News-Record.com

A UNCG adult student (dean's list- good for you, Latisha):
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:C0YVDR-HOqcJ:oas.dept.uncg.edu/profiles/honors/deans.php+Latisha+McClary+uncg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

And from LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/find/l/l16/l16_25.html

- United States: Greensboro/Winston-Salem, North Carolina Area
- individual and family services

Meaning, more than likely, a Social Work student. Unless there are two Latisha McClary (ies?) in our city.

Natsha responded to a post from last week
http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/02/grouphome_youths_need_tools_to.shtml
but she didn't answer the $65k question. Did writing these LTEs have any influence on a grade at UNCG?

Roger

What exactly is it that Latisha is advocating that people do? It is not clear what it is her intent.

If this is another UNCG class letter, I wonder what grade they are getting as most of them identify a problem, but really do not advocate a real solution.

I thought her meaning was clear: If we, the public, do not intervene on our (street) children's behalf, we should not be surprised when they grow up and rob and/or kill us. I think she also said our focus on the parent(s) and their lack of rearing their children receives too much attention and not enough attention is given to our future (our children).

I am as guilty as anyone for blaming parents for not disciplining their children and taking responsibility for them. So what happens when adults do not accept that responsibility? Latisha is asking this question, imo. If no one accepts responsibility for these children, they may become a product of the streets. The street will teach them, raise them.

I have never known of a joining of a sperm and egg asking to be born. So why are these children being the blamed for being born to lousy, irresponsible parents? The children are bearing the brunt of everything initially and we, the public, are receiving the results of non-intervention.

Sooner or later the public will have to pay a huge price for the lack of intervention on behalf of these "forgotten" children. Many on this blog want to condemn the parents only. They want no laws to be added, even if laws could deter irresponsible adults from having irresponsible children. Some are of a "I take care of mine so let everyone else take care of their own" mindset. In a perfect world this is as it should be. Folks know this but to acknowledge we do not live in a perfect would and others do not take care of their own would mean they needed to do something. And that is where the great divide is created. Some really do not care what happens to the children who never really had a chance.

I advocate rescuing the children already here and punishing the parents, not the children. Put up tents or quonset huts to house these deadbeat parents and let others adopt the children. As long as the root problem is not addressed and there is no consequence for producing children of the street, we can expect more of what we are complaining about.

"we do not live in a perfect would" Please delete "would" and the sentence will make more sense.

ORR,

Perhaps she's advocating a 75% increase in issued concealed carry permits to keep more people from running in fear for their lives.

It's more likely the same solution that Natasha offers:
"if I am stating that there needs to be change, I realize that I am part of helping that change to occur"

I'm not completely sure what that means, but I'm all for it.

Roger

Oh, boy! Make would, world, and the sentence will make sense, I think. Hopefully the third time is a charm.

Very good comments, Yvonne. You get an A for proofreading and finding your own mistakes...lol.

The idea of a community taking back "the streets" of their neighborhood from the thugs, mugs and bugs is well meaning and worthwhile. More important, it do-able.
However, as I've learned, it's mostly all tough guy talk from a few people who end up doing nothing. So, the bad guys control the neighborhood. And, the citizens hide behind locked doors. They put their lives in danger going to and from their doors to their cars.
Can the bad guys be run off? YES!!
Do not expect the police department do it. Law enforcement by it very nature of the duties assigned to it are 99% reactive. After you have been beaten and robbed of your pocket change, someone dials 911. Law enforcement will work with everything they can do to identify the thugs, track and apprehend them and bring them to court.
Law enforcement, though trying to conduct crime prevent tactics and community training, fail in this area. I'm not critical with law enforcement. I was in the field for over 30 years, and I honor those that continue and carry on.
And, here's a bit of economic information for you to ponder. Law enforcement is financed and funded by tax dollars. A high rate of crime and its victims means more tax dollars for the departments in the area. Low crime and its victims mean less $$$ for the departments.
Can a hard working family neighborhood take its street back? YES! But, the entire neighborhood most be motivated and stand together. Their individual feelings, biases, and thoughts must become one and teamwork must be maintained.
No one wins the game of football, baseball, basketball, etc., as a single player. The whole team wins or the whole team does not win.
I've have met in the past years with several neighborhoods to assist them with a plan. It's do-able, but everyone must want it bad enough to get involved.
Any interest, or did I waste my time writing this and your time reading it? As anal-retentive as I can get with my rants, I do truly care about the fight against crime. And, I stand ready to be on the front line in the fight. But, I can not do it alone, nor can you.
I ended each of my television shows of Piedmont Crime Control, that I hosted for over 8 years with the words, "Remember, working together, we can all fight crime." I still preach it.
The Dog's outa here.
Crime Dog

If anyone is still wondering...

