Anyone who believes that this adds to the culture or enjoyment of an art festival is only kidding themself.

 

You know people who believe that this type of behavoir adds to the culture or enjoyment of an art festival?

 

May I suggest we leave the strawman arguments out of this?

 

I do find your description of what happened to be the fairly accurate from the reports I heard.  I was there for quite a bit and nobody was causing any problems from what I could see or photographed.  At the very end, it appears a fight occured and that sent the whole crowd into a frenzy..... not so much with everyone fighting (which is why I take exception to the 'riot' label), but rather everyone running to find the fight.  Then it just spiraled downward from there.  I can envision that someone took exception to being shoved out of the way in the chaos and may have taken action against the person who they thought had disrespected them.  I also can imagine that once the mob mentality took over, the crowd control measures caused even more chaos (not saying they weren't necessary at that point).

 

I also take exception to the accusationt that these are CH kids causing all the problems.  You are the third person I heard estimate the crowd at 1000-2000 kids.  Unless every single CHHS kid was there, then the numbers don't add up.

 

 

On.  Now you have a selective reading.  See post 288

 

What are you even talking about anymore?  The logic behind the argument I believe you are trying to make is faulty.

 

These groups of kids are out of control and for most of them, the way they were raised is a big part of the problem.  No amount of spin or semantics arguing changes that reality.

To the generalizations discussed on the previous page, I believe you will find that in most cases (although certainly not uniformily) these characteristics of unlawfulness and lack of consideration have more to do with socio-economics than they have to do with race.

It doesn't even matter whether or not most of these kids were from the Heights.  Knowing the area, I also realize that it's mathematically impossible that all or even most were from CH.  Though at least some of them were, but what's important and sad is that CH, and many of the events that the city and schools put on, have now become a magnet for large groups of kids from other cities who have been taught that this type of behavior is acceptable.  Whether or not these kids are all from CH, it matters not, because CH is now seen as one of the top places to go "wildin' out."  And yes, I do believe some of that is directly due to decisions and a lax attitude of both CH citizens and government.  Hopefully this is the beginning of big changes. 

To the generalizations discussed on the previous page, I believe you will find that in most cases (although certainly not uniformily) these characteristics of unlawfulness and lack of consideration have more to do with socio-economics than they have to do with race.

 

I agree with that, but again, as I stated earlier, it's not really relevant.  What's relevant is that the behavior, no matter who's engaging in it, has to stop.  It's not acceptable.  The problem is that there may be strong correlations between the behavior and race, which means that when efforts are made to curb the behavior, some people get angry or offended because they feel like they're being targeted for reasons beyond their improper behavior, which simply isn't the case. 

On.  Now you have a selective reading.  See post 288

 

What are you even talking about anymore?  The logic behind the argument I believe you are trying to make is faulty.

 

These groups of kids are out of control and for most of them, the way they were raised is a big part of the problem.  No amount of spin or semantics arguing changes that reality.

 

You can't answer a straight question.

To the generalizations discussed on the previous page, I believe you will find that in most cases (although certainly not uniformily) these characteristics of unlawfulness and lack of consideration have more to do with socio-economics than they have to do with race.

 

I agree with that, but again, as I stated earlier, it's not really relevant.  What's relevant is that the behavior, no matter who's engaging in it, has to stop.  It's not acceptable.  The problem is that there may be strong correlations between the behavior and race, which means that when efforts are made to curb the behavior, some people get angry or offended because they feel like they're being targeted for reasons beyond their improper behavior, which simply isn't the case. 

 

Right.  Nobody is saying it is acceptable.  No one is saying efforts shouldn't be made to make it stop.  The question then becomes how.  Staying true to the bedrock principles of our country, I just simply can't support the notion that well-behaved black kids (of which there are PLENTY) would be denied the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts.  I am not willing to eradicate this problem by doing an absolute injustice on those kids.  It is not a sacrafice I am willing to make.  It is not a sacrafice the law of our land would allow us to make.  I would rather not have the fair at all than hang a big sign that says "Black Youths Not Admitted without Adult" or anything akin to that.  It would be offensive to the very spirit of the Coventry Fair.... probably even more offensive than whatever these kids did at closing time last Sunday.  If some want to view that as political correctness run amuck, then so be it. 

