# So what is this world coming to again?...



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

This news story has me absolutely shaking my head.  I am beyond being able to put my emotions aside and fully understand and it makes me so angry that a thing like this is happening.  I find it disheartening and scary.



> Boy left to Burn
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One of the things that really is driving me crazy is this part of the story:



> Winnipeg police say at least five children -- three girls and two boys between the ages of eight and 11 -- were responsible for the incident but none are old enough to face charges under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.



How and where do children of that age learn to do such horrible things to another human being?  It is appalling and sad.

FULL STORY


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> How and where do children of that age learn to do such horrible things to another human being? It is appalling and sad.


 
People, kids and adults, don't learn to do horrible things to other human beings.  It's inherent.  Civilization is the process of learning _not_ to do horrible things to others.  These kids have not learned this.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> People, kids and adults, don't learn to do horrible things to other human beings.  It's inherent.  Civilization is the process of learning _not_ to do horrible things to others.  These kids have not learned this.



So what you are saying is that there is not a strong enough influence of "good" in their lives to give them the ability to know right from wrong?


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 16, 2006)

I believe alot comes from movies and TV, almost all you see is violence in every aspect of the movies they glorified violence and so does TV, we as a society need to be up with every aspect of our childern lives. That is one reason my kids only get 3 hours a wekk and that includes wekkend and must sit down with us to watch it.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> So what you are saying is that there is not a strong enough influence of "good" in their lives to give them the ability to know right from wrong?


 

In most childern lifes I would agree with that


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 16, 2006)

It could be any number of factors.  We could blame the parents for raising these kids with a poor sense of moral values.  We could blame their peers for being unwholesome influences on them.  

However, when it comes down to it, these thugs made a conscious choice to lock a kid into that shed, and set it on fire.  They made the choice to bully the nerdish-looking kid (who they nicknamed "Harry Potter" because of his glasses) who had a spinal problem, and they knew darn well what fire can do to someone.  They are all old enough to understand the consequences of their actions.  Had any of them truly felt remorse, they would have helped set the kid free.  

Due to Canada's laws, these thugs are too young to face proper justice.  



> Chaput said the children may be referred to the Turnabout program for children under 12 who come into contact with the law.


 
Terrible, isn't it?  Those thugs should be facing charges for attempted murder.  Instead, they'll face a slap on the wrist.  

Don't be surprised if these thugs are probably going to show up in the news, several years from now, for murder, rape, arson, etc.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 16, 2006)

That is just a horrible, horrible story.  So sad!


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> So what you are saying is that there is not a strong enough influence of "good" in their lives to give them the ability to know right from wrong?


 
Well, I think there's definitely a lack of compassion.  And in addition to the absence of desire to do good, there's an absence of incentive to not do bad, as seen by the inability to prosecute them because of their age.  What incentive could be used to make these kids do the right thing?


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> People, kids and adults, don't learn to do horrible things to other human beings.  It's inherent.  Civilization is the process of learning _not_ to do horrible things to others.  These kids have not learned this.



I think what's inherent is the capacity to do horrible things, along with the capacity to do selfless things. There's a very intense book, called _Hitler's Willing Executioners_, which documents the enthusiastic collaboration of quite ordinary people in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) with the Nazi's genocidal program. But there are also stories of whole communities during the same war, like that famous French Huguenot village, that actively resisted and risked the lives of all its people hiding Jews who would otherwise have been sent to certain death. It's tempting to believe that an inclination to destructiveness is wired in and will run unless actively repressed, but I don't buy it, any more than I think that people are programmed to be good---things are a lot more complex than that. Children reflect the moral universe that they're exposed to, and we may live in a time of extreme callousness. The real question in my mind is, where is _that_ coming from?


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Well, I think there's definitely a lack of compassion. And in addition to the absence of desire to do good, there's an absence of incentive to not do bad, as seen by the inability to prosecute them because of their age


 
Amen...I hope I live long enough to see our law makers wake up and let us LEO's and Judges prosecute the little darlings to the fullest extent of the law...


----------



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Well, I think there's definitely a lack of compassion.  And in addition to the absence of desire to do good, there's an absence of incentive to not do bad, as seen by the inability to prosecute them because of their age.  What incentive could be used to make these kids do the right thing?



At this point and time I don't know, I honestly don't.  How do you turn young children around that are capable of attempted murder and make them "better people?"


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> At this point and time I don't know, I honestly don't. How do you turn young children around that are capable of attempted murder and make them "better people?"


 
Is that possible??? I don't believe so...


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 16, 2006)

People can change especially childern if you can find them in time and promote positive reinforcement in them from all aspect of life, the main problem is when a child has gone pass that initial phase and is left in the cold by the community and is label that way, they are the ones that cannot be helped for the most part


----------



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

Drac said:


> Is that possible??? I don't believe so...



Well I don't believe hugs and kisses are the answer.  A good reprogramming program is what is needed.  But, different people react to treatment in different ways, it is all in the way we are wired.


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

Drac said:


> Is that possible??? I don't believe so...



I do think that there are moral defectives---people who are particularly responsive to the messages filling our world that violence is fun. There are people who resist that, people who can go either way, and people who tune into it from the get-go---and these kids sound like the last kind. A part that should be there is missing and there's no way to replace it, any more than you can give sight to someone blind from birth because the nerves to the retina that should be there never formed. 

There are always going to be people like that around. What worries me are the others---the ones who could go the same way if enough information reaches them that this kind of thing is OK, but probably won't otherwise. I get the sense that there's not much information getting to these kids from enough different directions that this sort of thing is just wrong, intolerable.


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Well I don't believe hugs and kisses are the answer


 
You have no idea how many people I've met on the job who believe THAT is precisely what is needed...




			
				Lisa said:
			
		

> A good reprogramming program is what is needed. But, different people react to treatment in different ways, it is all in the way we are wired.


 
With some it would be a wasted effort sorry to say...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 16, 2006)

Ya know, this thread is new.  I've already looked at it a couple of times now, and just really am unable to put my feelings about this into words yet.  This is one of the most disturbing things I've heard in a long time.  Kids that young trying to burn to death another child.  I haven't been able to wrap my head around it yet.  Then again, I've seen things and done things 13 years ago I still haven't been able to get my head around.

Jeff


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Well I don't believe hugs and kisses are the answer. A good reprogramming program is what is needed. But, different people react to treatment in different ways, it is all in the way we are wired.



They are still young enough to learn compassion and empathy.  The question is who and how--if their parents are not doing enough of that?  

People nowadays are more hesitant to help out with other people's kids in this manner.  Now people wait until either the act is so good (ie. heroic) or so bad (ie. heinous) before they get involved...  Every day things get very little attention.

I can remember as a child, everyone watched out for everyone.  As kids, we get compliments and chastisements from neighbors for whatever little thing we do--we always knew we were being watched.  Word gets back to our parents pretty quickly.

- Ceicei


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

I managed to scare a teen we caught one night driving some friends around who had been drinking..One of the occupants of his car jumped out and slugged the occupant of another because he said they "dissed" him...This teen had everything going for him good grades and a scolarship looming on the horizon..The language I used was pure street and I think it made a lasting effect coming from a cop that wasn't trying to be his buddy...


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> I can remember as a child, everyone watched out for everyone. As kids, we get compliments and chastisements from neighbors for whatever little thing we do--we always knew we were being watched. Word gets back to our parents pretty quickly. Ceicei


 
That's how it was where I grew up too..


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 16, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> They are still young enough to learn compassion and empathy.  The question is who and how--if their parents are not doing enough of that?
> 
> People nowadays are more hesitant to help out with other people's kids in this manner.  Now people wait until either the act is so good (ie. heroic) or so bad (ie. heinous) before they get involved...  Every day things get very little attention.
> 
> ...


You are so right.  A lot of that seems to stem from a growning lack of community everywhere.  How many people do you know that couldn't even give the names of their neighbors?


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> People can change especially childern if you can find them in time and promote positive reinforcement in them from all aspect of life, the main problem is when a child has gone pass that initial phase and is left in the cold by the community and is label that way, they are the ones that cannot be helped for the most part



I think Terry's post has a big part of the story in it. There's a critical window period, and if a kid isn't exposed to moral and ethical information during that phase, it's not gonna `take' later on. It's like language---a kid thrown in a closet and kept there till the age of ten and never spoken to will never deveop develop language---capacity is there at birth but without `triggers', it can't develop once the critical phase has past, like that famous case of `Genie' in the 1970s and early 80s and other feral children. The kids are probably well past that `moral' window. At this point, probably, nothing is going to change them.


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> How many people do you know that couldn't even give the names of their neighbors?


 

Sad but true....


----------



## Kacey (Oct 16, 2006)

I agree with much of what has been posted - these children lack compassion, as Cory said, and also lack a sense of community.  Too many people turn their backs on those around them because raising them is someone else's concern; "it takes a village to raise a child" may be trite, dated, and overused... but it's also quite true, and the villages in many first world countries have been lost to cities, through many factors, including time, safety (although kids were a lot safer when the whole community paid attention to them), distance (the corner store has been bulldozed for the megastore in far too many places)... too many factors too list here, and I don't want to get off the track of the discussion.

That children - especially children that young - would commit such an act is heinous and abhorrent.  That the justice system will not deal with them appropriatelely is, in my opinion, secondary to the concept that there are children that age who would merit such attention.  However, I hesitate to blame the children solely - where were the parents who should have been supervising children of those ages, especially those on the younger end, when this act occurred?  What had these children seen and heard in their lives that they would even consider deliberately setting fire to a structure with a person intentionally trapped within it?  This is a system issue - one that concerns and involves (or should involve) the entire community - and the response to it should include the entire community, and not just finger pointing and finger shaking at the children directly involved.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 16, 2006)

My own two cents for what they are worth....I agree and disagree with some of what has been said.  Although I am appalled that these children sound like they are basically getting away "scot-free" I do not think a child that is 8 should have their life ruined by one bad act without any attempt to reform him/her.  Though I agree that hugs and kisses are not the answer, neither do I think that these kids should be immediately given up on.  I have to wonder about several things though before I could make a choice on what I think sould happen to them.  I got to wonder where the parents are in all this and how the kids even got the matches or lighters necessary to start a fire.  My mom is a smoker, but I know growing up I still wouldn't have been able to find anything to start a fire until I was in my mid-teens.  I got to wonder why these kids were in an area that it doesn't sound like were made for kids to play, if there is no place reasonable for you kids to play in your neighborhood then why aren't they involved in some activity.  I know when I was 8, I was always in my yard playing or in a neighbors yard where the mom or dad where keeping an eye on me and whomever I was playing with.  I didn't get to just rom around.  I don't know the violence on TV and in movies or video games gave them the ideas to do this, but I also got to wonder if it did what were they watching int he first place.  And I also got to wonder even if 5 to 7 kids were involved and all are responsible, was there an instigator, someone who did it or goaded them into doing that was even older and needs to be held to a higher level or justice.
In the end I just don't know the answers.  I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where everyone knew your name.  I mean I knew who was to the left and right of me, but that is about it, but still, someone kept a close eye on me and when no one was available, I was at a babysitters or in a latchkey program or in other programs to keep me occupied and under someone' supervision until my folks where available again.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2006)

Hugs and kisses are wonderful things, but they are only effective in modifying one's behavior if 1) there is a risk that the affection will be withdrawn if one behaves badly; and 2) the possibility of losing affection outweighs the perceived benefits of the bad behavior.

I think it's less likely that this approach could be used with older children, especially if they have lived in circumstances where affection was not given.  How can you fear losing something you never had?


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 16, 2006)

Ping I can see where you are going but reality is reality childern will learn what they have been tought in early developement and soem can make the transition while a great deal end up in prison or worst ina grave for there better lack of gudgement. Society need to b holding parent accountible for there child action and daycares and child keeeper need to have qualify staff to deal with trouble childern not just somethere to watch them until 6 pm or be un supervise until the parent gets home.

