Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [MPD-5D] DC's 'Urban Myth' continued - JUMP ON IN FOLKS!

Expand Messages
  • Tina DCTina
    Sure don t want to get into this email brawl, esp. since I m still waiting for an answer regarding the daytime armed robberies of citizens walking down the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Sure don't want to get into this email brawl, esp.
      since I'm still waiting for an answer regarding the
      daytime armed robberies of citizens walking down the
      street in my neighborhood but.....Washington, DC
      actually ranks #13 on the list of this year's most
      dangerous cities, not in the top 5. (This is based on
      # of murders)In my estimation however, ANY is too many
      and I sure don't want to worry that someone will hold
      a gun to my head to take whatever little cash I might
      have and then perhaps shoot me anyway just on gp.
      signed,
      still waiting on Fla Ave NE for a response from DCPD

      --- x2j785 <x2j785@...> wrote:

      > Neighbor Tobias – I say; You say; MPD says… WE ALL
      > can split hairs
      > but the post above yours echo's the frustration of
      > the citizenry that
      > pays taxes. AND, the response FROM the MPD is?
      > Someone is on
      > vacation, yaddah, yaddah?
      >
      > One of the points you conveniently want to miss in
      > this discussion is
      > that the citizenry, who pays the salaries of the
      > officials who, by
      > law, are to provide a safe and healthy environment.
      > From the comments
      > made here; by even your own admissions let alone the
      > news stories in
      > the public media, some outside observer, in my
      > estimation, consider
      > this an `area' where they might not want to reside.
      > I think the
      > reasons should be obvious – no?
      >
      > One could have ALL the historical and cultural
      > elements of
      > sophistication that they might want. But if they
      > can't go out on
      > their back porch, their front stoop or even walk the
      > streets in their
      > neighborhood without threat of violence to the body
      > or their loved
      > ones, what good are all of those `incidentals?'
      > Hmmm?
      >
      > Now, if I, have a `pistola', a hand weapon, a
      > nuclear bomb –
      > whatever weapon to cause destruction to another
      > human being, and the
      > OTHER human being threatens my life, my property,
      > the same of those
      > close and dear to me, I, as the DC homeowner,
      > protecting my property,
      > my life or even the life of my grand children or my
      > neighbor, if a
      > Prosecutor so chooses. I'll be hung out to `dry'
      > until the cows come
      > home.
      >
      > Whereas, a perpetrator, who for whatever nefarious
      > reason, chooses to
      > have some `weapon of destruction' threatens and
      > wishes to, claims to,
      > verbally wants to, wantonly attempts to, intimidate
      > me to, into some
      > form of coercion in, on or around my property, I am
      > to resist and
      > take video pictures? Is this what you're claiming?
      >
      > If I'm a `concerned' neighbor and happen to inquire
      > as to
      > the `happenings' to what this neighbor feels is a
      > SIGNIFICANT threat
      > to their own peaceful existence, we should not
      > receive a timely reply
      > from those PAID officials to the taxpaying
      > `neighbor. INSTEAD, we'll
      > justify it but claiming it's illegal drug trade?
      >
      > Hmmm? Well, if the `nere-do-well' is not concerned
      > about an illegal
      > substance trade, WHY would they be concerned with
      > the legal non
      > registration of a firearm. After all, statistically
      > proven, the
      > miscreant is much younger than the 29-year-old `law'
      > that precludes
      > the taxpayer having some means of `protection'. The
      > miscreant is just
      > being `misunderstood.' After all, it wasn't until
      > this past summer
      > that the DC `po-po' made a MOU (Memorandum of
      > Understanding) with the
      > PG county officials as to the police being able to
      > cross
      > the `borders' between the two feudal provinces. Geez
      > – like that took
      > infinite wisdom to figure out?
      >
      > So, the taxpaying citizen, in the above scenario, is
      > now hung out to
      > dry cause they possessed some sort of `weapon of
      > mass destruction',
      > used to protect themselves or their luv'd ones; the
      > `misunderstood',
      > dual citizenship miscreant (glides on back to some
      > `relative' in an
      > adjoining county); who somehow might have picked up
      > their `weapon-of-
      > mass-destruction' at some `barbargin basement
      > price/deal/street
      > situation – now walks away.
      >
      > WHO is stuck with the felony?
      >
      > Neighbor! In all due respect – you're naïve. THE
      > SHORT ABREVIATED
      > VERSION ABOVE, is continually offered on TV nightly.
      > It could even be
      > on the school rooster for pre GED for all I know.
      >
      > The police know all of this. THEY are not fools. But
      > to have crime
      > rates creates $'s for the city's coffers. `It's
      > business as usual.'
      >
      > 29 years where citizens can't legally own fire arms
      > yet DC continues
      > to rank in the top 5 of the US for murders.
      >
      > The House of Representatives passes legislation for
      > DC gun ownership,
      > the Senate disapproves, howls and screams but the
      > BB's still list the
      > concerns of the citizenry and what happens other
      > than rhetoric from
      > the officials who are paid to protect?
      >
      > So again friend, in all seriousness, your
      > `presentation', no matter
      > how WELL MEANING, is naïve at best.
      >
      > My solutions to the problem would have me barred
      > from the board.
      >
      > The `police' have SWAT teams. The `police' have the
      > `stat's' and the
      > figures. The police today can, if they want, mount a
      > `serious'
      > attempt to push `dealers' off the street OTHER THAN
      > using search
      > lights and some other ridiculous `attempts' to
      > control the problem.
      >
      > But then, I'm not the C.O.P (Chief of Police) and
      > don't make
      > $175K/year. I could do it for less.
      >
      > Until the citizenry takes back what they pay for;
      > until THEY realize
      > that THEY control this town, only then will the
      > concerns with the
      > posted terrorism claims end. Until that happens…
      >
      > Peace Out!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >




      __________________________________________
      Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
      Just $16.99/mo. or less.
      dsl.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.