To the generalizations discussed on the previous page, I believe you will find that in most cases (although certainly not uniformily) these characteristics of unlawfulness and lack of consideration have more to do with socio-economics than they have to do with race.

 

 

I agree with that, but again, as I stated earlier, it's not really relevant.  What's relevant is that the behavior, no matter who's engaging in it, has to stop.  It's not acceptable.  The problem is that there may be strong correlations between the behavior and race, which means that when efforts are made to curb the behavior, some people get angry or offended because they feel like they're being targeted for reasons beyond their improper behavior, which simply isn't the case. 

 

 

Really?  I went to school - High School and college - with plenty of well to do kids that were f*ckups and always in trouble.  Mummy and Daddy were always right there to grease the palm of someone and make things better.

^^Argh, I shouldn't step in, but I will.

 

The problem, Hts121, and probably MTS, even though I usually just skim over his rubbish, if not skip it all together, is whenever the concept of race, or a subculture of a race, is discussed, then there are always people who overgeneralize the other person's comments, and the discussion completely shifts.

 

Cleveander17 and I are NOT talking about every black person, and no one is saying that we need to have segregation signs. We are not talking about stripping away the rights and privileges of well-behaved children, whatever their racial background, and you guys, well, at least you Hts121 since you have a pretty good head on your shoulders, have got to stop making these purposeful alterations to our statements. That is not at all what we're saying, it's immature and pointless to keep changing the discussion as such.

 

In a nutshell, the problem is two-fold: first, that there are a large groups of black teen/young adults running amuck at these events. And second, that it is difficult to even begin the discussion without having someone start making far-reaching arguments that really have little to do with the discussion at hand. It's like you're changing the argument from "How do prevent another incident from occurring by these teens" to "How dare you generalize all blacks as criminals"; it's counter-productive and nothing changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Hts121 100%. Unfortunately, I think the answer is that in neighborhoods where problems like this can crop up, you have to completely kill the fair/festival and to me, that means thugs and unruly kids win. You can't restrict attendance in any way, by age or race or anything else, but you can't just keep having them and have a bunch of kids causing problems every time. But doens't that just leave large swaths of neighborhoods where no fun can be had because of thugs? This isn't going to invite families to settle there either. "Oh, we used to have a fair every year, but the teenagers ruined it." Not sure what can be done other than increased security at these events. I fail to see how it's not bad to have 100 security people at a concert with thousands of kids who are partying and rowdy but they help keep the peace, but it's a "police state" if you do that with a street fair. They need more security.

On.  Now you have a selective reading.  See post 288

 

What are you even talking about anymore?  The logic behind the argument I believe you are trying to make is faulty.

 

These groups of kids are out of control and for most of them, the way they were raised is a big part of the problem.  No amount of spin or semantics arguing changes that reality.

 

You can't answer a straight question.

 

Ask me the question again and I'll answer it, because I legitimately don't know what you're talking about.

On.  Now you have a selective reading.  See post 288

 

What are you even talking about anymore?  The logic behind the argument I believe you are trying to make is faulty.

 

These groups of kids are out of control and for most of them, the way they were raised is a big part of the problem.  No amount of spin or semantics arguing changes that reality.

 

You can't answer a straight question.

 

Ask me the question again and I'll answer it, because I legitimately don't know what you're talking about.

 

again see post 288

To the generalizations discussed on the previous page, I believe you will find that in most cases (although certainly not uniformily) these characteristics of unlawfulness and lack of consideration have more to do with socio-economics than they have to do with race.

 

I agree with that, but again, as I stated earlier, it's not really relevant.  What's relevant is that the behavior, no matter who's engaging in it, has to stop.  It's not acceptable.  The problem is that there may be strong correlations between the behavior and race, which means that when efforts are made to curb the behavior, some people get angry or offended because they feel like they're being targeted for reasons beyond their improper behavior, which simply isn't the case. 