On my block we have five houses that the childern are in 5th grade and lower that are by themself until there parents get hame from work, no one around to watch or police there actions

It is sad that monotary gain is more important than a child wealfare.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Society need to b holding parent accountible for there child action


 
That's the money quote.  The parents are the ones can most effectively control their children's behavior.  Sure, it's trendy to point the finger at everyone and say we all let these kids down.  But be realistic: how much authority do you really have over the child next door?  You can't touch them.  I'm not even sure you can _say_ anything to them anymore.  You can call the parent or the police.  If the parents were doing their job you wouldn't be on the phone in the first place, and if the police are busy they can't/won't respond.  Give the parents the incentive to raise their kids right.  Of course, that's making the assumption that the parents know how to act...


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ping I can see where you are going but reality is reality childern will learn what they have been tought in early developement and soem can make the transition while a great deal end up in prison or worst ina grave for there better lack of gudgement. Society need to b holding parent accountible for there child action and daycares and child keeeper need to have qualify staff to deal with trouble childern not just somethere to watch them until 6 pm or be un supervise until the parent gets home.
> 
> On my block we have five houses that the childern are in 5th grade and lower that are by themself until there parents get hame from work, no one around to watch or police there actions
> 
> It is sad that monotary gain is more important than a child wealfare.



Kacey and Terry are dead-on here. If some children raised without moral guidance become monsters, then why are they not getting that guidance? They can't raise themselves---and while many won't turn out the way these kids did, there are always a few who will.  

If we in effect give permission to people to let their children be raised by others, this kind of thing is going to happen. It reminds me a lot of that grim old movie _The River's Edge_...


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ping I can see where you are going but reality is reality childern will learn what they have been tought in early developement and soem can make the transition while a great deal end up in prison or worst ina grave for there better lack of gudgement. Society need to b holding parent accountible for there child action and daycares and child keeeper need to have qualify staff to deal with trouble childern not just somethere to watch them until 6 pm or be un supervise until the parent gets home.
> 
> On my block we have five houses that the childern are in 5th grade and lower that are by themself until there parents get hame from work, no one around to watch or police there actions
> 
> It is sad that monotary gain is more important than a child wealfare.


 
Actually Terry that was kind probably 2/3rd of my point and maybe I didn't express it well, which was where were the parents in all this and how were the kids ever able to do this in the first place?
However, that said some kids will go bad no matter how good you do parenting, some kids will turn out great no matter how bad your parenting, I seen both sides happen, so at some point the kids need to take some responsibility even if it is not anywhere near the full amount.  The 8 year olds maybe not so much, but the 11 year olds maybe needs to accept more of the responsibility than should be expect of the younger kids...


----------



## modarnis (Oct 16, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> It could be any number of factors. We could blame the parents for raising these kids with a poor sense of moral values. We could blame their peers for being unwholesome influences on them.
> 
> However, when it comes down to it, these thugs made a conscious choice to lock a kid into that shed, and set it on fire. They made the choice to bully the nerdish-looking kid (who they nicknamed "Harry Potter" because of his glasses) who had a spinal problem, and they knew darn well what fire can do to someone. They are all old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. Had any of them truly felt remorse, they would have helped set the kid free.
> 
> ...


 
You hit the nail on the head.  I deal with slightly older 16-18 year olds (who are considered adults here in CT).  What is so scary is the empty look many of these violent kids have in their eyes.  You can blame parents or tv or whatever, but these kids are broken at a young age and a sad but true fact is most will be repeat offenders, despite the variety of programs available to help young criminals.


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

modarnis said:


> ... but these kids are broken at a young age



That's the key phrase. After that window is shut, you can't open it up again. I have a suspicion that ethical awareness is one of those psychological systems where triggering experiences _must_ occur before a certain age, otherwise they never develop. Language is one system like that, aspects of vision (like depth perception) in mammals also are... if the same thing is true about what we call, in not so fancy terms, `conscience', it would explain why so many of these kids turn out to be recidivists, spending large chunks or fractions of their lives in prison. They're blind to the ethical landscape, have no idea what it's about and can't acquire the sense of it later on in life. That's the future I foresee for the kids who tried to burn this other kid to death. 

Best we can hope for now is that the victim is able to recover from his trauma and eventually have a happy life. I see no hope for his tormentors.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> I believe alot comes from movies and TV, almost all you see is violence in every aspect of the movies they glorified violence and so does TV, we as a society need to be up with every aspect of our childern lives. That is one reason my kids only get 3 hours a wekk and that includes wekkend and must sit down with us to watch it.


 
First of all, this story made me physically ill.  I don't want to think that the society that I live in can produce children who could do this.

But it does.

And Terry hit it right on the head.  Video games, movies, TV, you name it, IT HAS AN EFFECT.  I don't have cable TV.  We don't play video games.  I screen EVERYTHING my kids watch, because I sincerely believe that it is in their best interest.  

We need to keep our children innocent for as long as possible.  One murder on TV is one too many...much less the hundreds of thousands they will see by the age of 18.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 16, 2006)

Ok I can say this for those of you reading what I said , I said TV and movies can contribrute to these things so much is out there with nothing but glorifing violence and such. I'm sorry some people do not agree with what I had to say and rather post a comment themself they would rather give out negative rep points.

I stand by what I have said earlier and about all the volence on TV video game and the movies, most childern see these as a real life scenerio and not the make believe it is.


----------



## N 2 Combat (Oct 16, 2006)

It is true that no matter how good the parenting, the child may come out bad and vice versa. I have a niece whose mother was great to her and she still turned out not as expected. In this day and age sometimes you can't even confront the parent for fear of an altercation. The days of "_It takes_ _village to raise a child_" are gone. This is what is so disturbing nowadays. Of course we now have babies making babies, rasing babies. Grandma is 35. The mother 20. The child 5. Video games, t.v., movies, even life plays a big part of molding a childs mind. My wife took every game from 3 of my children that was even slightly violent. Even a Superman game?! This world is changing and not for the better. That does not mean we should give up on them. There is no silver bullet for all the troubled kids in the world or at least the American society. There was a point made earlier that at 11 they should be conscious of what they do. To lock a child that is different from them and set the shed on fire is most disturbing. They must of got that idea from somewhere. Violence is everywhere is every aspect of our lives be it media or real life. We can only try to contribute to society and hope we can make a small difference. If 1 child is reached then maybe that child can make a difference to another and create a domino effect.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> First of all, this story made me physically ill. I don't want to think that the society that I live in can produce children who could do this.
> 
> But it does.
> 
> ...


 
Well, given my background in psychology, there's something I'd like to mention here....

Namely, the notion that "media violence is bad for the kids!" is an amazingly simplified and dumbed-down way of putting the situation. It is not at all black and white. Not even close.

The truth is that the particulars of the violent imagery as well as the context that it is presented will impact what the children will "take away" from it. Violent media can either desensitize or sensitize children to violence. Many people don't want to admit it, but given all the variables of the research I have seen (i.e., realism of the violence, repercussions of the violence, use of weapons versus non-weapon in violence, etc), Bugs Bunny on _Looney Tunes_ probably does more to desensitize children to violence than, say, Jack Bauer on _24_.

That's the truth, whether people want to accept it or not.

I personally don't agree with the "keeping them innocent" approach. But, then again, I'm not a parent so my outlook may change later in life.

Laterz.

.... that being said, I do not for a second believe that the children we are dealing with here became malevolent antisocials because they listened to Pantera too much or saw too much _Family Guy_. If you honestly believe that's what is going on here, I would have to conclude you are being unrealistic about this case. I suspect many people *want* to believe that is what's going on, because the truth is much more complex and sinister in nature.

But, hey, what do I know??


----------



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Well, given my background in psychology, there's something I'd like to mention here....
> 
> Namely, the notion that "media violence is bad for the kids!" is an amazingly simplified and dumbed-down way of putting the situation. It is not at all black and white. Not even close.
> 
> ...



Heretic,

I agree with most of what you say.  You are right, we can't go around blaming "ONE THING" for what happened to these children.

Since you have a psychology background would you mind sharing with us some thoughts on what would cause a child or children like these to become so desensitized that they would do such a horrible thing to another human being.  I am interested in your theories.  Thanks


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ok I can say this for those of you reading what I said , I said TV and movies can contribrute to these things so much is out there with nothing but glorifing violence and such. I'm sorry some people do not agree with what I had to say and rather post a comment themself they would rather give out negative rep points.
> 
> I stand by what I have said earlier and about all the volence on TV video game and the movies, most childern see these as a real life scenerio and not the make believe it is.


 
The fact that someone would give neg reps for this is evidence of their blatent ignorance of child psychology.  If you look at the most basic works of Piaget, things that every teacher studies, you will find that children ARE NOT able to separate reality from fantasy at certain stages of their development.  Some children go through these stages faster then others.  Some slower.  The bottom line is that there is a large amount of kids in their early and middle teens who may not have passed through this particular developmental stage.  

I'll rep you Terry, because you are RIGHT ON with this stuff!


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Heretic,
> 
> I agree with most of what you say. You are right, we can't go around blaming "ONE THING" for what happened to these children.
> 
> Since you have a psychology background would you mind sharing with us some thoughts on what would cause a child or children like these to become so desensitized that they would do such a horrible thing to another human being. I am interested in your theories. Thanks


 
In all honesty, it could be any number of things.

There are genetic abnormalities, personality disorders, abusive home situations, social or peer pressures, negative role models, or a lack of consistent stability or order in these childrens' lives that could all feasibly account for their behavior. It will most likely turn out to be some combination of these factors.

The "they learned it from tv!" argument really only makes sense in the context of social learning theory, which may or may not be applicable here.

I couldn't tell you more without knowing more about the children themselves. Also, I am far from a qualified expert so you should take everything I say with a grain of salt. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The fact that someone would give neg reps for this is evidence of their blatent ignorance of child psychology. If you look at the most basic works of Piaget, things that every teacher studies, you will find that children ARE NOT able to separate reality from fantasy at certain stages of their development. Some children go through these stages faster then others. Some slower. The bottom line is that there is a large amount of kids in their early and middle teens who may not have passed through this particular developmental stage.


 
Well, the level of cognitive development you are referring to is Piaget's pre-operational stage. This is normally worked out by most children between ages 2 and 5, roughly speaking. 

The children in this situation are at the age where they should be well into concrete operations and beginning to develop formal operations. However, we don't have specific information about them, so it would be impossible to say for sure.

Also note that these children could be fully developed cognitively, but still "retarded" (so to speak) in other developmental domains such as perspective-taking or sociomoral reasoning. Being able to distinguish between reality and fantasy doesn't ensure you will be a good person.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Well, given my background in psychology, there's something I'd like to mention here....
> 
> Namely, the notion that "media violence is bad for the kids!" is an amazingly simplified and dumbed-down way of putting the situation. It is not at all black and white. Not even close.


 
I disagree.  The statement, "Media violence is bad for the kids," is quite accurate.  It may not be the only thing that is "bad" for them, but it certainly is a something that matters.



> The truth is that the particulars of the violent imagery as well as the context that it is presented will impact what the children will "take away" from it. Violent media can either desensitize or sensitize children to violence. Many people don't want to admit it, but given all the variables of the research I have seen (i.e., realism of the violence, repercussions of the violence, use of weapons versus non-weapon in violence, etc), Bugs Bunny on _Looney Tunes_ probably does more to desensitize children to violence than, say, Jack Bauer on _24_.


 
I agree.  Violence is violence.  Bugs wacking Wiley on the head or Marvin shooting at various characters desensitizes children to things that should be viewed negatively.  

Can you find any of those things in Seseme Street?



> I personally don't agree with the "keeping them innocent" approach. But, then again, I'm not a parent so my outlook may change later in life.


 
Whatever floats your boat, but all I can say is that I held a similar postion six years ago when I was 24.  Two children later and things changed.  



> .... that being said, I do not for a second believe that the children we are dealing with here became malevolent antisocials because they listened to Pantera too much or saw too much _Family Guy_. If you honestly believe that's what is going on here, I would have to conclude you are being unrealistic about this case. I suspect many people *want* to believe that is what's going on, because *the truth* is much more complex and sinister in nature.


 
First of all, I would very much like to hear what you consider to be *the truth*.

Second of all, I wonder how you rationalize this statement with your above statement about Bugs Bunny.  They seem to contradict.



> But, hey, what do I know??


 
???


