They're hooligans.

them kids aint gang members! JPD trying to get paid once again

Social Darwinism (which, incidentally, is not supported by Darwin's theories) was one of the major pillars of Fascism and Nazism.
In theory, I actually agree with you- the argument for lifeboat ethics is attractive, but the logical conclusion of such theories leads to systems that, in Darwin's own words, are "evil".
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darw...
for a fairly well written criticism of social Darwinism.
Read the seminal article from 1974 at http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/arti...
for a very compelling argument in support of your position. Personally, I think there are several large holes in the piece, but it is a very interesting read nevertheless.

"but if you can not garnish the initiative to at least get a job, although it may not be a desirable job, than you should certainly not continue this gene strand"
I may not be a "expert" on genetics, but I am pretty sure that they have not found the job gene yet, nor the law breaking gene. If they do, then the law breakers are innocent, because it is genetics and not actions that commit crimes.

In my dealings, it is common that people who continually screw up, do not learn to fit with society, and have an attitude of entitlement that the world owes them all have one thing in common.
That is that they actually believe that they are not accountable. By mis-directing and holding someone else accountable for their actions, we will only feed into that.
If a child knows the law and dis-obeys the law, the child and not anyone else needs to be held accountable. If a parent, or someone else prompts a child to commit a crime, then that person should be held accountable.
This idea of making the parents pay will only serve to give more power to the kids and less to the parents.

Oh, you mean shenanigans?

Pizzaman, care to expand???

optimism, you really need to do some reading regarding law. DNA??? Just how does that make a person accountable because they share DNA?
Ohh and the personal slam about my parenting...I have two grown children, both productive, working, college educated, and non-arrested members of society.
I guess when you don't have any good material to debate with you just take a personal shot...weak

tjncj, my post was to show how absurd the comments about arresting the parents are.
Parents are only responsible to the limit of the law. Please show legal statue regarding parent accountability for criminal, not civil but criminal behavior of children.

ms_sassy,
I appreciate your opinion too, and I can see your point of view also...

deltafox5674, I appreciate your comments. I can't argue with them; however, I have a different opinion of how people react in life threatening situations.

Tom Foolery and poppycock are great additions to the cause.

Whoever chose the paleologistic "brouhaha" is probably glad he or she didn't get the byline.

Let's hope our efforts here have ended the blatant disregard for a fine word like "fracas."

ms_sassy,
I am afraid that you confuse what the conceal/carry law would do for its citizenry. First off, it would not put more guns into the hands of criminals, but rather allow those of us who already have guns (and presumably know how to handle them), to receive law-enforcement taught training, a license, and certification. My brother-in-law has taken such a course, and it wasn't four hour, or four days, but rather 8 weeks of 2 hour classes, including range training. (where people can practice firing and carrying a loaded weapon) So this notion of 4 days of training is not factual. Criminals don't seek to follow laws. Responsible gun owners do follow the laws, and by allowing them to protect themselves and others after proper training would make criminals less likely to attack strangers. To say that someone would feel empowered or have and exaggerated sense of security because they carry a gun, in my opinion, is false. When most people buy a gun, they learn how to use it, and know that its a powerful item that they have in their control. In fact, I would wager to say that when someone shoots a handgun for the first time, they are surprised by the experience. It is not what it seems on TV and I would encourage you to contact a friend who owns a handgun and let you fire it once to experience it yourself, first hand. This would help you to better understand the other side of this debate.

Isn't this cute, the little darlings are preparing for a career in license plate making at UW-Waupun. I'll bet mom and dad will be so proud...if they aren't already locked up too.

Did someone say Tom Foolery!?!?!

tjncj, I appreciate your thoughts and can sense your passion. I am not entirely convinced that the woman you described would have a positive outcome, either. Same reason: he (the stalker) is ready for a fight, but she is taken off guard. We hear the safety precautions to take when going into a dark parking lot, etc. I'm not sure that everyone follows them to the letter.

I don't have a problem with the right to bear arms. I am in favor of more training and more simulated circumstances (of varied types-aggressive and non-threatening alike)

alright pizzaman, we've established that we know each other...but now it comes down to who you are. seeing as I saw a lot of people yesterday. hmm....

Lots of poppycock being spewed here. (Dutch for soft dung)

ms_sassy - look at the states that have concealed carry. You probably don't get the permit if you have so little experience and no reason to have the permit.