Yes it is/was a mandatory class assignment from a social work class at The G.

Hugh, any idea if they had to be pre-approved?

-----

CrimeDog,
No, your time wasn't wasted. Then or now. You said something that made me remember a conversation with a LEO friend that has since left the area. He joked that his department was getting to the point where they could almost write their own paychecks by reinforcing the idea that crime was getting worse. He told me they had an employee in the department whose sole responsibility was arranging and managing non-direct-duty overtime for the officers. And the overtime wages were great, working nights at Food Lions and dance clubs and the like using municipal equipment and the color of law and at the risk of taxpayer liability. I always think of him and smile when I see officers at these places. You might even know him- older, promoted from labor to management out of state. I won't narrow it down too much or acknowledge if you put a name out, but he had a word for it. He called the establishments gooses. As in Golden Egg lore. And ones you don't dare catch and cook.

Roger

Sorry. "Hugh" should be "Mick."

Roger,

So that I don't post on what I assume you are saying, I would like to ask you for clarification. Do you mean crime is overstated for self-serving reasons? Are you saying some criminals are not apprehended on purpose? Would some areas or units be doing themselves in financially if crime was all but eradicated? I am asking, not assuming.

Latisha, here's my dilemma: bleeding heart social worker students calling thugs that crack an old man's skull open "children" and blaming anyone and anything BUT the thugs for their actions.

They HAVE been raised by "the village"...that's the problem.

There are more people making more of an effort than ever to try to keep kids (I use that term lightly) out of trouble. From church/community activists, to dedicated juvenile court counselors and a court system that generally gives them every second and last chance possible.

The problem is the ones most at risk are in that predicament because they have crappy parent(s) who have made poor choices. As neocon suggested, the rest of their neighborhood is the same way because, after all, where else do these people end up but in the same public housing developements (another effort made to help out the less fortunate/less ambitious). The other problem is that these "kids" won't listen to outsiders who are believed to lack any street cred.

It does go beyond the parent and household, but what lies beyond is just another mess of poor influence. They learn to get away with whatever they can, and no amount of hugs and kisses will change that. I would like to see the entire juvenile court system (and it's almost complete lack of real consequences) be abolished in favor of one court system where people of all ages are adjudicated on the same scale. They can still be housed in seperate facilities based on age, but these "kids" would actually have to face time for their actions and learn some respect for the law.

Somehow, some way, something has to take the place of a stern father figure before these young men permanently turn to crime before they hit 20. For now though, we continue to rely on an overburdened court system that can't afford to be a strict as necessary, and a bunch of touchy feely attitudes and social programs that never earn any respect and totally miss the point anyway.

Roger and Yvonne, businesses enter into off duty contracts with GPD, GCSD, etc, out of their own choice for specific reasons. These law enforcement agencies don't go around trying to sell themselves all over town by pushing overblown crime stats, the businesses ask for it. Sometimes it's out of a knee jerk reaction to a one time robbery, or because they need security all the time but have learned that these private security companies are not effective enough. Either way it's their choice. If they didn't pay for the extra help, some grocery stores or shopping complexes would eventually go out of business due to crime. In the process they would strain normal police staffing by having to call 911 every few hours, leaving neighborhoods more vulnerable. I'm certain, no matter what you may think, that area businesses don't need any skewed influence once they finally decide to pay for off duty officers. Responding to late night break ins and watching their insurance rates climb is all the advertising they need.

It is wortwhile to look at High Point's approach to the same problems Greensboro faces:

http://www.sungard.com/PublicSector/menus/pdfs/ossi/case%20study%20high%20point.pdf

High Point Police were honored for this creative use of assets, as well as community and faith based resources.

That 18-year old child in Summerfield learned a little something about getting liquored-up and attacking and choking a law enforcement officer, I reckon. I bet he gets his act straightened-out really quick. I bet his parents will take responsibility and he'll know about it, when he gets out of jail.