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Well, the level of cognitive development you are referring to is Piaget's pre-operational stage. This is normally worked out by most children between ages 2 and 5, roughly speaking.
> 
> The children in this situation are at the age where they should be well into concrete operations and beginning to develop formal operations. However, we don't have specific information about them, so it would be impossible to say for sure.
> 
> ...


 
Working with "At-Risk" children like I do, all I can say is that if you can develop a way to measure the developmental stage of this population of children and then go out and do so, I think you would be doing some good work in developmental psych.  IMHO, this is a large population that is significantly retarded developmentally.  Trying to figure out why these folks are retarded is another story...but the simple fact remains, they are retarded developmentally.

This means that they cannot separate fantasy from reality...even for kids as old as 15.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I disagree. The statement, "Media violence is bad for the kids," is quite accurate.


 
It is "accurate" in the same way that "Intelligent Design is good science!" is also "accurate".

Media violence, when presented in certain contexts and under certain variables, can sensitize children to violence and decrease violent tendencies. This, again, is something many people do not wish to approach seriously because it complexifies the issue. 

Whether one sees a decrease in violent behavior as "bad" for children, though, is a subject of debate, I suppose.



upnorthkyosa said:


> I agree. Violence is violence.



You clearly missed my point. Not all portrayals of violence have the same effect on all audiences.  



upnorthkyosa said:


> Whatever floats your boat, but all I can say is that I held a similar postion six years ago when I was 24. Two children later and things changed.



Which is why I said I may hold a different position later on in life. 



upnorthkyosa said:


> First of all, I would very much like to hear what you consider to be *the truth*.



"The truth", that is, what the available research and evidence presently indicates, is precisely what I have already described. Namely, that the context in which children are exposed to media violence (as well as the age of the child) can impact what they take away from it. This can be both positive and negative.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Second of all, I wonder how you rationalize this statement with your above statement about Bugs Bunny. They seem to contradict.



They seem to contradict if one is unfamiliar with the research.

To clarify my above point, children can be sensitized to violence if:

1) It is depicted in a realistic, not cartoonish, manner.
2) It is depicted as having repercussions --- both to the initiator of the violence and to the victim's friends and family.
3) It is done with weapons, as opposed to unarmed violence.
4) It is initiated by the antagonist, not the protagonist.
5) The child is old enough to distinguish between reality and fantasy. 

There are other variables, of course, but those are the major ones. That is also why, contrary to popular "wisdom", shows like _24_ do more to sensitize violence among youths than shows like _Looney Tunes_.

Hope that makes sense.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Working with "At-Risk" children like I do, all I can say is that if you can develop a way to measure the developmental stage of this population of children and then go out and do so, I think you would be doing some good work in developmental psych. IMHO, this is a large population that is significantly retarded developmentally. Trying to figure out why these folks are retarded is another story...but the simple fact remains, they are retarded developmentally.
> 
> This means that they cannot separate fantasy from reality...even for kids as old as 15.


 
Well, part of the problem is that, contrary to Piagetian theory, psychological development does not generally occur across domains. Someone who demonstrates formal operations in one performance domains may not do so in another.

That means one can be at different "stages" of development in cognition, emotional stability, perspective-taking, moral reasoning, kinesthetic development, social skills, and so on. Because of this, development becomes a very, very complex phenomena that is rarely addressed in an adequate fashion with across-the-board policies.

That being said, I have no doubt that there are teenagers that cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. But, I am skeptical as to whether the children in this particular case fit into that category.

Laterz.


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

N 2 Combat said:


> This is what is so disturbing nowadays. Of course we now have babies making babies, rasing babies. Grandma is 35. The mother 20.




Yep..Went on a 911 call and found just what N 2 Combat posted, a Grandma raising her daugters kid and she had no clue where there Mom was..The Grandson was having an argument with his "ho" and slammed the phone down and somehow triggered the 911 speed call..


----------



## Drac (Oct 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> And Terry hit it right on the head. Video games, movies, TV, you name it, IT HAS AN EFFECT. I don't have cable TV. We don't play video games. I screen EVERYTHING my kids watch, because I sincerely believe that it is in their best interest


 
I must disagree..There was no Sesame Steet or Mr Rodgers when I was growing up..There were Westerns,cop shows,Combat and The Gallant Men someone getting shot, stabbed or blown up every few minutes..Yet I and many others turned out all right..Someone gave you a negative reppie for posting our opinion and didn't sign it??? What a chickensheet individual..


----------



## Lisa (Oct 16, 2006)

I think that much of what caused those children to act as they did was a result of the surroundings that they have grown up in, not exclusive to TV or video games.  It is probably a combination of experience, neglect and abuse.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 16, 2006)

Heretic is correct.  It is a much more complex argument than "violent video games lead to amoral behavior".  As video games become more realistic, children do, indeed, become inured to the idea that the outcomes of violence are not permanent.  Unlike the many times the Roadrunner outsmarted Wile E. Coyote, and Wile E. was smashed, fell from a huge height, was hit by a train, ran into a solid wall, etc. - it was a cartoon.  The characters, however anthropomorphized, were clearly inhuman.  Many of the video games out today show recognizable people (still anime, but recognizably human) being shot, sliced open, kicked into a coma, etc., and returning to life unharmed, either during the game or during the next repetition.  There is a significant body of research that shows that this exposure desensitizes children to violence (references here, here, here, and here, among others - a google search on "video games child repeition desensitization" delivered quite a few articles, both in the popular press and more scholarly journals).  This desensitization - seeing realistic cartoon characters injured, maimed, and/or killed, and then come back to life, leads to a mistaken belief that injury and even death is temporary.  *Proper supervision by parents can reverse this*... but parents who properly supervise their children, instead of using video games, TV, movies, etc. as baby sitters generally don't allow their kids to play such games.  It is a significant problem, and the problem is growing; as computer graphics improve and characters look more and more realistic, the problems grows even more.


----------



## exile (Oct 16, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Heretic is correct.  It is a much more complex argument than "violent video games lead to amoral behavior".  As video games become more realistic, children do, indeed, become inured to the idea that the outcomes of violence are not permanent.  Unlike the many times the Roadrunner outsmarted Wile E. Coyote, and Wile E. was smashed, fell from a huge height, was hit by a train, ran into a solid wall, etc. - it was a cartoon.  The characters, however anthropomorphized, were clearly inhuman.  Many of the video games out today show recognizable people (still anime, but recognizably human) being shot, sliced open, kicked into a coma, etc., and returning to life unharmed, either during the game or during the next repetition.  There is a significant body of research that shows that this exposure desensitizes children to violence (references here, here, here, and here, among others - a google search on "video games child repeition desensitization" delivered quite a few articles, both in the popular press and more scholarly journals).  This desensitization - seeing realistic cartoon characters injured, maimed, and/or killed, and then come back to life, leads to a mistaken belief that injury and even death is temporary.  *Proper supervision by parents can reverse this*... but parents who properly supervise their children, instead of using video games, TV, movies, etc. as baby sitters generally don't allow their kids to play such games.  It is a significant problem, and the problem is growing; as computer graphics improve and characters look more and more realistic, the problems grows even more.



I'd also suggest the work of Lt. Co. David Grossman, particularly his 1999 book _Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill_. Grossman, who served as a paratrooper in the US Army Rangers, and taught psychology at West Point, speaks with special authority because much of his work was originally focused on the kind of violence simulation that would take army inductees--
-a poplulation which is known from earlier research to be averse to killing enemy soldiers even under intense combat conditions---and turn them into dependable killers in battle and special operations situations. 

The materials which Grossman says specialists in this kind of psychological training (_including himself_) devised for this purpose have, according to him, most of the same properties as the latest generations of commercially available video gams, stuff like Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto and others (including a disturbing recent tendency in these games to sexualize the violence in the game---a linkage which he notes was first used in early experiments with training material along these lines by the Japanese shortly before and during WWII, with marked success). What Grossman is saying is that the combat desensitization that soldiers undergo to make them more reliable killers in battle is crucially based on material that is virtually identical to a large chunk of the video game market. His book covers a lot more data and research than just this point, but I don't think anyone can dismiss the connections Grossman and others who work in this area have posited between a certain _kind_ of violence in interactive entertainment, on the one hand, and social violence on the other.

No one is saying that this is the sole factor---its importance is that it plays into a nasty mix of other contributing causes, including the point that Terry, Lisa and others have raised earlier about _neglect_. A lot of children whose parents would furiously deny abusing them grow up as latchkey kids, never eating with their families (family meals are regarded as quaint relics of the _Leave It to Beaver_ era in many quarters, and staging them requires a lot of effort and cooperation), spending days and nights at the homes of friends their parents bare know, and in general having to socialize themselves and each other. A lot of them come out of it just fine, no one denies that! But look at the opportunities all these circumstances give to the emergence of a group of really dangerous, semi-feral children who because of their particular psychology and biology are right on the borderline. The cultural mix just outlined maximizes the chances that these kids are going to wind up full-blown sociopaths, and violent ones at that.

No one thing is going to fix these tendencies, just as no one thing is the source of them. It's also true that many of the people who work in an industrial plant loaded with asbestos and  toxic chemicals don't go on to develop cancer. But don't be surprised if the incidence of fatal diseases in such a place is way higher than the statistical background. It's the same kind of thing. Our society has a lot of interacting toxins, and these kids, and their victims, are part of the `fatalities'.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Oct 16, 2006)

Terrible, but not new. When I was little, too little to really remember, neighborhood children put me in a trashcan, put the lid on and filled it up with a garden hose. Thank goodness someone older saw what they were doing!

BTW, more traumatic for my mother than myself 'cause I don't remember much...


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2006)

Ok for the record here I'm not saying just TV, videos games and such but the do contribrute, Tiday world is all about violence and if you follow history over the last forty years, the world crime and violent crimes are doubling every year, society needs to stop glorifing criminals and make then do hard times again. Look you can kill someone and be out on parole in less than 5 years what type of message does that send our youth of America, Video games such as Crime Lords or scareface just teaches a child that maybe on the edge anyway. They may Not hurt but they surely do not help and the fact that alot of kids are left alone because both parents have to work to pay there bill contribrute as well.

In closing I would like to say can we all just get along and bring happiness to a child life one day at a time.


----------



## Drac (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ok for the record here I'm not saying just TV, videos games and such but the do contribrute..


 
Yes NOW more than ever..My stepdaughter from my first marrage(1988) began to exibit real anti-partentral, teacher behavior..We stopped the MTV and she soon was back to normal self..Have you seen the music videos today?? ALL women are "ho" and "Bitches"..For the men the ONLY thing that makes you a man is money, drugs, guns, gold jewlery and cars with big rims and treating women like sheet..


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> Yes NOW more than ever..My stepdaughter from my first marrage(1988) began to exibit real anti-partentral, teacher behavior..We stopped the MTV and she soon was back to normal self..Have you seen the music videos today?? ALL women are "ho" and "Bitches"..For the men the ONLY thing that makes you a man is money, drugs, guns, gold jewlery and cars with big rims and treating women like sheet..


 

Right on Drac and you are right my kids are not allowed to watch MTV to much drugs and guns and ho and such


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Ok for the record here I'm not saying just TV, videos games and such but the do contribrute, Tiday world is all about violence and if you follow history over the last forty years, the world crime and violent crimes are doubling every year, society needs to stop glorifing criminals and make then do hard times again. Look you can kill someone and be out on parole in less than 5 years what type of message does that send our youth of America, Video games such as Crime Lords or scareface just teaches a child that maybe on the edge anyway. They may Not hurt but they surely do not help and the fact that alot of kids are left alone because both parents have to work to pay there bill contribrute as well.
> 
> In closing I would like to say can we all just get along and bring happiness to a child life one day at a time.


 
That's all well and good, but the problem is that people are absurdly overexaggerating the role of television and video games in inculcating violent behavioral trends. If you seriously want to reduce violent trends among youth, you would do something about the following:

1) War.

2) Capital punishment.

3) Easy availability of handguns.

4) Socioeconomic inequality.

5) Ethnic conflict.

Any one of the five aforementioned points do just as much, if not more, to contribute to violent trends in youth as fictitious depictions of violence.

But, people will continue to target video games, music, and television. You know why?? Because its _easy_. The five points I mentioned are real social problems that require a lot of national effort to address, with a large portion of the population rationalizing their existence away.