Let's say this same 20 something has a crazy stalker boyfriend who is waiting to walk through a restraining order to get to her. She can then get the training, a permit and have half a chance when he meets her on the dark walk to her car after work. Without it she is another statistic and a grave.

I would rather she have 4 days of training and the gun vs. no gun at all.

and yes, I appreciate your sense of humor, gazettefan!

hmmm...concealed carry. picture this: let's say a 20-something year old female who doesn't hunt goes through weapons training...spends 2 or 4 days training, but then doesn't have any reason or need to use the gun. A year later, this person now has a need to brandish the weapon. She has a gun in her bag and a false sense of security. Because the training was some time ago, she has a false confidence that she will be able to respond in a critical moment. Imagine the fear that surges through your body, the adrenaline that is produced when your personal safety is severely at risk. Will the one brandishing the weapon be calm enough and without a doubt be in control to protect herself? (Remove the female distinction from the equation if you must, as I do not have a bias in any direction of who is a better shot, male or female)...

I think if someone is approaching you to in some way take advantage of you, they are more likely to be in a position for "ready, aim, fire" than someone taken by surprise.

gazettefan... I have tears in my eyes and my face hurts from the laughs! Thanks for the humor!

wtp you said "Janesville has two know gangs with about 5 members in each gang" that is false i know to many gang members in janesville, more than 30 from different gangs n the sh*t between the gangs is gettin worse n worse n the gangs r gonna keep on recruitin n recruitin more members

"If you outlaw guns, only 16 year old gang members hanging around the YMCA will have guns"

I am all for the concealed carry. Anyone who can pass the background check and training is welcome by me as a neighbor, sitting next to me in the restaraunt or bus. That punk behind you who has a gun may think twice wondering if he may be the worst shot on the bus.

Glad to hear that it's not a matter of hellzapoppin'.

Janesville has two know gangs with about 5 members in each gang. Yes it is sad we have to even have gangs in Janesville. However if you lived in Chicago or large metro area you would be looking at 100's of gangs with 10 - 20 or more in each. We are very fortunate to have two known gangs so they can be monitored by the JPD. I know I can trust our Police Dept to keep on top of this problem.

It is a mish-mash of balderdash.

That sounds like a bunch of Tom Foolery!

The hoi polloi should stop fighting among themselves and do battle with the hoity toity, just to get the bad blood out.

Then every goes to Weirdo's for a brew, ha ha.

benthinkin ~
What? Police be responsible for an ADULT who chooses to repeat offend? That was silly. Nice try to make an argument, but we are talking about parents who are responsible for their MINOR children who share their DNA (or different DNA in different situations). And you know it. I suspect you may be one of those parents that refuse to believe little sally could do no wrong. I agree, parents should be held accountable for their childrens crimes if they don't abide by the law. Parents get punished for the truency of a child, why not for the violence of a child as well?? You know we all throw around our analogies and opinions on here, what would happen if we all congregated and put forth the effort to fight back against the demise of civilization? I am actually getting very scared at the fact that our next generation is really going to self destruct. How about you?

At least the brouhaha didn't end up in fisticuffs.

proartist:
Witty phrase, total nonsense. Who do you call when someone is trying to break in to your house? The Police. Why? Because they are armed.

A conceal-carry law doesn't give criminals more guns. They already have guns. The only people who would be able to get guns under conceal-carry would be required to pass a safety course and obtain the proper permits by being trained and by being law-abiding citizens. The bad guys that are going to use guns are going to get guns regardless of the laws. Statistics in cities and states where conceal-carry is legal show a reduction in violent crimes. Some 'thugs' might think twice about pulling a piece on someone because they won't necessarily know if that someone is carrying.

Concealed carry? I think NOT! More guns = more "fuel" firing more incidents like this...and worse. Those who think they need weapons for courage and safety, have neither.

Benthinkin, that police analogy makes absolutely no sense. You don't think parents are responsible for there 14 year olds?

olivialyn who are you? he is just stating facts of where he lived.. i know it myself i've been down there and not proud and for un-named reasons through "friends" and i will NEVER be within a million feet of that neighborhood again

A concealed carry law in Wisconsin would at least give law-abiding people a chance. Currently, Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states with NO provision for concealed carry permits. Milwaukee had over 115 homicides in 2005. Doyle's veto of the twice-passed Concealed Carry legistation has meant more innocent victims than would otherwise be the case. The only consolation we have is that we aren't residents of the District of Columbia. They can't even keep a functional, loaded, handgun in their home. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will soon remedy that decades-old travesty which has helped D.C. "earn" the title of "Murder Capitol of the World".

pizzaman who are you???

