleasing special interest groups enters into the hiring process, then that breeds problems.

[temp2290]

Guns? What a surface level solution. There will always be guns, this issue cuts much deeper.

My wife works with gang members as she is a school teacher on the west side. She has taught me that gang members are often scared and hurt and confused when younger; they see around them misery and suffering every day. She says that many are smart, capable kids that have horrific home lives and influences with no mentors to teach them coping methods that many of us more affluent types never need. Her tried and true method of dealing with gang members is to teach them that it is not tolerated, to give them an (often creative) outlet for their frustations, and to keep them in school (as opposed to suspension and expulsion, which just continue the cycle.) The issue is more nuanced than "us vs. them".

The people in these neighborhoods are shamed by gangs, they don't want gangs. Can you imagine the shame people must feel to come home from work every day to VL taggings or hearing about another shooting down the street or seeing people deal drugs to addicts? They are also maddened by the media portrayal of events- the polarized and unintelligent reactions that will surely give way to instant gratification impulses and an all too easy categorization of the "heroes and villains" of the hood as if there is no middleground. This polarization is easy and lazy and allows people to go on about our day without thinking about nuanced ideas and issues. Yet this type of Shadenfreude conjures up a cheap scapegoat, as if the issue in this country is a problem with people and not with institutions.

I urge you to stop with the impulsive shoot-from-the-hip discussions and start actually talking to real people and thinking.

[3divina]

Originally Posted by temp2290

She says that many are smart, capable kids that have horrific home lives and influences with no mentors to teach them coping methods that many of us more affluent types never need.

Originally Posted by temp2290

The issue is more nuanced than "us vs. them".

These two statements contradict each other. First you contribute to the "us vs. them" mentality with the whole "us more affluent types" thing, and then go on to say that it's deeper than that?
I can just picture you and wifey at the dinner table, "oh those poor kids from the ghetto; I'm so glad we're not like that. I'm so fortunate I don't even need to learn coping methods for dealing with life."

Who exactly are you speaking for when you say "us more affluent types"?

[urza216]

Originally Posted by temp2290

Guns? What a surface level solution. There will always be guns, this issue cuts much deeper.

My wife works with gang members as she is a school teacher on the west side. She has taught me that gang members are often scared and hurt and confused when younger; they see around them misery and suffering every day. She says that many are smart, capable kids that have horrific home lives and influences with no mentors to teach them coping methods that many of us more affluent types never need. Her tried and true method of dealing with gang members is to teach them that it is not tolerated, to give them an (often creative) outlet for their frustations, and to keep them in school (as opposed to suspension and expulsion, which just continue the cycle.) The issue is more nuanced than "us vs. them".

The people in these neighborhoods are shamed by gangs, they don't want gangs. Can you imagine the shame people must feel to come home from work every day to VL taggings or hearing about another shooting down the street or seeing people deal drugs to addicts? They are also maddened by the media portrayal of events- the polarized and unintelligent reactions that will surely give way to instant gratification impulses and an all too easy categorization of the "heroes and villains" of the hood as if there is no middleground. This polarization is easy and lazy and allows people to go on about our day without thinking about nuanced ideas and issues. Yet this type of Shadenfreude conjures up a cheap scapegoat, as if the issue in this country is a problem with people and not with institutions.

I urge you to stop with the impulsive shoot-from-the-hip discussions and start actually talking to real people and thinking.

For the most part, this is a good post. But based on my own life experiences, I'm gonna have to call you on the bolded part. Not every gangbanger had an upbringing that was a river of tears... Maybe sometimes they did but not always. A lot of gangbangers are fatherless, yeah. But a terrible god-awful home life? No.

My dad died when I was twelve years. I sat on his deathbed and held his hand as he died of brain cancer. I felt it release and knew the instant he died.. Life was hard. In addition to the obvious grief, we struggled economically after that. By the time I was 15, my mom was working A LOT to make ends meet. I stayed home...

I didn't join a fking gang. And no, it's not because there weren't any gangs in my neighborhood or my high school because there were..

Your overall message is good though.. And I agree with you. This is a good post.