I find it curious that people are rallying against something that parents have some measure of control over (i.e., the content of television and radio in one's household), but when it comes to the stuff that requires actual communal effort --- racism, poverty, war, state-sponsored executions, etc. --- there is noticeable silence.

That, in my opinion, speaks volumes more about the state of our Union than some frivolous video game.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

All of those issues have been around for eons...technology has not. If there is a statistical increase in violence I would be looking at what is new before blaming things on some political adgenda.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> All of those issues have been around for eons...technology has not.


 
Not in the United States, they haven't.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> That's all well and good, but the problem is that people are absurdly overexaggerating the role of television and video games in inculcating violent behavioral trends. If you seriously want to reduce violent trends among youth, you would do something about the following:
> 
> 1) War.
> 
> ...


 
Which Union are you referring to?  I ask because I don't know your whereabouts.  This attack occurred in Canada, which, if I'm not mistaken, has a fairly "progressive" attitude about the five factors you listed.  I'm pretty sure they don't have a death penalty, don't know about the availability of handguns.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

Canadians watching too much US television/movies??


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2006)

1) War. I'm doing nothing about war I have absolutely no control over the matter

2) Capital punishment.  I have been an advocate for tougher laws since I was old enough to be able 

3) Easy availability of handguns  Been involved with the permit process for tougher hand gun laws

4) Socioeconomic inequality.  We as a wholei9n our household try and adopt and manage to help raise funds for various organization thoughout the world

5) Ethnic conflict. Well sense my wife is ethnic and I'm Jewish we do as we can there as well

One you did not mention is Hunger  at my school we donate our time for the local foor shelter and once a month we hold a food drive for our local food banks 

I know it may not seem much to some but we try to help all that is in need, not only with love but with support for them as well.
This does not change a thing about tv, videos games and other such violent act being in our everyday life/ Please do not try in shadow what is really going on in the world, the facts are every since violent behavior has been glorified the crime rate has jumped/

I know what I allow my kids to do and hopefully they will grow up and live a happy life.I also try and teach my students that by giving back to the community you are helping out for the long haul.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> Which Union are you referring to? I ask because I don't know your whereabouts. This attack occurred in Canada, which, if I'm not mistaken, has a fairly "progressive" attitude about the five factors you listed. I'm pretty sure they don't have a death penalty, don't know about the availability of handguns.


 
In the context of my previous post, I wasn't referring specifically to the incident in question. I was referring to the trends in youth violence in the United States.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

What about the wealthy, educated, white kids that commit these crimes? Who do they have to blame? And whats with these suburban kids emulating, inner city, rap, "gangstas"?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> One you did not mention is Hunger at my school we donate our time for the local foor shelter and once a month we hold a food drive for our local food banks


 
Hunger falls under socioeconomic inequality, actually --- it refers to the gap between the poor and the rich. 



terryl965 said:


> This does not change a thing about tv, videos games and other such violent act being in our everyday life/ Please do not try in shadow what is really going on in the world, the facts are every since violent behavior has been glorified the crime rate has jumped/



I think you will find that your "facts" are by in large of your invention.

At what point in recent history do you believe violence was suddenly and spontaneously "glorified"?? From what I can tell, violence has _always_ been glorified. Or, perhaps you are unaware of the number of war movies and Western shoot-em movies from decades ago??

I know exactly what is happening here and I know exactly why people are going after the entertainment industry. Imagine if all this energy was devoted to combatting things like poverty, illiteracy, or war??

Laterz.


----------



## Drac (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> 2) Capital punishment. I have been an advocate for tougher laws since I was old enough to be able..


 
Anyone against this should work 2 years on the streets in Law Enforcement...That will change your tune very quicky..Many of these juvenile offenders do not fear jail, 3 hots and a cot and the chance to join up with one of the MANY gangs inside..



			
				Terryl965 said:
			
		

> 3) Easy availability of handguns.. Been involved with the permit process for tougher hand gun laws


 
We need to make the laws *tougher *for those who carry without the permit..


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> What about the wealthy, educated, white kids that commit these crimes? Who do they have to blame? And whats with these suburban kids emulating, inner city, rap, "gangstas"?


 
No idea. I don't have any specific data on that demographic, so I would hesitate to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

However, the five points I mentioned earlier are directly correlated with general violent trends in industrialized nations, just as much as violent media.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> Anyone against this should work 2 years on the streets in Law Enforcement...That will change your tune very quicky..Many of these juvenile offenders do not fear jail, 3 hots and a cot and the chance to join up with one of the MANY gangs inside..
> 
> 
> 
> We need to make the laws *tougher *for those who carry without the permit..


 

How many criminals face serious time on ANY crime? Im under the impression that most crimes get plead down.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Hunger falls under socioeconomic inequality, actually --- it refers to the gap between the poor and the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Yes imagine and a nickel will get you nothing, please the old days did not glorified death it had it but did not give the message it does today. I would say you are my age, so lets talk apple to apples ok, in the old days as we call it how much time was spent in front of tv in my household we was always outside playing football or some sport and then caame in ate did our homework had what we called family hour played some board game and then bed, maybe we spent two hours a week watching TV, today kids watch it from the time they get up to the time the go to bed, most childern would rathe rstay inside and watch tv than go outside and play.

We apparntle have different views here and yours and mine have merit and we are both old enough to be able to see past a word or two, we both want the same thing PEACE well we get it probaly not in our lifetime but maybe just maybe our granchildern or great grandchildern will if we keep pushing today for the right solutions.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> Anyone against this should work 2 years on the streets in Law Enforcement...That will change your tune very quicky..Many of these juvenile offenders do not fear jail, 3 hots and a cot and the chance to join up with one of the MANY gangs inside..


 
Socially-sanctioned violence has been shown to correlate with violent behavioral trends among the populace, especially among youths. This includes both capital punishment and war.

When one is deciding whether one is "for" or "against" an issue, it is important to take information like this into account.



Drac said:


> We need to make the laws *tougher *for those who carry without the permit..



Personally, I favor both gun education requirements (similar to how we regulate driver's licenses) and stricter laws for those that break the law.

Laterz.


----------



## Drac (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> What about the wealthy, educated, white kids that commit these crimes? Who do they have to blame? And whats with these suburban kids emulating, inner city, rap, "gangstas"?


 
THOSE are my favorite targets and get no mercy..Living in the "burbs in a $200.000 house and being supported and spoiled by Mommy and Daddy..I get the greatest satisfaction in sending them to Juvenile Court OR even better bringing them home at 2:00am and informing Mommy and Daddy that their little darling was drinking and driving and Dad's brand new BMW has been towed...I will NEVER understand their desire to emulate the innercity kids..They have NO CLUE what those kids go through...Sorry Ranting..


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

And how often did you sit in front of a video game killing, bombing and maiming with no real purpose other than the action itself. Literature and entertainment from the "the old days" at least that heros fighting for "truth, justice and the American way". The violence was coulped with some sort of message that had a societal benefit (heroism in defending the homeland, fighting off brigands, defending the weak).Today we have video games where you steal cars, shoot cops and run street gangs. With sound tracks of rappers talking about "ho's, bitches, money and unearned "respect"..."


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And how often did you sit in front of a video game killing, bombing and maiming with no real purpose other than the action itself. Literature and entertainment from the "the old days" at least that heros fighting for "truth, justice and the American way". Today we have video games where you steal cars, shoot cops and run street gangs. With sound tracks of rappers talking about "ho's, bitches, money and unearned "respect"..."


 

I know this is not asking of me but when I sat in front of a video gaqme it was pong a little ball being hit like tennis to each other not much violents there


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> Yes imagine and a nickel will get you nothing, please the old days did not glorified death it had it but did not give the message it does today.


 
Really?? As a wannabe social scientist, I'm just not seeing that.

Sure, the faces, the names, and the images have changed. But, the underlying mythos and ethos have not. How long have little boys played with toy guns and simulated "shooting" one another?? How long have there been fictitious dramas depicting the brave hero killing all the bad guys (whether "the Injuns" or "Cobra" or what have you)??

This isn't something in recent history. This is something that has been a part of our culture for a long, long, long time. We have always glorified and lionized violence, particularly within a military context (G.I. Joe, anyone?). 



terryl965 said:


> I would say you are my age, so lets talk apple to apples ok, in the old days as we call it how much time was spent in front of tv in my household we was always outside playing football or some sport and then caame in ate did our homework had what we called family hour played some board game and then bed, maybe we spent two hours a week watching TV, today kids watch it from the time they get up to the time the go to bed, most childern would rathe rstay inside and watch tv than go outside and play.



Now you're talking about lifestyle changes, which is an entirely different subject altogether. 



terryl965 said:


> We apparntle have different views here and yours and mine have merit and we are both old enough to be able to see past a word or two, we both want the same thing PEACE well we get it probaly not in our lifetime but maybe just maybe our granchildern or great grandchildern will if we keep pushing today for the right solutions.



I believe "the right solutions" are to move away from socially-sanctioned _real_ violence, and not concern ourselves so much with _fictional_ violence.

Laterz.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

terryl965 said:


> I know this is not asking of me but when I sat in front of a video gaqme it was pong a little ball being hit like tennis to each other not much violents there


 
Same here. My sister letting my 5yo nephew play "Grand Theft Auto" frosts me.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> And how often did you sit in front of a video game killing, bombing and maiming with no real purpose other than the action itself. Literature and entertainment from the "the old days" at least that heros fighting for "truth, justice and the American way". The violence was coulped with some sort of message that had a societal benefit (heroism in defending the homeland, fighting off brigands, defending the weak).Today we have video games where you steal cars, shoot cops and run street gangs. With sound tracks of rappers talking about "ho's, bitches, money and unearned "respect"..."


 
Whether there is a "message" or not has little bearing on behavioral trends. The realism of the violence and the repercussions of the violence do.

This is especially the case among younger children, who often do not have the cognitive faculties to comprehend the "message" in the first place.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Same here. My sister letting my 5yo nephew play "Grand Theft Auto" frosts me.


 
Well, games like that do have an MA rating, if memory serves....


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

Drac said:


> THOSE are my favorite targets and get no mercy..Living in the "burbs in a $200.000 house and being supported and spoiled by Mommy and Daddy..I get the greatest satisfaction in sending them to Juvenile Court OR even better bringing them home at 2:00am and informing Mommy and Daddy that their little darling was drinking and driving and Dad's brand new BMW has been towed...I will NEVER understand their desire to emulate the innercity kids..They have NO CLUE what those kids go through...Sorry Ranting..


 
Is it me or are they all WWE fans too?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

I also think its a matter of volume. My grandfather reding a few "violent" books and seeing a few "nickel movies" is far different from kids these days constantly plugged into TV, DVD's, Movies, Internet, Games, IPods, WWE, the News making them think life is hopeless, etc..etc..my kids can read just aout all they wish, at least theres a message in the media.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I also think its a matter of volume. My grandfather reding a few "violent" books and seeing a few "nickel movies" is far different from kids these days constantly plugged into TV, DVD's, Movies, Internet, Games, IPods, WWE, the News making them think life is hopeless, etc..etc..my kids can read just aout all they wish, at least theres a message in the media.


 
Yes, that is both the advantage and disadvantage of an informational society (as opposed to the previous industrial and agrarian societies).

I believe our culture and ethos are still playing "catch up" to the rapid development we have seen in technology and the socioeconomic base. There seems to be a failure across the board to impose normative regulations on everything from Internet pornographic access to outsourcing cheap child labor overseas. This is akin to giving a tribal-horticultural society access to handguns and automobiles. Very problematic.

Part of the problem seems to be that the two most commonly proposed solutions are that:

1) Everything is fine. This is just freedom of expresson. If you don't like it, tough!!

2) We should go back to a "golden age" when this technology didn't exist. Regression is the answer!!

I consider both of those solutions to be short-sighted and unworkable. The only way we can successfully handle this new technology is to develop our sociocultural insitutions --- everything from education to laws --- to enable us to handle them in a socially appropriate manner.

Laterz.


----------



## zDom (Oct 17, 2006)

exile said:


> I'd also suggest the work of Lt. Co. David Grossman, particularly his 1999 book _Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill_.



