« Unusual 911 call | Main | The government can't protect, part 1,295 »
D.C. finds a way to end criminal gangs
It consists of calling them "crews" instead. Presto, there are no gangs and no gang-related violence.
Comments
They could also refer to gangs as "trade associations".
Al Franken used to joke that Reagan was going to end the homeless problem by refering to them as "outdoorsmen".
Posted by: Turk Turon at April 30, 2008 03:32 AM
"Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier acknowledged this week that crews appear to be connected to some of the 10 homicides in the past two weeks — including four this past weekend. And they are connected to hundreds of shots fired and a dozen shootings late last year in the Columbia Heights neighborhood in Northwest, officials say."
But . . . but . . . but . . . there are no guns in DC! They're illegal! How could this be?
OK, sarcasm off.
How's that gun control thing working out? Just like on the gun control issue, DC officials have their head buried firmly in the sand - or perhaps some other place. Gosh, they're not gangs, no, they're 'crews.' Well. That makes all the difference in the world, don't it?
Look at this story, and the the previous one re: TSA and pilots. Is there any question that gov't is incompetent to do the most basic things?
Posted by: GMC70 at April 30, 2008 07:42 AM
It looks like they didn't like the attention and removed the article.
Posted by: DJK, Oceanside, CA at April 30, 2008 08:59 AM
I just read it. Try the link again.
I'm trying to figure out what the hell this guy's statement means:
"'There seem to be several street crews that are feuding,' said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, who heads the council's public safety committee. 'On the one hand, that means it's not random; but on the other hand, it's an intolerable level of violence.'"
Um - what?
"On the one hand, that means it's not random; but on the other hand, it's an intolerable level of violence."
Uh - riiiiight... do you mean it's not random, AND it's an intolerable level of violence? By saying "but," that seems to imply that he thinks the lack of randomness is a positive thing??
Posted by: Bill at April 30, 2008 12:54 PM
I can't get to the article either...maybe a local firewall? I get the page with ads and the WaPo header but no article.
Posted by: doug in colorado at April 30, 2008 03:29 PM
The webpage at www.washingtontimes.com is all FU this afternoon. They need to fire their webmaster.
Posted by: 30yearProf at April 30, 2008 04:17 PM
I can't read the article if I use Firefox, but changing to Internet Explorer let me see it. Hope that helps.
Posted by: Brian at April 30, 2008 11:24 PM