 

Right.  Nobody is saying it is acceptable.  No one is saying efforts shouldn't be made to make it stop.  The question then becomes how.  Staying true to the bedrock principles of our country, I just simply can't support the notion that well-behaved black kids (of which there are PLENTY) would be denied the same rights and privileges as their white counterparts.  I am not willing to eradicate this problem by doing an absolute injustice on those kids.  It is not a sacrafice I am willing to make.  It is not a sacrafice the law of our land would allow us to make.  I would rather not have the fair at all than hang a big sign that says "Black Youths Not Admitted without Adult" or anything akin to that.  It would be offensive to the very spirit of the Coventry Fair.... probably even more offensive than whatever these kids did at closing time last Sunday.  If some want to view that as political correctness run amuck, then so be it.

 

Agreed, I wouldn't be comfortable with that, either.  I think the solution they took is about right for now, or at least step in the right direction.  However, this solution is just a band-aid.  In the long term, I think that all of the Heights suburbs need to seriously rethink their policies about absentee landlords and government/Section 8 housing and potentially explore all of their legal options.  I know of some Cincinnati suburbs that are doing that very thing at the moment.

Oh so kids should not go out unsupervised? 

 

Kids in general, above a certain age, can most certainly go out unsupervised.  Irresponsible kids who prove that they can't behave within reason without parental supervision should lose their privileges.

 

Were you there? 

 

Yes I was.

 

Do you know all parties involved and what their role was?

 

No I do not know all the parties involved.  Yes I do have a pretty good idea what their role was.

 

The first part of that question is irrelevant in my opinion.

Oh so kids should not go out unsupervised? 

 

Kids in general, above a certain age, can most certainly go out unsupervised.  Irresponsible kids who prove that they can't behave within reason without parental supervision should lose their privileges.

 

Were you there? 

 

Yes I was.

 

Do you know all parties involved and what their role was?

 

No I do not know all the parties involved.  Yes I do have a pretty good idea what their role was.

 

The first part of that question is irrelevant in my opinion.

 

Can you not count?  AGAIN.  It's post 288, why is that so hard for you to find and answer?

 

 

I wouldn't normally do this, but I'll repost my question for you below

 

 

 

Nobody's 'making excuses', Clevelander17.  Let that one go and the conversation can progress.  Simply by saying this is nothing new or that it goes on elsewhere (see much, much, much worse russian video I posted a couple pages back) is not to excuse the behavoir, but simply to point out that it is not somehow unique to CH, as you continue to imply.

 

 

You're right, it's not unique to Cleveland Heights.  We see it all the time in East Cleveland, Euclid, Maple Heights, over large chunks of Cleveland proper, etc.  That's besides the point and although it's not a direct excuse, it's a deflection.  We're talking about Cleveland Heights and how to solve this city's problems.  What's become acceptable in other nearby cities should not be acceptable in CH.

 

 

I'm going to ask this right out.  Are you in any way, directly or indirectly, saying that minorities are the problem in Cleveland Heights?  Do you feel that they are the reason, you believe, CH is in decline?

There's no need to be rude.  I already answered that question well over an hour ago.  In fact, this is the second time that I've pointed out that I already answered the question.

 

Also, you and I were counting posts differently.  I thought you were referring to "reply #288," because in fact, that's the only post number of any type that shows up on my computer screen.

There's no need to be rude.  I already answered that question well over an hour ago.  In fact, this is the second time that I've pointed out that I already answered the question.

 

No you didn't

Guys, please. The bickering and you didn't and I did back and forth isn't getting us anywhere in the thread and isn't furthering the discussion. Can we look for solutions or problem-solving?

Nobody's 'making excuses', Clevelander17.  Let that one go and the conversation can progress.  Simply by saying this is nothing new or that it goes on elsewhere (see much, much, much worse russian video I posted a couple pages back) is not to excuse the behavoir, but simply to point out that it is not somehow unique to CH, as you continue to imply.

 

You're right, it's not unique to Cleveland Heights.  We see it all the time in East Cleveland, Euclid, Maple Heights, over large chunks of Cleveland proper, etc.  That's besides the point and although it's not a direct excuse, it's a deflection.  We're talking about Cleveland Heights and how to solve this city's problems.  What's become acceptable in other nearby cities should not be acceptable in CH.