I interviewed Lt. Col. Grossman in early September for the Standard Democrat just before he addressed faculty at a local school to pitch a program that seeks to reduce violence in youth.

The full article can be found here:

http://news.mywebpal.com:80/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpid=865&show=archivedetails&ArchiveID=1211424&om=1


Grossman told me that for children ages 2-3 years old, viewing television and movies increases the chance for attention deficit disorders no matter what they are watching.

Some view violence as vodka, and non-violent stuff as beer, according to Grossman, with all TV, movies and video games being harmful to some extent.

He has research the indicates that video, TV and movies -- regardless of content -- stimulates certain areas of the brain while reading stimulates others.

The areas stimulated by reading are those that "make us human," Grossman told me.

I don't think it is any one factor, but one thing seems certain to me:

the combination of parents allowing video games, movies and TV to replace them as parents (which indicates less time spent on loving interaction)

+

extremely high volume of video game, movie, TV viewing

+

reduced time spent reading

+

glorification of violent, criminal lifestyles

+

marginalizing and ridiculing traditional Christian beliefs and values


are all combining to result in a list of bad things in our society including, but not limited to, random acts of violence like the incident that started this thread, school shootings, moral relativism and a lack of respect for human life.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2006)

zDom said:


> I interviewed Lt. Col. Grossman in early September for the Standard Democrat just before he addressed faculty at a local school to pitch a program that seeks to reduce violence in youth.
> 
> The full article can be found here:
> 
> ...



Well thought post zDom.  One question, explain traditional Christiam beliefs please?  Are you inferring that if one does not actively attend church we are harming our children or by traditional beliefs are you inferring  to love thy neighbour, be a good person, etc.?  Curious, thanks.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

Theres "beliefs" and theres "practices". I could care less if somebody attends church, but upholding beliefs like the golden rule and "traditional religious" beliefs are a good thing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

zDom said:


> I interviewed Lt. Col. Grossman in early September for the Standard Democrat just before he addressed faculty at a local school to pitch a program that seeks to reduce violence in youth.
> 
> The full article can be found here:
> 
> ...


 
Im with that 100%


----------



## Drac (Oct 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Is it me or are they all WWE fans too?


 
No it's not just you...The saddest part is when these wangsters go down to the innercity to hang with the homies because they feel they are "brothers" and they ususally get beat up or robbed...


----------



## zDom (Oct 17, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Well thought post zDom.  One question, explain traditional Christiam beliefs please?  Are you inferring that if one does not actively attend church we are harming our children or by traditional beliefs are you inferring  to love thy neighbour, be a good person, etc.?  Curious, thanks.



I was thinking more along the lines of the latter, but on the other hand, to use an analogy -- how good of a martial artist can we be if we don't train? And where better to train than in a dojo/dojang/gym?

On the other hand, the place to put these Christian principals into practice is out in society, and these beliefs and values can definately be learned other places than in church (at the HOME for starters!), but

children certainly aren't getting much of this in schools today, what with the 10 commandments and prayer being pushed out, neh? They won't get it from TV or movies, generally speaking, and there aren't a whole lot of video games pushing traditional values.

But then, a lot of churches are watering down the traditional messages to bring more people in, going to more of a "prosperity" message and other "make you feel good about yourself" type messages.

I definately believe that, to paraphrase something from the Bible, if you teach children how to live right when they are young, they will not forget it as adults.

On a completely different note, anybody see that Bernie Mac episode in which Bernie decides the kids need "churchin'"?

Final comment: I'm a bit of a hyprocrite as I don't presently attend church on a regular basis (although I got a lot of churchin' growing up). I AM pleased, however, that my parents regularly take my children to church.

I WANT those values to be ingrained, deeply, within my children. Not only because it is good for society as a whole, but because I believe it is good for my children.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

zDom said:


> children certainly aren't getting much of this in schools today, what with the 10 commandments and prayer being pushed out, neh?


 
I disagree. Ethical principles such as the Golden Rule are a cornerstone of both primary and elementary school education, at least in my experience.

Furthermore, these aren't specifically "Christian" beliefs. They are common to most religious and philosophical traditions that I am familiar with. It is more appropriate to say they are simply "human" beliefs.

To that end, it is probably more effective (for the most part) if children learn these principles in a secular context. If the child later rejects the metaphysical "baggage" that goes with the ethical principle, he or she may also come to reject the ethical priniciple, as well.

Laterz.


----------



## zDom (Oct 17, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I disagree.



I knew you would 

But secular contexts are failing us. Don't you think schools, for example, have their hands full just trying to educate children in secular material?

Why not go with a context we know works? Sure, some may reject the ethical principals eventually, but no system provides flawless results.

Just because Christianity doesn't hold exclusive rights to certain beliefs such as the golden rule doesn't mean Christianity is an invalid construct to learn those beliefs and values from. It just reinforces the validity of those beliefs and values.

There are plenty of people, like yourself, that abandon Christianity when they become "more educated." But I'd rather members of my society become "disillusioned" with Christianity as adults than turn into murderers as children.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

zDom said:


> But secular contexts are failing us.


 
And you base this claim on what exactly?? 



zDom said:


> Don't you think schools, for example, have their hands full just trying to educate children in secular material?


 
Yes, which is why they should keep religion out of public classrooms unless it is a subject of elective study approached in an academic manner.



zDom said:


> Why not go with a context we know works?


 
Uhhh... because we don't know that it "works", and just because you subscribe to it doesn't mean it does.

In fact, a number of research studies within the field of social psychology have demonstrated high correlations between traditional Christian belief and prejudice toward others across racial, gender, sexual, political, and religious orientation. Statistically speaking, it apparently does _not_ work. 




zDom said:


> Sure, some may reject the ethical principals eventually, but no system provides flawless results.



Although it's far from flawless (which would be a perfect positive correlation), there is a very high correlation between transcendental meditation (TM) practice and both moral development (Kohlberg) and ego development (Loevinger).



zDom said:


> Just because Christianity doesn't hold exclusive rights to certain beliefs such as the golden rule doesn't mean Christianity is an invalid construct to learn those beliefs and values from.



Actually, yes. It does.

The problem is that you are essentially advocating pushing a religious view onto our children, regardless of what those childrens' parents may or may not want. I wonder if you would be so accepting of such a programe if it was Islam being pushed onto your children?? 

I needn't point out that, if this were occuring in public schools, it essentially violates the Separation of Church and State and is quite illegal.



zDom said:


> There are plenty of people, like yourself, that abandon Christianity when they become "more educated." But I'd rather members of my society become "disillusioned" with Christianity as adults than turn into murderers as children.



Statistically speaking, unless they become pastors, it is much more likely they will become bigots as adults under conservative Christian indoctrination.

Have a good one.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 17, 2006)

http://www.lc.org/Resources/myth_of_separation_church_state.html



> This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.
> 
> In modern times groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have attempted to create an environment wherein government and religion are adversaries. Their favorite phrase has been "separation of church and state." These groups have intoned the mantra of "separation of church and state" so long that many people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. In Proverbs Chapter 18, verse 16, the Bible says, "He who states his case first seems right until another comes to challenge him." I'm sure you have seen legal arguments on television where the prosecution argues to the jury that the defendant is guilty. Once the prosecution finishes the opening presentation, you believe that the defendant is guilty. However, after the defense attorney completes the rebuttal presentation of the evidence, you may be confused, or at least you acknowledge that the case is not clear cut
> 
> The same is true with the phrase "separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution


 


> So what did Jefferson mean when he used the "wall" metaphor? Jefferson undoubtedly meant that the First Amendment prohibited the federal Congress from enacting any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President's duty was to carry out the directives of Congress. If Congress had no authority in matters of religion, then neither did the President. Religion was clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and states. As a state legislator, Jefferson saw no problem with proclaiming days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even on one occasion prescribed a penalty to the clergy for failure to abide by these state proclamations. Jefferson believed that the Constitution created a limited government and that the states retained the authority over matters of religion not only through the First Amendment but also through the Tenth Amendment. The federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction over religion, as that matter was left where the Constitution found it, namely with the individual churches and the several states.
> 
> In summary, the First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation."





> The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2006)

If you want to play the Appeal To Authority game, the following is from this site:



> Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> 
> - &#8220;The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.&#8221;
> - &#8220;The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous.&#8221;
> ...



However, all of this is really besides the point, as the courts have ruled against the teaching of religious viewpoint in public schools outside of the context of the academic study of literature or world religion.

Laterz.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2006)

Hey Gentlemen, may I ask a favor, please.  Can we get back to the topic at hand which I believe is what caused these children to act the way they do.  Teaching of religious view points in school etc., is the topic for another thread, please feel free to start one.  Thanks


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2006)

The children involved in this incident will be sent to our "turnabout program" which was developed to Deliver Help And Consequences To Children Under 12 Who Come in Conflict with the Law.

Article

Does any other state have anything like this instituted to help children under 12?  What are the success rates?


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

The "Scared Straight" program had great results..Is it still in operation I wonder??? I'd like to see them take it to the next level and actually lock up the little darlings for a weekend..Put them in Protective Custody to insure their physical safety but let them hear and feel where they are headed if they continue on their present course...


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> The "Scared Straight" program had great results..Is it still in operation I wonder??? I'd like to see them take it to the next level and actually lock up the little darlings for a weekend..Put them in Protective Custody to insure their physical safety but let them hear and feel where they are headed if they continue on their present course...



I've read about such programs and seen some statistical evidence that they are highly effective... if they aren't widely implemented they should be... a lot of these kids---not the inner city kids form the urban war zone but the jaded priviledged suburban kids playing at Bloods and Crips---have no clue what it's like inside. How could they?


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> a lot of these kids---not the inner city kids form the urban war zone but the jaded priviledged suburban kids playing at Bloods and Crips---have no clue what it's like inside. How could they?


 
They see and hear how violence is glorified in the rap videos and think that's how it is..They never show these "heros' getting busted and winding up as "Bubba's Bride"..They never see these tough guys coming into court dressed as the establishment they hate and beg and weep for mercy..


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> They see and hear how violence is glorified in the rap videos and think that's how it is..They never show these "heros' getting busted and winding up as "Bubba's Bride"..They never see these tough guys coming into court dressed as the establishment they hate and beg and weep for mercy..


 

Maybe if they did it wouild help some of these lost souls


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

Possibly...Going into the schools had no effect because those chosen to speak to the kids were told what they could and couldn't say..I'd like to see a "lifer" brought in to the schools shackled and cuffed and use the language he is most comfortable with..The English dept would faint but the message would come across....


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> Possibly...Going into the schools had no effect because those chosen to speak to the kids were told what they could and couldn't say..I'd like to see a "lifer" brought in to the schools shackled and cuffed and use the language he is most comfortable with..The English dept would faint but the message would come across....



I suspect seeing these destroyed lives in prison---not just a day trip, but a weekend visit---would do more to ram the stupidity and self-destructiveness of that kind of behavior into these kids' bored sense of entitlement than anything else. 

The concept that actions have consequences and that you have to live with the consequences of your actions seems to have gone by the wayside in many zones of life. I think of the person who sued---successfully---some restaurant because they tipped some hot coffee into their lap and burned themselves---on the grounds, I think, that the restaurant hadn't given them sufficient warning that the coffee was hot... as though the normal default thing in a restaurant is to serve you _cold_ coffee...


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> I suspect seeing these destroyed lives in prison---not just a day trip, but a weekend visit---would do more to ram the stupidity and self-destructiveness of that kind of behavior into these kids' bored sense of entitlement than anything else


 
I couldn't agree more...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 18, 2006)

I remember when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, the church we went to would every so often take bibles to the people in the county jail.  They often had the various kids groups go along to hand them out.  That was an experience.

Jeff


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I remember when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, the church we went to would every so often take bibles to the people in the county jail. They often had the various kids groups go along to hand them out. That was an experience.
> 
> Jeff


 
LOL!  Sounds like a "Scared Straight" program disguised as an act of charity.  Parents can always find a way to make you take yer medicine.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 18, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> LOL!  Sounds like a "Scared Straight" program disguised as an act of charity.  Parents can always find a way to make you take yer medicine.


