McCarthy: We'll Hunt Down "Flash Mobs"

madeshopping.net 

Well, thank God the spamming guy finally chimed in. I was wondering what he thought.

Yeah Tonia, you're right. Get over it.

Want to bet the kids have Nikes on their feet and iPhones in their back pockets? Have-nots my liberal white ass.

Yep, exactly. The three are wearing Abercrombie, Nike and Hollister.
http://www.suntimes.com/photos...

This was happening in Rogers Park years ago and they called it "gooning" back then. Groups of kids would just randomly team up on someone walking alone and clobber them. Part of me finds myself wishing that a group of these kids picks the wrong Bernie Goetz. Then we'll hear their shitty parents crying in the media about what good boys they were.

Mrs Rush is right about one thing. When her son inevitably gets killed or goes to jail, no one will care. But it's not because he's black. It's because he's a cowardly piece of garbage who teams up with his friends to violently assault and rob innocent people. Oh, the humanity. Mrs Rush, I really feel for you and the piece of garbage you raised.

I miss the "gooning" days... that word is just lovely...

Except people do care when it's a white kid who "lost their way" because by default white kids are good. 

You have a point, but it's not the way I feel. I've lived in places with scary, dangerous white thugs.

Also ... when you and 15 of your friends are assaulting a 68-year-old man in broad daylight, or bazenly attacking people at random on CTA buses, I'd argue that you've gone well beyond "losing your way." These kids weren't shoplifting candy bars from 7-11 or smoking bowls behind the racquetball courts.

"Tonia Rush, mother of 17-year-old Dvonte Sykes who's being held on a
$250,000 bond, said that the bonds are being set so high because of
where the assaults are happening. “If it’s black-on-black crime, nobody cares,” she said.""

No, Ms. Rush. Your son is a POS. I am a liberal and I understand there is injustice and a disparity of law enforcement in this city.  But, you are just making excuses for your POS son who chose to terrorize people in broad daylight.

Robbery as terrorism means the word terrorism has no meaning. 

"Terrorize" and "terrorism" are distinct words and concepts in our current situation. Pretty sure you already know that. And for God's sake, don't reply with dictionary definitions.

Just because her son is a POS doesn't mean she is wrong.  If this had been Englewood, would the bail be at $250k?  Would we be talking about flooding the area with cops?  Probably not. 

How much tax revenue does Englewood generate for the city?  How many tourists come to town to tour that area?  How many Chicagoans say to themselves, "What a nice day out! I'm going to head over the Englewood to enjoy it!"

To an extent, you are right:  nobody gives a shit about those areas and the egregious crimes that happen there.  That is wrong and we need to change the expectation that those neighborhoods are lost and you just shouldn't go there.

But what you, and Ms. Sykes are doing is a big misdirection:  because those neighborhoods are bad, because crimes go unsolved there, we should have the same expectations for our neighborhoods?  We should let violent teens run rampant in the area of our city that people flock to because of it's beauty and vibrancy?  We should let this kid out of the pokey because he comes from a bad hood?  "Hey, kid, you were raised in a shit-hole neighborhood and we feel bad for you...we'll just look the other way on this high profile crime that has tourists reconsidering their Chicago travel plans."

The suggestion is absurd.  You want justice in those neighborhoods?  SEEK JUSTICE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS!  The answer is not lowering the standard of other neighborhoods.  It is like an ultimatum with some people:  either all areas are as nice as downtown or all areas are as bad as my hood.  It is some crazy fantasy that has never been realized in any city I know of in the world.  Grow up people.

Yeah, crime and sentencing should be determined by how much revenue a particular district brings in.  Are you the dumbest human being on Earth?

Oh no, what I do and where I do it has consequences! Oh no.

Crimes like this should carry the same punishment regardless of whether you're in a black or white neighborhood.  Only a bigot would think otherwise.

Did you read the story in today's news about the wealthy white guy, from Chicago, who got house arrest for the murder of two people? Details were scant in the article I read, apparently he ran them over with his car. So, I just want to ask you Navin, if you really think that just because the wealthy white guy got off with a slap on the wrist, all of these punks who viciously attacked this guy should get off with a slap on the wrist as well?  It seems like that is what you are saying. But if they hadn't have committed such a heinous crime in the first place, they wouldn't be crying about the bail now. And really? Would you want them out on bail?
I see what your point is, but it feels like you're twisting it and you're up against a wall and are just being stubborn. I don't care how many rich white dudes get off because they can afford good lawyers. These punks did something wrong and they should be punished. So should wealthy white guys who do wrong things...but that's the card we all drew, right? Maybe it would have been nice to have the good fortune to be born into the House of Windsor..but I got borned into a blue collar family and worked hard all my life..wah wah wah.
My dad was poorer than poor growing up and faced many hardships but he didn't ever go out and beat strangers up for the hell of it. It seems like it would make you feel better if these kids were handed a get out of jail free card and a year's supply of ice cream, just because life isn't fair.