Easy pizzaman.....that's my old neighborhood. I grew up one block from Switchtrack at 1508 Porter.

...Parents should be held accountable???
Let's see, If a police officer pulls me over and tells me not to speed...and later I speed again the police officer should be fined.
After all, he is in charge of my punishment, and did not deter me from doing it again...right???

Now I'm beginning to wonder if it was a donny-brook.

I think some of u really need to wake up! Janesville has gang problems alot worse then most even know. If the JPD or the gazette actually told real stories most would b shocked and probly moving. There so much that goes on in this town that u never hear about, U only hear what they want u to hear and know about. Its sad!

"more weapons are turned on the holder than are effectively used for protection."
Please show me where you found this statistic.

From someone who knows the kids: This was not gang related. The city wants us to think the money they received is going towards gang related activities. They probably bought a new coffee pot. I think this was a test run for the group because they had 8-10 cops and undercover personnel on hand and gave the kids exorbitant tickets to pay. 'Made fun of one of the boys'--Send in the marines next time!!

I love it NVgrf!!!

How does Janesville have time to worry about things like teen gangs when there are serious issues to deal with like men paying women to touch them in bars.

A Brouhaha!!

He said that Dart admitted to making a big mistake.

Professor:
Having had some success in law enforcement, you certainly speak with some authority on the subject, even if your time was brief. But, I would be cautious about the advice given by the Chicago gang unit commander. Listening to his advice about stopping gang activity is like listening to advice about ship navigation from the captain of the Exxon Valdez.

Professor, all true, and clearly stated.

In the mid 90's, for a about a year, I was the 'Special Prosecutor' for the Beloit City Attorney's Office. One of my duties was to apply the nusiance law and get rid of some 'drug houses', as well as dilapidated properties. Once we filed the court documents to actually take away some of these houses, we got the 'attention' of the owners, and things seemed to get a little better--at least for that little part of the City. It's good to see Janesville moving in that direction. I am a FIRM believer of the 'broken widows' theory: Keep the properties from looking terrible, and the criminal element won't be as eager to move in. It shows that people care about their community. Conversely, if the surrounding properties are allowed to be tagged, stay run down, etc., then it shows the bad guys that nobody really cares. I've used this theory both from the law enforcment end, and the prosecution end, with very favorable results.

sry deltafox, the answer to stop crime is not more guns, regardless if its licensed or not.

When I wrote that post I suspected there might be a problem with the term "hoi polloi" which is popularly misunderstood to be the upper class. I knew it meant the opposite -lower income people or not higher income people. I used hoi pollio to describe the ones in the brouhaha, or hubbub.

I used "hoity toity" to describe higher income people, which it does but not necessarily in an entirely positive sense. "Hoity toity" includes prentenciousness and goofy behavior that tend towards being non-violent.

deltafox5674, due to a false sense of protection, more weapons are turned on the holder than are effectively used for protection. people who are out causing trouble in the streets are much more apt to shoot first.

excellent point, Professor. I have always wondered why certain activities are "allowed" to continue with seemingly little interest/concern (ie: drug houses in rental properties, etc). Seems there is so much NIMBYism and denial that stops progress. If people are aware of the signs that problematic issues are in their neighborhood, it is the responsibility of that neighborhood to not only communicate with each other, but also to educate themselves to make their "presence known" as well.

Just one more reason for a need for a concealed/carry law. So law abiding citizens can protect themselves from these creeps.

Some time ago, I attended one of the annual "Attorney General's Law Enforcement" Conferneces. One of the guest speakers, was then Commander Robert Dart, who had something like 30 years with Chicago P.D., 25 or so, as Commander of the C.P.D. gang unit. I'll never forget what he said: "If we had 'do-overs', and I could change ONE thing that the CPD did wrong in the past regarding gangs, it would be our reliance on the 'experts' who told us that tagging and gang signs by a few guys were not gangs, but gang wannabes. In retrospect, had we shut them down then, we would not be in the situation we are in today."

gazettefan, who falls into the category of hoi poloi and who falls into hoity toity? i know you are just making an observation, but what is the distinction, in your opinion?