I know I didn't want to end up in there after seeing it!


----------



## exile (Oct 18, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I know I didn't want to end up in there after seeing it!



Well, that's the trick. LEOs like Drac and some of our other guys on MT, who see this stuff firsthand know, just by their own reactions, just how much impact the brutal reality of living in a max security facility would have on kids who currently don't have a clue about it... but that kind of exposure is, I would bet, all too rare for kids in toney middle-class communities. It probably takes a certain amount of guts for a school administrator to build something like a visit to the nearest state pen into the schedule of field trips for kids with household incomes in six figures or more. 

The importance of reaching _these_ kids is paramount. In Victoria, my home for many years before moving to Ohio, there have been a number of horrible incidents in which groups of kids from well-off, upwardly mobile families participated in the killing or maiming of other children who were regarded as expendable because they were socially marginal---and local law enforcement there has warned increasingly of an alarming increase in incidence of this sort of crime. 

This, contrary to some of what certain previous posts have suggested,is a pattern that cannot be plausbily attributed to socioeconomic disparities (if not outright rich, these kids' familier are extremely comfortable), nor can it be associated with war (we're talking about _Canada_ for heaven's sake---we glorify peacekeepers, not warmongers!). What we are seeing, according to Canadian law enforcement agencies, is a frightening increase in what I think of as `reacreational' violence---kind of like the vandalism that bored some kids have always indulged in, only now the thing is to throw the brick not into a storefront window but into some unsuspecting victim's face. Violence in some quarters is considered a kind of diversion---Lisa's story isn't the first I've heard about the increase in this sort of thing in Toronto. There's no apparent motive for it, and the kids who are apprehended for it virtually _never_ express any remorse, or awareness that there are ethical and moral issues involved in their actions. 

Doctors I know like to say that, if you don't know just what the matter is, you treat the symptoms and hope you can figure it out down the road. One way of treating the symptoms here is just the kind of `shock' exposure that Drac alluded to in connection with that program for kids, and which Jeff's post indicated had a substantial effect on him and his schoolmates. There are a lot of guys in prison that you're not going to be able to rehabilitate, but their lives can still be put to some good by showing impressionable young minds what it's like to get caught up in the penal system. Ideally we'd like them to do the right thing because it _is_ the right thing, but if they wind up doing the right thing because they know what can happen to them if they do the wrong thing... I'd settle for that.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> The "Scared Straight" program had great results..Is it still in operation I wonder??? I'd like to see them take it to the next level and actually lock up the little darlings for a weekend..Put them in Protective Custody to insure their physical safety but let them hear and feel where they are headed if they continue on their present course...



Actually, Scared Straight was scrapped because, in many instances, it not only didn't work, but increased the recidivism rate.  It worked in the short term, true - but over time, it was, in some cases, worse than no intervention.  There is some question about this, because it was generally used with the worst of the worse, who tended to not be concerned; I've not seen any significant results from programs that used it with children earlier on.  There are some studies that showed positive results, but they often didn't follow the kids into adulthood.



> *Shock Programs*
> One tertiary youth violence prevention intervention meets the scientific criteria established above for Does Not Work: _*Scared Straight.*_ Scared Straight is an example of a shock probation or parole program in which brief encounters with inmates describing the brutality of prison life or short-term incarceration in prisons or jails is expected to shock, or deter, youths from committing crimes. Numerous studies of Scared Straight have demonstrated that the program does not deter future criminal activities. In some studies, rearrest rates were similar between controls and youths who participated in Scared Straight. In others, youths exposed to Scared Straight actually had higher rates of rearrest than youths not involved in this intervention. Studies of other shock probation programs have shown similar effects. (For more information on Scared Straight and similar shock probation interventions, see Boudouris & Turnbull, 1985; Buckner & Chesney-Lind, 1983; Finckenauer, 1982; Lewis, 1983; Sherman et al., 1997; Vito, 1984; Vito & Allen, 1981.)



Other resources:

Scared Straight and other prison tour programs

"Scared Straight" and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency (Cochrane Review)

Scared Straight (Wikipedia)


----------



## zDom (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> Ideally we'd like them to do the right thing because it _is_ the right thing, but if they wind up doing the right thing because they know what can happen to them if they do the wrong thing... I'd settle for that.



Me too.


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Actually, Scared Straight was scrapped because, in many instances, it not only didn't work, but increased the recidivism rate. It worked in the short term, true - but over time, it was, in some cases, worse than no intervention. There is some question about this, because it was generally used with the worst of the worse, who tended to not be concerned; I've not seen any significant results from programs that used it with children earlier on. There are some studies that showed positive results, but they often didn't follow the kids into adulthood


 
Thanks Kacey I was unaware that it had been scrapped..


----------



## Lisa (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> Ideally we'd like them to do the right thing because it _is_ the right thing, but if they wind up doing the right thing because they know what can happen to them if they do the wrong thing... I'd settle for that.



Yup, I can live with that too.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2006)

exile said:


> Ideally we'd like them to do the right thing because it _is_ the right thing, but if they wind up doing the right thing because they know what can happen to them if they do the wrong thing... I'd settle for that.


 
Agreed.  This is why it's important to have negative incentives in addition to positive incentives.  I have no doubt that I meet people daily that would do me harm if they thought they could get away with it.  I feel much safer relying on their self-interest (staying out of jail) than their love for their fellow man.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 18, 2006)

There is no virtue in certain people anymore save that which springs from wholesome fear of the gallows. Take away the gallows and what did you *think* was gonna happen?

You don't "rehabilitate" people capable of  doing things like this. You VENTILATE them. But since for the most part that option has been taken away this is the natural consequence of paying the price.

You're thinking that's maybe a little harsh?

No. It's a *lot* harsh.

 But there comes a point-and I'm convinced beyond unconvincing that those responsible for the deed which sparked this thread ARE past it-where a person just is not fixable. Only one thing to do with a rabid dog, and if it's not done, who then is to blame when the dog continues to attack people?


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> I feel much safer relying on their self-interest (staying out of jail) than their love for their fellow man.


 
With all due respect...You are deluding yourself...All it will take is the right individual with the I-don't-care-about-jail-attitude who believes you "dissed" him or stared to hard at him and he will attack, although I will pray that you NEVER run into them, and if you do you will use your skills to beat the chicken soup outta him..Make NO mistake, they are out there...If one of these scumbags doesn't think twice about jumping on a cop KNOWING that retribution will be swift and terrible when his backup arrives PLUS facing jailtime for Assault on a Police Officer..Do you think you are any safer??? Sorry ranting again..


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> With all due respect...You are deluding yourself...All it will take is the right individual with the I-don't-care-about-jail-attitude who believes you "dissed" him or stared to hard at him and he will attack, although I will pray that you NEVER run into them, and if you do you will use your skills to beat the chicken soup outta him..Make NO mistake, they are out there...If one of these scumbags doesn't think twice about jumping on a cop KNOWING that retribution will be swift and terrible when his backup arrives PLUS facing jailtime for Assault on a Police Officer..Do you think you are any safer??? Sorry ranting again..


 
What I said is that I feel "safer".  Not "safe".  Big difference.  I know there are scumbags out there who don't fear the penalties.  But many people do.  What I am _not_ doing is deluding myself that these people are leaving me alone out of concern for _my_ well-being.


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> What I said is that I feel "safer". Not "safe". Big difference. I know there are scumbags out there who don't fear the penalties. But many people do. What I am _not_ doing is deluding myself that these people are leaving me alone out of concern for _my_ well-being.


 

*Please forgive my ranting..* No disrespect intended..I need to read a little more carefully..Again my apologies...


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 18, 2006)

Drac said:


> *Please forgive my ranting..* No disrespect intended..I need to read a little more carefully..Again my apologies...


 
No foul. :ultracool   I just wanted to make sure I wasn't projecting a "fiddle-de-dee" attitude with that last post.  Sometimes I don't make myself very clear.


----------



## zDom (Oct 18, 2006)

"beat the chicken soup outta him"

Heheheheh  Nice phrase.


----------



## Drac (Oct 18, 2006)

I heard that somewhere and liked it..


----------



## Lisa (Oct 25, 2006)

and one of the kids strikes again....

Story


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 25, 2006)

Jeesh, is the term pyromaniac still in use?


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 25, 2006)

You think that is bad? Try this.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dvd-mob-like-nazi-camp-guards/2006/10/25/1161699377397.html

The perps may be a bit older, but the way they are being treated sickens me. You may note that a kid caught peddling the DVD was let off with being expelled. He had to know what went on, said nothing and that is all they are doing to him.

I think that a lot of the problem may be that kids really are not educated in things about morals as they are conditioned. I think we have to look at Pavlov more than Freud. I think that later kids build up their moral outlook on life based on how they have been conditioned by their family and society. There are women in Ethiopia who have had female circumscision done on them and yet they are the ones to force it on their daughters. Their conditioning is what drives them, not a process of thought and reflection.

Now we seem to expect kids to understand the evil that they do and correct themselves. That presupposes that they have the ability to tell right from wrong and have empathy towards others. Anyone who has watched kids fry ants knows that there is little empathy at an early age. And kids are not too clear on the differences between a slug that they shrivel up with salt and a kid that they set afire it seems.

I think we need to tell kids that certain things are wrong, punish them for stepping over the line and tell them to shut up when they ask why it is wrong. They will figure out why it is wrong if they are conditioned to act a certain way. But too many kids are great part time lawyers and see loopholes in logic that really don't make sense to anyone else.


----------



## zDom (Oct 25, 2006)

Grrrrrrrrrr....


----------



## Lisa (Oct 25, 2006)

That is really sick, Don.  Really, really sick.  I have some ideas as to what to do to those kids...they aren't very nice and it angers me that they get away with that without any reprecussions.

I wonder what would happen to those children if someone dies in one of the fires they start?


----------



## exile (Oct 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I think that later kids build up their moral outlook on life based on how they have been conditioned by their family and society.



There's a lot of truth to that. Treat the symptoms if you can't do anything else, as the doctors say. 

I remember during the early days of the civil rights movement, people who were defending the `right' of certain parts of the country to maintain a segregated society used to use the argument that `You can't legislate morality.' And I remember a professor of mine at university who quoted that and then snorted, `The _hell_ you can't!'. His point was that you can't wait till people decide `in their hearts' to stop beating up on a minority---if you make and enforce laws that protect that minority from the violence and systematic oppression of the majority, then after a while, that change in _practice_ will lead to the change in perception that you want. But you have to start with the change in behavior. 

This is the same kind of thing, exactly. If you can't do anything better, at least you have to get people to behave decently, by whatever means. I wouldn't say it's Pavlov vs. Freud, because my impression is that Freud really didn't have much to say about violent sociopathy---his domain was really just neurosis; violence of this sort he never, as far as I know, had anything to say about. He did say, repeatedly, that psychoanalysis could do nothing for genuine psychosis. But the Pavlovian part---yes, if the best you can do is condition decent behavior, then that's what you have to do.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 25, 2006)

As far as the child Lisa posted about - gee, a warning... how horrible (heavy sarcasm here).  This child especially, but also the others involved, need intensive counseling, beginning about a year ago; that being impossible, it needs to start ASAP, and parental refusal shouldn't be an option - in fact, I would suggest that family therapy would be appropriate.

For the teens Don mentions, _extremely_ intensive therapy (as, I suspect, incarceration would simply inure them to their current ways), along with a truly significant amount of community service - say, around 1000 hours - closely supervised, doing something really fun, like picking up trash on the freeway, digging ditches, cleaning septic tanks... perhaps going to a 3rd World country and working among people who consider a bowl of rice a full meal, and a monthly bath to be a luxury.

Given past mores, I can't say if such despicable acts are more common today, or if they are just better reported - either way, we, as a society, need to do a better job of educating our youth about morality and ethics, a better job of supervising them, and a better (and much faster) response system for those who commit such acts.


----------



## Drac (Oct 26, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Jeesh, is the term pyromaniac still in use?


 
Not for kids, that's a term they use on adults..For kids it's "youthfull offender"...Our law makers really have to sit down and rewrite *ALL *the juvenile laws..The current laws on the book were written for yesterdays youths..This current batch of juvenile law breakers are *WORSE* than adults...