As I consider it, this class-directed letter shouldn't get more than a "C". I don't like people threatening me with violence, if I don't do something about someone else's problem. Simply, the parents need to take responsibility for their children, and if they do not, they can visit them in prison on visiting days.

"Simply, the parents need to take responsibility for their children"

What a concept.

Yvonne,

I think the police do a good job of apprehending criminals. If the following is seen as clarification, the people and events have been changed to protect the innocent, and any similarities to actual persons, either living or dead, are merely coincidental.

First, as Dog said, the police are reactive. They respond. They rarely prevent. From our own force's '04 budget release:
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FC4E5F47-CCDB-4633-A020-1FA3A4265F6E/0/PoliceReportExecutiveSummary.pdf

"A Greensboro Patrol Officer spends approximately 20.5% of his/her time on administrative duties, 72.9% of his/her time answering Calls for Service, and 6.6% of his/her time on patrol and conducting proactive services."

So not quite 7% of a year is spent trying to prevent crime. It's right there in their own document.

As the old saying goes, dial 911 and wait the rest of your life for the cops to arrive.

-

Increased crime statistics rationalizes increased funding. Witness the war on drugs. Heck, witness the war on terror.

Witness the COPS program from the '90s.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-10-cops-cover_x.htm

"Federal audits of just 3% of all COPS grants have alleged that $277 million was misspent. Tens of thousands of jobs funded by the grants were never filled, or weren't filled for long, auditors found. And there's little evidence that COPS was a big factor in reducing crime."

(Hillary wants to reinstate 1.15 billion to that program, btw. There's lots of money for cities if they can somehow show they need it.)

-

So far as your overstating question-

Police Budgeting: Winning Strategies
(from NCSU, no less)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0033-3352.00142?cookieSet=1&journalCode=puar

Based on a national survey of police chiefs with a follow-up focus group, this article discusses budgetary strategies that police departments used to be successful in budgeting. The strategies include: using crime and workload data judiciously; capitalizing on sensational crime incidents...

I don't have a membership or an interest in spending the $29 to get the entire pdf, but I'd sure like to read more about a couple of the topics.

"Capitalizing on sensational crime incidents" being the key one.

-

And, from our own police chief, courtesy of the N&R on December 11th of last year:
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071211/NRSTAFF/312120005

The Greensboro City Council unanimously asked City Manager City Manager Mitchell Johnson to find $500,000 in the budget to help fight crime, which was requested by the police chief during an emergency meeting being held Tuesday.

"The most important way that we can address these issues with the robberies, the homicides and the gang activities, is to give us funding," Greensboro police Chief Tim Bellamy told the City Council.

-

Or this from the 12-19-07 N&R. Looks like the leaders responded (and some people lost their job or future potential jobs):
http://www.newsandrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NRSTAFF/372042538/-1/news

"The City Council told Johnson early Wednesday morning to reduce the number of city employees from 2,924 to 2,875... That decision solves the council's biggest short-term problem- finding an extra $500,000 for the police department to stop a spate of killings."

Those quick seven murders in eight days was a good way to get more funding, even though there weren't that many more murders in '07 than '06. and only one more than '05. But these murders were worth a lot more to the department. "Capitalizing on sensational crime incidents" if you'll recall, even though the difference between murders and unreported gang-related gunfire is often a lucky shot.

And that half-million dollars, did it stop the "spate of killings"? Hard to say. It could be argued that it was equally effective in preventing polar bear attacks at UNCG.

There weren't any polar bear attacks, were there? It must've been the additional funding.

-

If the population can be convinced there's a problem, they can be convinced to fund the solution to said problem.

The FBI says it best:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html

"one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its law enforcement agency through proactive efforts identifies more offenses."

Agencies are not bound to any standard of reporting. Do you remember a few years ago when a more easterly city with a crime problem got in trouble because of the way they were reporting? When two crimes occurred together they would only report the lesser. Crime rates in the city dropped dramatically.

-

I won't do much more than point you to the SBI's crime tally by county:
http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/Default.htm

Total crimes in Guilford County-
1997- 28,311
1998- 28,481
1999- 25,969
2000- 25,235
2001- 26,902
2002- 24,928
2003- 25,316
2004- 24,974
2005- 25,488
2006- 25,602

Crime has stayed pretty much the same over the years. But the budgets have certainly increased. One could argue that increases are needed because of the increase in population, but high-crime areas stay in pretty much the same places, and, without people moving in from out of state (does anyone save up and plan to move to the projects?), have fairly stable populations.