OK, it was a funny word, but it says that there was no real fighting. What DO you call that?
.
Janesville does have a limited gang problem and I believe we need to keep it in perspective. There's some stuff like this, and an occasional graffiti incident, sure. There's a lot of beltless-pant-wearing sideways-hat-wearing or plain-white-tee-wearing groups that march around some of the neighborhoods like they own the place, but mostly only during the height of summer. That's a problem when they refuse to get out of the way of traffic and when they do some casual drug selling (even in broad daylight). Most of the kids in Janesville are wannabes, though.
.
The point that Dave Moore made a few months ago is still valid. We don't have very much organized violence or organized gang-related drug activity. At least, not compared with other cities. We're at the awareness/alert stage and it may even be that with demographics nationally indicating a drop in teenage crime we've seen the worst as well.
.
Since I live in the Fourth Ward, I usually say "it's quiet now, but wait till summer." I'll be crossing my fingers that with the police street crime unit and the nuisance ordinance we will see a quiet summer.

Janesville Dont have a gang problem?? I believe we do!!

Seems the hoi poloi deals with conflict differently that the hoity toity.

tjncj, I concur! Too often parents leave the responsibility to the schools (teachers, etc) to get their kids "in line". In effect, what we have is the product of "children have rights, too" (ACLU?). Parents need to be taught HOW to FAIRLY discipline their children (discipline does not equal punishment). Teachers, School Administrators, store clerks, nor police decided to have YOUR baby. The responsibility of child rearing falls on the parents. Children are just that...CHILDREN. If no one teaches them what they need to know in order to be productive members of society, they will do what they need to do in order to survive...it's a sad state of affairs, for certain. *sigh*

Well, isn't this an interesting tete-a-tete.

TLZ-What a cop out. I am a parent and my children know they need to tow a straight line. They were taught at an early age to be respectful and responsible. If they step out of line they know they will be met with tough but FAIR punishment. It is so easy to say "my hands are tied" and just let children become delinquents. It is much harder to become a hands on parent who monitors their children, where they are, who they hang out with. It is a 24 hour 7 day a week job if you do it correctly. Yeah, they are embarrassed a bit when you call the parents of the house they are supposed to be at and make sure there is supervision and no alcohol is allowed (believe me you have to ask), but in the long run it pays off. So don't tell me I live in a perfect world, try to take responsibility for your own.

im sorry. im a skinny lil white boy from southwest wisconsin. maybe im wrong, but ask chicago or l.a. if janesvilles got a gang problem. a dozen little punks throwin gang signs an claimin to represent;), isnt a gang problem.

Loved the use of "brouhaha"...reminds me of a frivolous altercation...which fits the rest of the sentence,"...triggered when a couple of boys from one group made fun of the younger brother of a member of the other group".

Good thing the police arrived or it may have turned into a real hullabaloo with scathing rants of, "I know you are, but what am I!"

I can't imagine what it is like to live a perfect world tjncj for a lot things a parents hands are now tied and we can't be on top of it all of the time we have a little more to deal with than Ward and June Cleaver.

The law says parents are RESPONSIBLE for their children until age 18. If parents know they won't be held responsible for their children's actions, nothing will change. What is it to be responsible? Here's the first definition from dictionary.com:

answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.

So who's responsible for kids under age 18 if they're parents aren't being held accountable?

Answer: The STATE.
And you thought you were free!
HA!

Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do.

I am not sure what is worse; the alleged gangs, the boneheads who frequently drive while intoxicated, or the the court system that cannot put or keep the the same drunken mopes in jail. Either way - stay off the streets lest you put your own life in jeapordy.

Lets fine their parents too. They need an incentive to pay attention to what their little darlings are doing and to straighten these delinquents out. If the kids screw up again, give the parents the same sentence.

All these kids and people that gang up, bring weapons, and sucker-punch are a bunch of wimps. The only person they make look bad is themselves. What ever happened to a good-ole fist fight between two guys without everyone jumping in? I guess that's what time has done to society.

If it weren't for the screwdriver and the pocket knife, I'd say it was only a hubbub.

Janesville needs to wake up.....We have a real issuse with gangs.Ten years ago it all started to take a turn in this town with gangs and no one wanted to listen.Now what are we going too do about it?With all the TAGS that have been in the paper lately it's here...... LETS WAKE UP!Janesville is not that nice LITTLE TOWN any more.

The "brouhaha"???!!!?!! LMAO...

Some fine journalism there...