----------



## Drac (Oct 26, 2006)

While on duty today I met a 14 year old male who was wearing on of those court ordered ankle trackers..He was bust for B and E ( breaking and entry) possession and  resisting arrest...What a future he has...


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 28, 2006)

Being new to the forum I read all this thread in one go. I found it very interesting, it's something that needs discussing and then action taken. There were a good many ideas on how to deal with these youths, some I think could work, some I'm not so sure about BUT this situation is so serious than almost anything is better than the current 'nothing we can do' attitude authorities seem to take.
   Several years ago, I don't know if it was reported in America or not, two 10 year old boys took 4 year old Jamie Bulger out of the shopping centre he was in with his mother. They lead him away, then tortured him unspeakably, sexually too. They battered him, laid him on a railway track so a train could run over him. The two boys never seemed to show any remorse or even understanding of what they did wrong, found guilty in court they were sentenced to secure youth custody. They stayed there till they were 18 a couple of years ago. We assumed that they would then be transferred to an adult prison, they weren't, they were released. Given new names, new lives probably in Australia. The newspapers try to find out where they are but are threatened with court action if they give any details out.
  There was a huge amount of discussion at the time about video games, films etc. There's no doubt that films and television influences children, we have white boys living in the Yorkshire countryside here walking around with their jeans hanging around their knees calling each other 'bro' and the girls 'hos' imitating American gangstas! I must admit it's a funny sight but does lead to the question what else are they imitating?


----------



## Drac (Oct 29, 2006)

One of the black officers I work with remembers the time when uttering the word "Niggah" in ANY form by ANYONE was guaranteed to bring on a butt whipping...


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 13, 2006)

I have been thinking about it and I would like to pose this question for discussion. 

What if there is an evil gene?

Of course, I kind of pulled that term off of a Simpson's cartoon. But what if a certain percent of the population is born without the ability to empathize with others?

Think about it. It is not all that strange to think when you consider that children early on are able to determine that certain things are their's, but only later develop the ability to understand that others have the same ability to own something. Sanow in his book, _Inside the Criminal Mind_, lists a lot of cases where people who are bad apples can be identified from an early age as well as numerous cases where only one member of a otherwise normal family turns out bad. And Grossman in his book, _On Killing_, says that there is a small percent of the population that the military does not need to condition to be able to kill other people. And he also points out that it is a natural instinct among all animals to avoid killing members of their species. And then there are stories of people with injuries to their brain who change their ethics.

So maybe some people just are born with brains that lack the ability to empathize with others. Humans do have instincts such as that of love, fear of falling and stuff like that that we are born with. What if the ability to consider what others think and feel is one of these things?

And it seems that there are two ways that society has tried to modify behavior of its bad apples. Either,

A) it uses rewards or punishments to get the people to make a conscious decision to stay within the limits of acceptable behavior. Or,

B) it tries to make a change in the individual to make them rehabilitate themselves to think about others and deal with them with a different philosophy and outlook.

I, for one, am not going to argue that if you can get someone to change themselves (B) it is far, far better than trying to control them through some sort of threat of punishment (A). And in recent decades we have been trying to use this (the second method) more and more. Especially with children when they are still in a state of development.

But what if they just can't do that due to the way they were born?

That would mean that up to now, a certain percent of the population has only been kept in check because they fear the consequences of their actions. Without that fear, there is no way to condition them to modify their behavior. And we have been removing that fear in the early years when people's habits are still in a state of flux.

I believe that we are conditioned like Pavlov's dog a bit more than we would like to admit. We develop habits that guide our behavior. The way we are conditioned, how we are treated and the patterns we fall into during our early years provides the way we will act for the rest of our lives.

A poll in the Asahi Shimbun today caught my eye and started this question I pose to you. 32% of the people responding to a survey about the government's recent proposals to counter bullying said that they felt that bullies felt no sense of guilt. I happen to think that they may be the 32% closest to the situation. I have seen situations where kids have done things and the teachers have tried to get the kids to feel some sort of shame or guilt over what they did and you can tell that it is just not getting through. But that is the only thing the government seems to think they should deal with the problem. 

And, it is no coincidence I feel that the number of cases of criminal acts by the kids seem to be increasing.

I think that someone who is born with the ability to empathize with others can be screwed up if they are raised incorrectly. These kids can be turned around. I have also seen kids that no amount of reaching out seems to work. And the scum bags I went to school with all seem to be now behind bars, dead or otherwise not living a productive life in harmony with others.

And I look at the way we are trying to teach the kids now and I have to fear for the future. These kids are being conditioned to think that there is no negative consequences for their actions. If they build up habits based on that, I can only see their behavior getting worse as adults.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But what if a certain percent of the population is born without the ability to empathize with others?



Narcissism is a personality disorder in which the person is unable to empathize with other peoples feelings or emotions. How does a person develop a narcissistic personality disorder? I don't know. Maybe they're born with it. 

NPD:


> *A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy*


http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think that someone who is born with the ability to empathize with others can be screwed up if they are raised incorrectly.



I agree. And on the flip-side, can someone who does not have the ability to empathize with others, be somewhat "saved" from physically harming others by being raised in the right enviroment?

I personally know someone who is unable to empathize with others. It's quite an odd thing to observe. Fortunately this person was raised in a stable family, but I wonder where he'd be had he not been. As it is, his inability to empathize has been effecting his life negatively for years, and he doesn't even see it. He recognizes the problems he's facing, but is unable to equate his life problems as consequences of his behavior. It has impacted both his home life and his professional life.

But overall, I think more people who are born with the ability to empathize have that destroyed by psychologically abusive childhoods.


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Narcissism is a personality disorder in which the person is unable to empathize with other peoples feelings or emotions. How does a person develop a narcissistic personality disorder? I don't know. Maybe they're born with it.
> 
> NPD:
> http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html
> ...



I agree with both Don and JT's posts, but there's a few more wrinkles in the born-lacking-empathy scenario. It's a bit more complex than just lacking empathy, though I do think that that's the core. But there seem to be different _ways_ to lack empathy, and not all of them lead to the kind of conscienceless destructiveness Don is writing about, and which this thread seems to be most concerned with.

Autism, for example, is regarded by many cognitive psychologists as associated with the lack of a `theory of mind' by the autistic child---that is, autistic children simply do not attribute the same capacity for subjective experience to others which they themselves possess (and are aware that they possess). Other people, in other words, are `black boxes' to them, and  are often of little interest, along with other things that they cannot understand. But autistic children, so far as I know, are not especially inclined to violence; actually, passivity is probably far more typical with them. So lack of empathy alone won't do it. It's not enough not to be able to empathize; I think there has to be something still more specific... some lack of an internal check on violent impulses and reactions _coupled_ with failure to empathize (and maybe feeding off it as well). 

I recall something from that old book about the daily life of the `soldiers' in organized crime---_Wiseguys_ I think it was titled---whose author made the interesting point that what differentiates these guys---guys like Paulie, Chris and Silvio on _The Sopranos_, say---is not so much their toughness; often there are other people, `normal' people out there who are much tougher---but their effortless capacity for violence. _That's_ what we seem to be seeing a lot of these days, and the source of that is only partly attributable to a gene for non-empathy, I suspect, though lack of empathy may indeed be a necessary precondition for that capacity. But something else is involved... and again, some of it may come from the kind of desensitization that David Grossman has written so acutely about, based on his own work in designing technology to help induce that desensitization in soldiers. But I can't help feeling that there may be more to it than that---that this `capacity for violence' has its own life and history in people's psychoemotional development...


----------



## Lisa (Dec 13, 2006)

Interesting thoughts Don, Pam and exile.

I have not much more to add however Don's one statement rings very true to me in my everyday life:



> And I look at the way we are trying to teach the kids now and I have to fear for the future. These kids are being conditioned to think that there is no negative consequences for their actions. If they build up habits based on that, I can only see their behavior getting worse as adults.



Working around and with young adults, I see and fear for the future as well and I ask myself:  What is it we can do to change this?  I remember years back hearing my parents say that about the youth in my day and age, yet, I believe we have turned out alright (at least the majority).  Could it be the same for the children of today?

Is it our want and need to do more for our children then our parents did for us coupled by the fact that we tend to "over protect" our kids and then send them into the world without a clue as to how to take care of themselves, let alone how to empathise, respect and help other human beings?

I see this every day and I shake my head.  Young adults unable to wash their own clothing, dishes, make their beds or even set an alarm clock or write a cheque.  Young adults who have no fear of consequences, who lie, steal, cause trouble, vandalise property, etc.  All due to the fact that mom and dad have taken care of EVERYTHING for them and they feel that they DESERVE it all and don't work for anything.

Does all this cause a lack of empathy in our children?


----------



## exile (Dec 13, 2006)

Lisa said:


> I see this every day and I shake my head.  Young adults unable to wash their own clothing, dishes, make their beds or even set an alarm clock or write a cheque.  Young adults who have no fear of consequences, who lie, steal, cause trouble, vandalise property, etc.  All due to the fact that mom and dad have taken care of EVERYTHING for them and they feel that they DESERVE it all and don't work for anything.
> 
> Does all this cause a lack of empathy in our children?



I think it can contribute, definitely. Those who are built in such a way that empathy will remain forever somewhere over their emotional or cognitive horizons are going to be disconnected permanently from their fellows, but even those who aren't---who have the capacity to connect emotionally and psychologically with others---may not get the experience necessary to `trigger' that capacity, if they live enough of their young lives insulated from consequences. It's like: someone born mute will never utter a sentence in `their' language, but someone born with all their physical requirements for speech in place, but locked in a closet as Genie was for twelve years, without any verbal contact with others, will also never be able to communicate in sentences---they've missed the developmental window and once it's gone, it may well be gone for good. If normal kids do not learn that actions have consequences, often irreversible ones, then at the end of the day the results may be same as if they had been born with a `conscience' chip missing from their circuitry.

This is one reason why the problem is not a simple one...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Interesting thoughts Don, Pam and exile.
> 
> I have not much more to add however Don's one statement rings very true to me in my everyday life:
> 
> ...


 

Rich at age 9: MMMMOOOOOMMMMMMM My Jeans are dirty. 
Mom: I just washed them yesterday and told you to keep them clean for today. We have to go to ...
Rich: Can you wash them please? (* No whine, knowing the mistake I made above *)
Mom: No, but if you hurry you can wash them yourself. Cold water, one scoop of detergent, and put in your other dark clothes as well. 
Rich: ** Stunned **
Rich: ** Minutes Later standing in front of the washer ** Mom Can you help me, is it Cold/Cold or Hot/Cold?
Mom: It is Cold/Cold. and put in for medium cycle time. 
Rich: Thank you
Rich: ** Some time in the future ** Jeans still damp but I can wear them. 

At that time, I was helping in the garden to weed, and would help wash and dry dishes as well. I could also make a sandwich for when I was hungry ** Yummy Peanut Butter and Jelly/Jam **.

It is interesting to see people who cannot wash their clothes or pick up after themselves, because Mom always did it either our of taking care of her children or out of convienence as it was quicker and done right the first time, versus damp or shrunk jeans. Or faded because you used Hot water. 

I made a date dinner once (* Yes I was the romantic type *), and I cooked a nice roast and potatoes and carrots and ..., . She was surprised and did not believe me that I could cook. (* When she found out my Mom was in Chemo/Radiation Treatment for Cancer and I was doing what I could to help, even if not always right, she felt sorry that I had to learn how to cook and clean. The point was that I knew before that it just made it easier to experiment. *)

I think it does a disservice to the child if they do not know how to balance a check book (* Something else I learned early in high school - PS I like the way Lisa et al  uses Cheque *), cook, clean, run a vacuum, pick up, make a bed, (* Perfect corners and bouncing a quarter not required *), as they are lost later in life. These children grow up get into a relationship or two and move in or get married and find out that no one is around to pick up after them anymore. (* Goes for both males and females *) 


But that is my opinion on that subject.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> . . . because Mom always did it either our of taking care of her children or out of convienence as it was quicker and done right the first time, . . .



Even though I said Mom in relationship to my story with my Mom, it should have read Mom/Dad .


----------



## Drac (Dec 14, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Even though I said Mom in relationship to my story with my Mom, it should have read Mom/Dad .