Interestingly, Illinois wants him back from Florida to put him in jail for violating the terms of his Illinois parole. It looks like Florida straight up allowed him to pay weregild to the families in England to avoid prison. To settle the civil wrongful death cases the widows must have consented to the arrangement, but it is a very poor arrangement for the entire system. He almost certainly had the money to settle the suits AND go to prison.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/m...

Yes, I did read that he paid the victim's family, and they had to agree to that and in a sick way at least somebody got something out of it in the end. Do you know the details of what happened though? I guess he hit them with his car, but was it deliberate or was he drunk or was it an accident? Although that is off topic.
But what my point was, is this guy was born into wealth. Lucky him...well...at least he would have been if he didn't screw up his life by becoming a spoiled rich POS as opposed to the poor pieces of shit who were in the mob that did the attack. So...we have two ends of the spectrum...one gets off because he has money, the others will not get off because they don't have money. Both think that the rules don't apply to them and both think that there is no such thing as personal responsibility.  The way Navin is making his point, it would seem that the only fair thing to do would be let the poor pieces of shit off because the rich one got off.

To be honest I neither know nor care what Navin's perspective is on this. However, apparently LeVin had previously been in a high-speed situation (apparently racing) and hurt a cop and two civilians. He was on parole for that. On parole he went to Florida and raced his Porsche. He lost control and killed two British businessmen. Prosecution originally sought 10 years, but they allowed the settlement with the British widows to be part of a global resolution. Honestly, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this guy should be in prison. He should probably be in prison for the original Illinois incident.

The thing is, we can account for social and historical realities in setting broad policies and allocating resources, but when specific people commit specific crimes we need to act against them. Otherwise we can't ever change anything anywhere. That is true for LeVin and for the Englewood three. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I am agreeing with you.

You are definitely agreeing with me...and thx for the info about LeVin. A grown man racing cars and killing innocent people. He should be in jail...but if he got off with house arrest and paying money to the families, he should have gotten a shit ton of community service at least too!

Navin is a bigot, and only an illiterate would think otherwise.

You're the one that believes in separate justice based on wealth and race.

If we want to be truthful about this.  They should be charged with hate crimes and then the bail would be appropriate.  If a group of 15-20 white guys roaming the city beat up a innocent wandering black guy, it would be a hate crime charge. 

No, actually I would favor similar treatment for crimes in Englewood, but you need actual witnesses, etc. I bet the three victims in Streeterville were "snitching" like fiends. If you think I give a shit if EVERY POS gets super-high bail you are mistaken.

Not sentencing, but I can certainly see how it could factor in bail. 

Yes.  Literally the dumbest.

Why should I engage you in conversation, exactly?  So you can call me names and distill complex arguments into silly strawmen?

Give me a break...

You're the one that thinks that people's pay grade should determine what kind of justice they're dealt.  Pretty disgusting and in this case obviously racist.

Yay!  I was wondering when I'd be accused of being a racist.  Don't hold back now.  "Sociopath" for your next move, maybe?

I hate, hate, hate our system of law.  I hate how it's pay-to-play.  I hate how the poor, who need the protection of the system the most, are often railroaded by people and corporations that can afford endless lawyer hours.  It is a sucky system that caters to the rich, from the legislative level, to the courts to the police.

But none of that--NONE--changes the fact that a bunch of teens got together as a mob and decided to beat up and steal from a bunch of regular joes in high-profile areas of the city.  Those teens deserve the book that gets thrown at them.  This is a case of the system working as best as is possible in its current form.  Crimes are committed, arrests are made, bail is set (appropriately, IMO:  if I had committed those crimes, I couldn't afford that bail, but it still seems appropriate to me).

When evaluating THIS CASE, I'm not interested in the shittiness of the system, the plight of the poor or whatever other distractions you'd like to throw at me.  In THIS CASE, I want our streets under control and a message to be sent:  it isn't OK to get a huge group together and terrorize you fellow citizens.

Sat3911, what she should be saying is that she's sorry that this little POS is hers and she is deeply embarrassed. Nitpicking over the bail amount is like arguing about the meaning of "flash mob." It might be true, but it is not the point.

Presumably, the Judge in this case listened to the DA as they made their prima facie case for these individuals to justify a high bail. The defendants also had representation in the form of public defenders. So, where is the injustice? A judge giving a high bail for a high profile crime is not unjust.  Would the bail have been lower if victims were black tourists in Steeterville? It would be unjust if it were.