-

The City of Greensboro's own police budget summary from '04:
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FC4E5F47-CCDB-4633-A020-1FA3A4265F6E/0/PoliceReportExecutiveSummary.pdf

(quote)
As a community, Greensboro doesn't appear to have a greater demand for service than other comparable cities in the State.
- Greensboro ranks low in relation to the comparison cities in terms of the number of the most serious crimes and in total calls dispatched.

Heck, I probably could've just posted that alone.

Roger

-------

Unbiased, I liked your posts. Thoughtful and well-written. I'll disagree, though. Law enforcement might not actively promote itself to businesses by citing statistics, but it certainly does "sell" itself, and makes itself available at very reasonable rates (~$25 per hour, right?).

Examples? Sure.

Here's one from Raleigh PD. Apparently Raleigh police changed their rules recently for off-duty officers.
"The changes include prohibiting officers from soliciting bar owners for work"
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/story/501692-p2.html

Soliciting bar owners for work. What else should we call that?

I did a search for hire+city+north+carolina+police+officer+off+duty and got Durham as the first hit.

http://www.durhampolice.com/off_duty/

(quote)
These officers can work to control crowds or traffic, prevent crime, or protect your business from robberies and shoplifting.

What do I get when hiring an Off-Duty Durham Police Officer?
- State-certified, experienced and fully trained Law Enforcement (LE) Officer who is authorized to:
(you can read the rest yourself)

Seems a lot like marketing to me.

Click the "previous page" link on the News and Observer article. You'll read this:
"Officers readily admit that it is not altruism that motivates them to work off-duty. They say they need the $25 an hour or more on the side to supplement salaries that hover around $30,000 to $40,000."

And, there's no denying, if there were no problems there would be no off-duty employment.

It looks like, on page 19 of the following, there are three people responsible for coordinating "off-duty employment" of Greensboro's police officers.
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1FDFD5D2-8EAD-411B-AEC5-1BA287CE60A6/0/STRUCTUREANDFUNCTIONSGUIDESeptember2006.pdf

It's from '06, so that might've changed, but am I interpreting that wrong? That's more employees than a lot of small businesses have. All to manage off-duty employment of full time employees?

A recent and good example just occurred.

Who will be picking up the tab to patch the bullet hole and clean the blood out of the city-owned SUV that was involved in the mall/diamond thief chase just last month?
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080125/NRSTAFF/611938802/-1/NEWSRECRSSGNRL

"Symmes, who was working off-duty at the mall, was in his police-issued unmarked Chevrolet Tahoe when he chased Williams down the interstate."

A canine officer, off-duty, earning off-duty employment wages at the mall, but with city-provided equipment and liability. Do you think he paid for his own gas to get to his overtime-paying non-city job? A Tahoe gets about 13 mpg. How about insurance for it? Did he use his issued firearm to shoot the guy? And, if Williams' family can sue, will the mall's insurance be backing the officer?

"The SBI is investigating the police-involved shooting."

"Police-involved" likely means it will be Greensboro's taxpayers.

"Symmes was on administrative duty Thursday, Newkirk said, which is common procedure for officers who discharge a weapon in the line of duty." Means it definitely will.

And, as a side response to the "private security companies are not effective enough," I would guess not. Remember that if you or I shot someone after they stole something from our place of business and then tried to escape in our car we would be in jail waiting for our day in court. Normal citizens have no property-protection solution, and I imagine private security companies face the same problem since they become simple employees with no commissioned powers.

Roger

Roger,

Thanks for the info. To borrow a phrase from my friend, I sought clarity and received clarity.

Wow Roger...where to begin?

First, if individual officers are soliciting off duty work then I disagree with that. That and the other links you posted, however, have nothing to do with your original suggestion that agencies skew crime stats in order to secure off duty work. Second, GPD and other agencies are ALWAYS underfunded, so the 500k that Chief Bellamy received is actually long overdue, although nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

As for your questions regarding Officer Symmes, this shows that you really don't understand off duty work or even the law. When a business signs an off duty contract that means any officer assigned to work there is in total capacity as a Greensboro Police Officer. All policies, insurance, etc. apply to that officer just as if he is on normal duty...the business only supplies the money. They are off the hook for any insurance issues, the department takes care of that. Since Symmes was assigned a police vehicle that he can take home, he is allowed to operate that vehicle to be more effective in an off duty capacity. Another officer driving only a personal vehicle would most definitely not be permitted to enter into a vehicle pursuit.

