Four people were shot in Milwaukee over a span of a few hours this evening.A 22-year-old man was riding his bike near the intersection of N. 21st and W. Burleigh Sts. about 3 p.m. when two men drove by and started shooting, police said.The victim was shot in both feet and transported to a local hospital.The gunman's car sped off, but a Milwaukee police squad in the area caught up with it and pulled it over, arresting two men, 19 and 29.Ninety minutes later, at N. 24th and W. Brown Sts., a 33-year-old woman was shot in the left thigh and an 18-year-old man was shot in the left elbow.Neither of those shooting victims was being cooperative with police and no suspect is in custody, police said.About a mile away, a 29-year-old man was shot in the back about 7:30 p.m. near N. 34th and W. Clarke Sts., police said.Police are still investigating the most recent shooting.
This is not Iraq...this is the inner city of Milwaukee.
And people wonder why MPS high school kids read at a 4th grade level?
The inner city is out of control, and people ignore it, glad they don't have to deal with it...but you do....
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Four people injured in shootings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
So, lets spend all our money and effort invading/occupying a different country. Oh, but lets lie about it. So many people have been shot in suburban and rural school sover the past week, and this is what you choose to post?
We could address the various agendas withing the Democrat party to dumb down and Balkanize the US populace instead of solving problems, rhyno.
We could start with greedy, power hungry partisans like Jim and rhyno who NEVER offer solutions, just cut, run, tax, and spend.
I say we start with calling on the public carpet those who put settling their differences with others by violence rather than obeying the law. That means calling out Gwen Moore and her family. Sure it was slashing a few tires, but did she get the message that it was not acceptable in any way shape or form? Did people see that she was wrong for defending the actions of her son? Did they see that people supporting the idea of advancing your agenda through violence was slapped down hard? No, and rhyno and Jim are proof tha message didn't get out.
god are you a fool rhyno...
this happened in a few hours in one part of the city...and it happens all the time...
you really racked up stupid point on that comment...to try and compare the complete breakdown of society in the inner city with any suburb
You're missing the point. The point is that so much money is going into Iraq that's bankrupting this country, that there's no money being sunk into things like real law enforcement, or other things to make things better in the inner cities.
Can't believe you didn't see that in that post.
so you think money will solve the problem in the inner city???
Wrong
This is another example of the breakdown of morals and standards in our society. There is so little that our young is exposed to in life that supports any notion of honor and discipline, kindness and compassion, nor any other quality that leads to good citizenship. These things of course begin in the home, but now some of the parents are themselves the products of this breakdown. So there is nothing left. Pre-1960's, when there was still things like prayer in public schools, and religion in the public square, these incidents were far more rare. Small towns NEVER saw this stuff. But when they removed prayer in schools and restricted religious speech there and in the public sphere, they never replaced it with any secular equivalent (as if there is any), and the results were an erosion of the culture that continues today. I don't believe there can be any turn around without a turning back to God. The fact is, I'm surprised it isn't worse. Fewer people think beyond themselves than did those in the old days. When the only god one is guided by is the one in the mirror, this is what comes of it.
I could give a crap if it's religious or not; as long as it's a strong sense of rules and regs that children are given. I was raised secularly except for a brief period in elementary school, and still had rules to live by, and strong discipline and hard work.
Now, game, there's something that's come up today, and it's come up in WI -- and I'd like to get your take on it (I know where I stand with it): Should teachers have guns?
You mean you "couldn't" give a crap...