She may have said those things or not. I have only seen one line from her printed. And while arguing over the definition of flash mob is semantic, commenting on how our country chooses to mete justice is actually a salient topic.

Again, my post seems to have disappeared. In any case, justice has not yet been meted out, and another, different, salient topic is how we react to completely antisocial behavior, including randomly beating the hell out of strangers and taking their stuff.

Justice has not been meted yet. Whether (a) mom wants to admit there is a problem with her kid, and (b) this little thug gets to run free until his court date are the issues. He may or may not be convicted. Then we will see justice meted out.

As only a privileged person could put it.

Indeed. Privileged to have a mom who did her best to actually raise me and hold me accountable. Privileged to spend time with my son teaching him to act in a socially constructive way and take responsibility for his actions.

By the way, you're welcome from me and people like me that there is any civilization at all. Your victimology leads to nothing but disempowerment and more antisocial behavior.

Indeed. Privileged to have a mom who did her best to actually raise me
and hold me accountable. Privileged to spend time with my son teaching
him to act in a socially constructive way and take responsibility for
his actions.

Funny, I read this and then your posts and don't get the same sense of pride that you do.  I guess maybe from you and your mother's POV you turned out to be a smashing success as a person.  From other's POV, not so much.  In that way, you and your ma, are not much different than this woman.

He he he. It is so awesome that you can see into the thugs mom's heart and know that she is being treated unfairly, and also see into my life and know who I am. Your insight is remarkable.

We should all be thankful for your insights.

Praise from Caesar.

And he does sarcasm too. Truly a five tool (and I emphasize tool) player.

You obviously can't understand how the mother could be concerned about the bail amount, which pretty much highlights your lack of understanding of other people's financial issues, and the privilege that you  enjoy.

By the way, you're welcome from me and people like me that there is any civilization at all.

So you're delusional too. 

Wow, lots of kids of privilege here...

Maybe you just define "privilege" too loosely.

Not really, it enables you to be completely out of touch with a large segment of the population's troubles and concerns.  It's on full display here, indeed.

Navin, hero of the . . . who? Not the working people, since they generally like law and order as much as anyone else. Not black people, since they don't seem to like getting beat up for no reason any more than the rest of us. Thugs? Ah yes, the one group Navin's advocacy reliably covers.

You are like Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg rolled into one!

I thought I posted this before . . . but maybe not:

I understand that her baby has to stay in jail because she doesn't have the money to get him out. You don't get that his incarceration is based entirely on his decision to beat the hell out of strangers and rob them. And so it goes.

As for my delusions . . . yes. You and your ilk are the glue that hold society together.

You don't get that his incarceration is based entirely on his decision
to beat the hell out of strangers and rob them. And so it goes.

No, and as before: 
I understand that perfectly, and it's immaterial to the argument.

As for my delusions . . . yes. You and your ilk are the glue that hold society together.

Self entitled lawyers who can't argue their way out of a wet sack: The fabric of society.....I'm glad you aren't making the laws yet. We'd be talking about three-fifths compromises again.

Wa wa wa wa waaaaa. Man, Navin bested me again.

3/5 indeed. That is almost a perfect analogy to the consequences of getting some friends together and beating the hell out of people because you can. How did I not see it before?

Again:  You're the one that thinks that people's pay grade should determine what
kind of justice they're dealt.  Pretty disgusting and in this case
obviously racist.

Damn! Busted again. Navin can see the hatred in my heart all the way through his monitor. There is no other rational excuse for having no tolerance for ganging up on an innocent bystander and beating his ass for kicks.

I stand in awe.

I understand perfectly that she can't afford to bail her little POS out of jail. What you don't understand is that his incarceration is a direct consequence of his decision to beat the hell out of random strangers and rob them. See how that works?

As for my delusions . . . yes, because people like you are the glue of civilized society.

Yeah the world needs more bigoted, privileged *lawyers*, with "locals only" syndrome.  How could we go on without them?

What you don't understand is that his incarceration is a direct
consequence of his decision to beat the hell out of random strangers and
rob them. See how that works?

I understand that perfectly, and it's immaterial to the argument.

To YOUR argument.

You keep posting as though your argument and the mother's argument should be discussed.  Sorry, that isn't how this works.  I've heard your arguments and I don't find them compelling or convincing.  What I, and many others here, are saying is that we find YOUR argument to be immaterial to the larger point.

Keep bleating at the sky...

You keep posting as though your argument and the mother's argument should be discussed.  Sorry, that isn't how this works

lmfao.  That's what this discussion is about as started by "Nicholas".  God you're dim..