Your suggestion that a citizen would be in jail for doing what Symmes did is just plain wrong. The suspect was not shot for stealing jewelry and trying to steal a police vehicle, he was shot because he put the officer's life in danger by driving away while he was clinging to the vehicle. Any person in this country is entitled to save their own life with deadly force, including the circumstances that Symmes found himself in. You should know this stuff, but it seems to me that you have an angle to pursue...keep chasing.

Unbiased,

Sorry, I forgot something. What about when cities pass laws requiring private businesses hire security but the ordinances specifically prohibit private security firms? We can't call that selling.

Here's the link from Raleigh:
http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/293082.html

(quote)
part of a city ordinance requiring some nightclubs to hire licensed security guards to monitor late-night revelry. Until this summer, the jobs went solely to off-duty Raleigh police officers. After nightclub owners lobbied the city to relax the rules, the town changed the policy to target problem clubs.

The revised policy, which went into effect this month, also allows state-licensed security guards -- not just police -- to handle the late-night shifts.

---

So I'll agree with "law enforcement agencies don't go around trying to sell themselves all over town by pushing overblown crime stats," but I respectfully disagree that all off-duty work comes because "the businesses ask for it."

Selling? Maybe something a little bit worse sometimes, but definitely not selling.

One last thing that had come up in a conversation with the aforementioned friend long ago-

If I were a police officer and I was scheduled to sit in my car, listening to my radio with my blue lights on slowly following a tar truck during an off-duty gig with a street maintenance crew patching potholes for $25/hour, or maybe its a Friday and I'm scheduled to stand in a Food Lion next to the local womens' college for a few hours right after work, also for $25 an hour

(remember "Officers readily admit that it is not altruism that motivates them to work off-duty"),

do you think I'll have the same response/arrest drive regarding crime in the last hour of my shift as I did in my first hour? If I arrest a drug dealer at 9 am, and it takes two hours to nab, transport, fill out paperwork, etc. on him, do I have anything discouraging me from the same action that evening? If I see the drug-dealing brother of the first fellow on the same corner doing the same thing to the same people, and I know his arrest will be like the earlier one, accomplishing very little overall but potentially and probably tying me up for another couple of hours through apprehending, transporting and processing, allowing me to reasonably predict that arresting this guy here at the end of my shift will make me late for my off-duty employment, depriving me of my scheduled and counted-on off-duty pay since the off-duty employer requires someone be on-site at a specific time, and knowing that if it's not me then they'll ask another officer, do I have the same drive to pursue crime as I did before?

I've heard the term perverse incentive before. I think that's what it means.

Roger

Unbiased,

You've confused me with someone else. I never initially mentioned statistics. I did later give some examples of how agencies can self-promote, though, with a link to a local study, and a recent successful play for a half-million dollars using similar methods.

Regarding me being wrong on pursuit of the thief and the shooting, if I, as a citizen, pursue a thief, wouldn't roles be switched as soon as I climbed in my car and went after him? Wouldn't I become an aggressor? You yourself said "another officer driving only a personal vehicle would most definitely not be permitted to enter into a vehicle pursuit," and, as an aggressor in North Carolina, I don't have the right to use deadly force. My life would be in danger because of my own actions, not because of something out of my control. Maybe me trying to wrestle myself out of the SUV once I realized I was in trouble would reverse the roles again, but I would still have to argue my case in court.

"this shows that you really don't understand off duty work or even the law"

You're probably right. I've got a feeling you're in the business, so I hope you'll approach me academically and with patience, same as I would if you ever wanted to discuss what I do. I'm not a police officer, off-duty employer, or lawyer, so I have to learn about things as they come up. I'm not against the guy being shot, frankly. No angles either. But this has come up, and I am a property rights and self-defense advocate who likes discussing interesting topics. Help me learn about this one by proving my points wrong.