If you base your personal morality on secular notions or whatever you've decided (or your parents decided) to pick and choose, there are no absolutes. Put another way, there are only absolutes until such time as your ass is really up against it, and then, voila! new rules. With a strong religious background and upbringing, one learns that there is One who never changes and WILL hold you responsible for your actions. And He will judge on HIS terms, not yours. When one is brought up to believe this truth, then there are lines that will never be crossed, for the time is way to expensive to ever do the crime. Said another way, the rewards for proper behavior are too good to chance missing out over some petty personal whim or desire. From a secular perspective, nothing replaces that level of accountability because nothing is "written in stone". As if that wasn't enough, without some set standard under which most, if not everyone, abide, then what you have is as many different sets of standards as there are people. Everyone will have their own idea of what constitutes a transgression deserving of swift retribution, such as, "he looked at me funny" or some such petty crap. I use that example since the attitude is so childish anyhow. You might think your standards and rules are enough, but as I said, what's to stop you from changing as you deem necessary for the least little thing? Can you be counted on to adhere to your rules under any circumstance no matter how much it puts you out? Will you sacrifice yourself to your rules? Frankly, w/o religion, you'd be an idiot if you did. What would be the point? To serve society? What point is there to that if you're never to profit? A person of faith can suffer for a lifetime knowing that his profit will come in Heaven. Without religion, then there is only MY way. Don't get in it. I now serve myself and your problems are meaningless. Sounds selfish? Without God, what purpose is there to being any other way? There's no sense to it, no logic. This is what moves the vermin that is highlighted by this thread. Total devotion to self over anything else because the belief is that there IS nothing else. THAT is what has not been replaced by the secular after removing God from the public square.
Even if one were to look at it as if to serve one's self, they would hold their morals, rules, standards, regs up high anyway even without religious influence, because it does not serve one's self to do otherwise, even for the most selfish of people.
It is in one's own best interest to hold a conscience, and to hold a strong conscience of right and wrong, or one lands themselves anywhere but up and right -- life in itself sees to that. So do others.
If one can't stand the heat of societal retribution, of course he would adhere to a set of standards, but then he isn't adhering to his own per se, only the rules of society. He is adhering out of fear of discomfort, the level of which determined by the infraction. But of course there are those with a bigger set, if you know what I mean, and they aren't controlled by fear of getting caught. Or rather, their ego is big enough to prevent their believing they will get caught. Or to put it another way, there's the old conundrum that goes like this: Would you (insert some temptation here) if no one would ever know you did it? A good Christian would say no, knowing that of course there's always Someone who would know. A non-believer might go for it, because know one would know as far as he's concerned.
The type of people highlighted by Game's post have made their own rules and their sense of right and wrong is only as solid as circumstances allow. Their comfort dictates what they do or don't do. Their personal desires are of primary concern. They're not afraid of getting caught (because they truly think they'll get away with anything), they don't care what people think. If they are atheists, they are better atheists than most, because they truly live as they choose without a thought of anyone. If they had a conscience, they'd never do what they do. But their consciences are a totally different program. Most likely, they were influenced by non-believers far more than believers.
So would people of other religious persuasions, and so would a lot of those of no religious persuasion, marshall. You just haven't come out of the "Christian" mindset enough to see it, or know of it.
I've seen it time after time after time in my lifetime.
I'm not a Christian; however, you've seen a good dose of where I stand morally with things, and I (honestly, without bragging) am a respected person for my morals and sense of right and wrong (but then, I am one of another religious persuasion).
De,
Please copy and paste the line to which you are responding. Sometimes I'm not sure what you mean. For example:
quote
"I'm not a Christian;"
response
well, everyone has their shortcomings
See how that works? *snicker*
But seriously folks,
I'm quite sure there are some non-believers who are steadfast in their standards, at least so far. And I'm also as certain, that there are true believers who might fold under pressure. That's not the point. This is an area where speaking in general terms is appropriate and in general I'd say that non-believers are less likely to hold fast to their codes than believers. There's no way to know without tempting or threatening a few hundred thousand of each and make a tally. It's totally subjective but based on logical reasoning. If one doesn't truly believe in something after death, there isn't any reason to deny one's self anything for any reason at any time barring any retribution the subject is unwilling to bear.
And I can say the exact same thing for thousands, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Christians.
Not any one person of any religious persuasion or not is any better or less corrupt than another. Period. Nor are they any worse.
Post a Comment