You know what makes you seem super-mature and credible?  Namecalling.  Keep it up.

The point that Nicholas made is that the mother's argument completely misses the larger point.  You are making the same argument as the mother.  You are both missing the point.  You then show up here and claim that WE are missing out on what is "really" important.  I'm reminding you that just because you say something is important, the central issue, doesn't make it true.

Instead of calling me names, maybe you should go ahead and try to understand what I'm saying.

Instead of calling me names, maybe you should go ahead and try to understand what I'm saying

Is there an 'incoherent language decoder' app I can download somewhere?

Let me dumb it down for you:

You are singularly focused on a single issue (the bail amount).  You have labeled other people's points as "immaterial to the argument."  I'm simply reminding you that not all of us think the bail issue is central.  In fact, I find it "immaterial to the argument."

You don't get to define the discussion through your own narrow prism.  Let me guess your next response: "You are incomprehensible and quite stupid."

YAY! More typical Navinism. Attack the person, not the argument! YAY! The crime for which the kid is incarcerated is "immaterial." YAY!

Whatever. It gets easier and easier to ignore your predictable points.

I read the Sun Time description of these guys. One is in a
charter school and was looking at a baseball scholarship. Not exactly
your typical impoverished youth.  I grew up poor too.  I never randomly
assaulted a tourist. 

Exactly.  Where's the accountability?  Not a word about how her son is a POS.  Not a word about the fact that her parenting contributed to this kid's actions.  Not a word about the fact that he has been terrorizing innocent people.

Nope, the lesson to be learned here is that society is unfair.  Children are starving in Africa, cancer hasn't been cured (and some really nice people get it), and you are going to lock up my little angle?  The nerve.

"you are going to lock up my little angle?"

You should have seen him when he was a little angle. He was so acute. *Rimshot* *Thankyouverymuch* *dontforgettotipyourwaitress*

That's just not right.

Your bail should be at least $300,000 for that assault.

Too soon?

High profile crimes always draw high bail. She is suggesting her son is the victim here. He is of an age that he can make his own decisions. He is not a victim of society here. The disparity in justice is real, but the man has nobody to blame here but himself.

Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you can't be a victim later. We are also making the assumption that he is guilty because the Chicago police arrested him. If he is innocent, does that change any of the arguments?

She's suggesting that the bail is ridiculously high, and that nothing would come of it if it happened outside touristy areas, and she is right.  Whether her son is a POS isn't the issue.  Quit using faulty logic.

I have to agree with Navin here. As he also mentioned, we only have one sentence from this woman and she could have said a lot of other things when she spoke to the press. It is not at all unusual for the press to only report or at least emphasize someone's more controversial statements in order to make a story more juicy.

And as regards the content of her statement, well, perhaps that bail IS excessively high and perhaps it would have been lower if the attacks took place in Englewood. What sort of bail is usually set for people arrested for similar crimes? Does anyone here know this, or at least be able to make an educated guess as to what it would be? If not, then we can't say whether she's right or wrong.

But see, her point is already misdirection. She knows her kid is a POS and instead of saying anything about HER child and HIS actions, she misdirects to society at large. It is true, but irrelevant.

And stop with all of your crap about logic. You are basically an ideologue who uses whatever tools you can to push your specific vision of the world. Stop acting like you are just being rational and logical.

But see, her point is already misdirection. She knows her kid is a POS
and instead of saying anything about HER child and HIS actions, she
misdirects to society at large. It is true, but irrelevant.

You don't know that she didn't.  There's just one quote regarding the bail, and any parent would be concerned about such a thing.  Have you ever seen any parent on tv, or talking to reporters saying:  "Yeah my boy's a real piece of shit!  I hope they throw him under the jail."  No you haven't, and your bigotry's clouding your brain.

Those parents don't talk to reporters. Those parents want no part of publicity. See how that works?

It isn't so much my bigotry (which is mostly directed at you at the moment), but experience. Good people can have bad kids, but they don't say crap like this about it.

You don't get to define the issue and neither does Ms. Sykes.

Personally, I don't think the bail is too high given the nature of the crime and the fact that it is high profile.  I also don't consider the bail number to be the central issue.  I see the fact that these teens think this kind of thing is OK as the central issue.  And I see Ms. Sykes comments as a huge misdirection and an abdication of responsibility for the fact that her son is a thug.

But feel free to move the goalposts, pretend that the central issue is the bail number and completely miss the point...

It's what the lone quote discusses.  There's no quote about whether she's denying responsibility or not.  You don't know if she expressed regret or not, because they've only chosen to use one quick soundbite.  Whether she expresses regret or not is immaterial, she's right about the bail and the selective punishment.