Roger

Roger, if Raleigh passed some ordinances that conflicted with each other, and then fixed it, how does that reflect on the police department? They didn't pass any laws. Maybe the pd lobbied for some form of security for these businesses, but it's the city's decision, and in the end I highly doubt there was some conspiracy on the part of upper level supervisors to line the pockets of street officers choosing to work on the side. Upper level supervisors are not eligible for off duty work. Raleigh, however, is probably a bad choice to discuss off duty ethics, considering their recent controversy in which some officers worked "off" duty while "on" duty. I'm not going post a link, just do a search going back maybe a year to learn more.

That leads to your other point about motivation to enforce the law. Sergeants generally don't want their officers working late anyway, so if something happens near the end of one guy's shift, he can just call for back-up from the squad working the next shift, during the overlap period. So any officer neglecting his duties just for an off duty job is being irresponsible and lazy. This is about individuals doing the right (or wrong) thing, not some bigger conspiracy.

As for a citizen chasing a robber/thief. Of course that kind of thing would be looked at very closely. Maybe he could be charged for careless and reckless driving, since I'm sure it would be seen in a "road rage" kind of light. But once somebody is trying to drive off with you or over you, and your only choice is deadly force, you are justified in using it. Police are strictly prohibited by departmental policy to use personal vehicles for a pursuit. So comparing the citizen with the off duty officer in this circumstance is to do so under two different sets of rules (laws as opposed to policy). Both are subject to law, but only the officer is subject to policy. Either way, the law looks at both the same way once the actual shooting takes place, but the officer has much better documentation of the factors leading up to the shooting (like his radio traffic), where the citizen will have more explaining to do. Hope that helps.

Unbiased, thanks for the response. It's a shame my posts might come across as somewhat anti-LEO. They're certainly not. More focus on individuals doing the right/wrong thing as you'd said is always the problem. That and complacency can ruin most any situation.

I just realized that your 8:27 post brought up something I hadn't thought of before:

"When a business signs an off duty contract that means any officer assigned to work there is in total capacity as a Greensboro Police Officer. All policies, insurance, etc. apply to that officer just as if he is on normal duty...the business only supplies the money."

Does that mean that the earned off-duty wages count towards the officer's State retirement plan benefits? That is, if an officer worked a $45,300/year position for thirty years but worked eight hours off-duty (in total capacity, as you'd mentioned) every week of the thirty years, would the officer retire with full benefits based on a $45,300 or a $55,700 (normal + off-duty wages) annual salary?

Not through social security, of course, but under the State's Local Law Enforcement Retirement plan.

Roger

The retirement is based on the average salary during last three or five years (I can't remember) of an officer's service. The off duty pay should count toward that figure, but for some it won't matter, if they are upper level supervisors who can't work off duty anyway.

Thanks Unbiased.

You'd mentioned contracts, so I'll guess there are some reliable and major off-duty employers. I remember reading somewhere about (roughly) $1 out of the $25 going to the department for administrative fees, with the rest going to the off-duty officer. Are the off-duty employers' checks written to the department and then passed on to the officer, with the retirement portion of the off-duty $25/hour taken out along with all the other deductions?

Roger

I have been reading the posts that have been submitted concerning my letter. Yes, this is Latisha. Thanks for all of the feedback: Roger, Yvonne, and especially Crime dog who got the big picture. To Oak Ridge: Your ignorance knows no bounds. I can guess your demographics from your comments but I'll leave that alone. Obviously, you are not familiar with the way the way that this world operates sitting up in your fine home in the country....First, you had no idea what I was speaking on, it went over your head. Secondly, once it did occur to you (probably after reading the rest of these posts) what I was trying to convey then you felt offended. No one is threatening you if you don 't take action. I know from your comments that you don't care what happens to the youth and just like Neocon feel that the parents are completely liable. What about the ones who don't have parents? Or the youth whose parents are good influences and role models? Charity begins at home but it does not stop there.....I may be a "bleeding heart" but at least I care what happens to today's youth and feel a personal responsibility towards them. Our mayor thinks so too....Check out the front page of the paper that my letter was published in. It is titled "Community Effort". Now Oak Ridge and Neocon, I would hate to see any of our youth on trial with you on the jury. You have already condemned them and that is worse than any crime. Instead of providing the solution, your ignorant and narrow minds are part of the problem. And P. S. I got an "A". And that's all I've got to say about that...