 
That too is also a contributing factor...I rarely see Mom & Dads when returning one of these "youthful offenders" home, usually it's just Mom..Now that is not a bad thing as I know a dozen single parents who have done an outstanding job raising their childern...Too many times there is no Mom or Dad but Grandparent..As one told me "His Dad is in jail and I don't know where his Mom is."..


----------



## Lisa (Dec 14, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> What if there is an evil gene?
> 
> Of course, I kind of pulled that term off of a Simpson's cartoon. But what if a certain percent of the population is born without the ability to empathize with others?





			
				Don Rolley said:
			
		

> But what if they just can't do that due to the way they were born?



I have been thinking more about these particular statements that Don posed, here.

What if that is true?  

"Hey, I can't be held responsible for what I do, I was born with the evil gene"

What does our society do with people like that? and what consequences does that have on our legal system?  Everyone claiming to have an evil gene, somewhat like everyone claiming to have "temporary insanity"


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

Lisa said:


> I have been thinking more about these particular statements that Don posed, here.
> 
> What if that is true?
> 
> ...



That's a very good yet scary point. People still need to be held accountable for their actions. Even if an "evil gene" existed, we still make our own choices. Some people inherit *addictive* tendencies from their parents. Especially in the area of alcohol. This goes beyond learned behavior. It has been shown that some people, genetically, are predisposed to addictive behaviors. But not all children of alcoholics become alcoholics themselves, even though they have a higher propensity for being such. They _choose_ not to start drinking. I don't think a propensity towards something nullifies our will. The exception would be _true_ insanity, which is rare. And in those cases the person is still removed from society, just placed in the appropriate *holding facility*. I guess a person with an *evil gene* who commits a heinous crime would have no problem fitting in with the prison general population. Their propensity would be toward evil and they chose to act on it.


----------



## exile (Dec 14, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> That's a very good yet scary point. People still need to be held accountable for their actions. Even if an "evil gene" existed, we still make our own choices. Some people inherit *addictive* tendencies from their parents. Especially in the area of alcohol. This goes beyond learned behavior. It has been shown that some people, genetically, are predisposed to addictive behaviors. But not all children of alcoholics become alcoholics themselves, even though they have a higher propensity for being such. They _choose_ not to start drinking. I don't think a propensity towards something nullifies our will. The exception would be _true_ insanity, which is rare. And in those cases the person is still removed from society, just placed in the appropriate *holding facility*. I guess a person with an *evil gene* who commits a heinous crime would have no problem fitting in with the prison general population. Their propensity would be toward evil and they chose to act on it.



This is exactly right---what genes `for' complex phenomena usually are are actually genes for tendencies. Eye color and hair texture are fairly simple properties and you can get what are in effect single-gene coding for these. And some illnesses, famously Huntington's Disease---the one that shows up intermittently in the Guthrie family---and a few others are like that. But in most cases, when people talk about the genetic basis for, say, diabetes, they're talking about a complex set of properties that gives potential victims some wiggle room: people with even a long line of diabetics in their ancestry can dodge the disease, if they make very careful lifestyle choices and stick to them scrupulously---lots of exercise, whole grains instead of processed flour in their diets, etc. etc. So there's a choice. It's probably the case that even if Don's `evil gene' is real, it actually corresponds to a fairly complex phenomenon that could be partially offset by early experience, as people have already suggested on this thread, and partly by deliberate choice. 

This is why it's important for kids to learn that actions have consquences, that cause-and-effect is alive and well at the scale of human behavior and that they will be held accountable for what they choose to do. I know that I'm always tempted to `run interference' for my 9-year-old, but he and all of his age-mates had better learn early that if you don't think before you act, you might wind up being Very Sorry...


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 14, 2006)

Lisa said:


> I have been thinking more about these particular statements that Don posed, here.
> 
> What if that is true?
> 
> ...



I think that people with an evil gene can still understand that what they do is bad and not acceptable to others. So the thing would be to use rewards and punishments to get them to choose to modify their behavior. Instead, we try to get kids to consider their actions and change from the inside and that will not work if they are born a certain way. So instead of sending a kid to their room to think over what they did, take away all the stuff they would play with when they are in there (playstation, etc) and make them sit in a corner to bore them to tears.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 14, 2007)

Another story from my fair city that makes me shake my head.

What in the hell were these kids thinking??



> SICK GAME'
> 
> Police have caught three teens who they accuse of playing what Safioles called "some kind of sick game" where they tried to clip the runners with the car's mirrors.
> The boys, 16, 16, and 13, were all arrested about 3 a.m. Monday, after allegedly going on another stolen vehicle spree that lasted 11 hours and ended when one of them slammed a stolen Monte Carlo into an East Kildonan light standard while running from the cops. They allegedly stole three vehicles during that spree.



Full Story

I am starting to feel old...I seem to be saying "Kids these days..." a lot more often


----------



## Kacey (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Another story from my fair city that makes me shake my head.
> 
> What in the hell were these kids thinking??



They weren't thinking... that's kind of the problem.  :soapbox:



Lisa said:


> I am starting to feel old...I seem to be saying "Kids these days..." a lot more often



True... on the other hand, at least it's "kids these days" and not "my kids..." - could be worse (although the way you describe yours, it shouldn't be a problem).


----------



## Lisa (Mar 14, 2007)

This is the part of the story that gets my blood boiling...



> Neither of the other two boys were previously part of the WATSS ranking system, although the 13-year-old was arrested March 5 -- just three days before the Wellington Crescent incident -- for allegedly joyriding in one of two stolen Cadillac Escalades during another high-profile hit-and-run incident in the West End.
> 
> 
> That 13-year-old, who stands less than five feet tall, made his first appearance in youth court yesterday, and cried in the prisoner's box while being read his charges, prompting the judge to ask him if he was OK.



Okay?  Is he okay?  I hope that little **** isn't okay!  Crying....sorry if I have no pity for this kid, he was in a car that seriously injured someone!!!!

:rules:  There are rules kid, life is full of them and you can't just ignore the ones you want to!!!!!!


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Okay?  Is he okay?  I hope that little **** isn't okay!  Crying....sorry if I have no pity for this kid, he was in a car that seriously injured someone!!!!
> 
> :rules:  There are rules kid, life is full of them and you can't just ignore the ones you want to!!!!!!


Like I said before ... it's as though some adults are afraid of making the little snots cry or feel bad in any way!  THEY SHOULD BE CRYING! THEY SHOULD FEEL BAD!! Maybe they need to meet the Board of Education. :whip: Somebody stop me!

I'm with you, Lisa!  RTFM


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 14, 2007)

It's in no way comparable with what has been reported in this thread but the one time I was in trouble with the law (aged maybe 11) the senior officer in the station made the time to take me into his office, sit me down and gave me a right talking to that had me brimming with tears under the stony gaze of the escorting officer.  

He didn't raise his voice or do anything dramatic he just made me feel every ounce of his authority.  As years went by I realised that what he was doing was his level best to make sure that this kid who'd made a mistake never ended up in his station for something more serious.

Then they took me home and my dad gave me a good hiding from one end of the house to the other.

Guess what?  Never been in trouble with the law since.

I'm sure there's an obvious message there somewhere ...


----------



## Drac (Mar 14, 2007)

There are so many stories that I would love to share with you all about *MY* dealings with the school kids..Unfortunatly the obscenity filter would short out..


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> This news story has me absolutely shaking my head. I am beyond being able to put my emotions aside and fully understand and it makes me so angry that a thing like this is happening. I find it disheartening and scary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kids step on bugs too; where are the parents?


----------



## MetalStorm (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> This news story has me absolutely shaking my head. I am beyond being able to put my emotions aside and fully understand and it makes me so angry that a thing like this is happening. I find it disheartening and scary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

This kind of stuff in winnipeg almost doesnt surprise me anymore, I live just outside of the city which I love but think I am moving to the city just for the convenience. 

Crap like this really makes me think if I want to.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 15, 2007)

MetalStorm said:


> This kind of stuff in winnipeg almost doesnt surprise me anymore, I live just outside of the city which I love but think I am moving to the city just for the convenience.
> 
> Crap like this really makes me think if I want to.



STAY AWAY! LOL!  

Just kidding.  All major cities have their problems, ours is no difference.  What floors me more then anything is how are judicial system has their hands tied in these cases as to do anything about it.


----------



## MetalStorm (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> STAY AWAY! LOL!
> 
> Just kidding. All major cities have their problems, ours is no difference. What floors me more then anything is how are judicial system has their hands tied in these cases as to do anything about it.


 

Yeah theres some pretty crazy stuff that goes on, I mainly hang out at the albert and have heard/seen some pretty crazy stuff. For example that time that guy was found decapitated, disembowled, castrated, and various other forms of mutilation upstairs.

I havent really been to too many other cities so yeah its hard to compare but its pretty crazy with some of the stuff that goes on now a days, especially when its kids doing it. 

I did some pretty stupid and crazy stuff growing up and quite surprised I never got injured seriously from it but in my opinion doing stupid stuff like drinking in a bush and blowing up propane tanks (long story ) to actually going out and causing direct harm and/or killing other kids is quite a difference.

I dont know how a lot of the kids get their idea of right and wrong and just common sense but something really needs to be done, I have a lot of friends that live in sketchy areas of the city with kids and their kids are damn smart and behave really maturely for their age.


----------



## Drac (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Just kidding. All major cities have their problems, ours is no difference. What floors me more then anything is how are judicial system has their hands tied in these cases as to do anything about it.


 
Our law makers are going to have to rewrite the ENTIRE juvenile law stature..The trouble maker kids today make the so called tough guys we saw growing up look like choir boys..85% are armed with semi-automatic weapons and have no hesitation in using them...


----------



## MetalStorm (Mar 15, 2007)

Drac said:


> Our law makers are going to have to rewrite the ENTIRE juvenile law stature..The trouble maker kids today make the so called tough guys we saw growing up look like choir boys..85% are armed with semi-automatic weapons and have no hesitation in using them...


 
I agree, when I was in high school, which was a huge school and was the only one for many small towns I dont think we ever had any major incidents.

Our school had a really bad rep for being one of the most violent and whatever but for the most part it wasnt that bad, I got my *** kicked a few times by a bunch of guys but it was never anything major, I always walked away from it. There were a lot of fights, most of the time if something big came up between two people there would be the usual school gossip all day, end of the day they would get in a scrap, someone would win, someone would lose, 2 days later no one remembered it.

On occasion you would see some knives and stuff brought out in fights, never actually saw anyone use one though, just showing it off and trying to be the big tough guy.

For the most part I dont really care for fighting at all (not street fighting anyways, martial arts and stuff I love but thats a lot different) but that seemed to be the big thing when people had problems with eachother, get in a scrap, its done.

I dont get whats with all the killings now, especially from young kids, its just sick when you hear about a 10 year old kid murdering someone, not even just the fact of them killing someone but when they have been planning for long periods of time. The fact that they actually thought about what they were doing and not just something setting them off spur of the moment to do it.

Its hard to point the blame too, usually I would point it at the parents but we used to have a lot of foster kids that were pretty messed up, most of the time their parents were so sketchy that you could tell where they got it from, other ones seemed as normal as any family I know.

There was a good article I read a while ago (cant remember where) about some kids that killed some homeless guy and blamed it on violent video games (of course the press loved that). Some website wrote an article saying the parents should be blamed instead of games and one of the family members sent them in a really long letter explaining how they tried dealing with the kid growing up and how they tried getting him help and the schools and counselors didnt think anything was wrong and just blew it off. Was actually a pretty good read and creepy to hear some of the stuff the kid would do and how they tried everything they could think of.

Anyways I just did way more rambling than I normally do, off to bed.


----------



## Drac (Mar 15, 2007)

Responded to a fight in progress on a city bus..They were transporting these kids that are one step away from being expelled from the system..I boarded and one of these little darlings said something in the *"ghetto dialect"*  that was a challenge and I answered him back in the same syntax..
One of the advisors actually moved between me and this "youthful offender" as if to protect him and said in a "Little Kathy Clueless" voice "Officer these childeren are no one to play games with".."Lady", I answered. "Neither am I"..


----------