 

I'm going to ask this right out.  Are you in any way, directly or indirectly, saying that minorities are the problem in Cleveland Heights?  Do you feel that they are the reason, you believe, CH is in decline?

 

Absolutely not.  However there is a preponderance of a very negative and destructive culture that has become acceptable in many minority communities that has been for the past few decades becoming more and more established in Cleveland Heights.  This indeed is ruining the schools and the city.  The fact that they are minorities is coincidental.  If this behavior was closely-associated with any race, it would still be unacceptable.

 

Go back and read through the history of this thread.  This post occurred almost FOUR hours ago.

^^Argh, I shouldn't step in, but I will.

 

The problem, Hts121, and probably MTS, even though I usually just skim over his rubbish, if not skip it all together, is whenever the concept of race, or a subculture of a race, is discussed, then there are always people who overgeneralize the other person's comments, and the discussion completely shifts.

 

Cleveander17 and I are NOT talking about every black person, and no one is saying that we need to have segregation signs. We are not talking about stripping away the rights and privileges of well-behaved children, whatever their racial background, and you guys, well, at least you Hts121 since you have a pretty good head on your shoulders, have got to stop making these purposeful alterations to our statements. That is not at all what we're saying, it's immature and pointless to keep changing the discussion as such.

 

In a nutshell, the problem is two-fold: first, that there are a large groups of black teen/young adults running amuck at these events. And second, that it is difficult to even begin the discussion without having someone start making far-reaching arguments that really have little to do with the discussion at hand. It's like you're changing the argument from "How do prevent another incident from occurring by these teens" to "How dare you generalize all blacks as criminals"; it's counter-productive and nothing changes.

 

Observation noted, as it was a few hours back.  Problem is, you are doing the same thing you are accusing us of.  Who said 'how dare you generalize all blacks as criminals'?  Show me the post.  What we are talking about is solutions and WHY certain 'pragmatic' solutions would not be acceptable.  We all agree that these flash mobs (or whatever term you find more appropriate) have been mostly, if not totally, limited to black youths.  Noted.  Recognized.  It is a fact.  But what is the point of continually emphasizing it?  Like I said before, did you note the color of their hair, eyes, etc.?  Why not?  What other common denominator did these kids have?  We need to evolve as a society from this notion that there are two separate communities (white and black) and each one needs to deal with their own problems.  My goal (perhaps unrealistic, but I will persist regardless) is a society where skin color is no more a distinguishing feature than hair color or eye color. 

 

Now, moving on to solutions....  I agree with RnR.  More security instead of more restrictions.  And it appears police forces nationwide need to find a way to deal with these flashmobs.

I think I will suggest to my friends at Tenable that they contact the mayor over there and offer their assistance at these events.

I don't think the race of the delinquents is relevant for this particular discussion, as it pertains to making the fair better, but I do think there is a discussion to be had at a different place and time (definitely not on this forum) about such "correlations."  But in regards to the overall future and general direction of CH-SH-UH (including our crime problems), I do really believe there should be discussion about HUD's role in the mess we're facing.

Observation noted, as it was a few hours back.  Problem is, you are doing the same thing you are accusing us of.  Who said 'how dare you generalize all blacks as criminals'?  Show me the post.  What we are talking about is solutions and WHY certain 'pragmatic' solutions would not be acceptable.  We all agree that these flash mobs (or whatever term you find more appropriate) have been mostly, if not totally, limited to black youths.  Noted.  Recognized.  It is a fact.  But what is the point of continually emphasizing it?  Like I said before, did you note the color of their hair, eyes, etc.?  Why not?  What other common denominator did these kids have?  We need to evolve as a society from this notion that there are two separate communities (white and black) and each one needs to deal with their own problems.  My goal (perhaps unrealistic, but I will persist regardless) is a society where skin color is no more a distinguishing feature than hair color or eye color. 

 

Now, moving on to solutions....  I agree with RnR.  More security instead of more restrictions.  And it appears police forces nationwide need to find a way to deal with these flashmobs.

 

Well I for one believe there should security, it's just the day and age we live in.  I also believe there should be severe repercussions for those that break the law.  If you cannot function in society, then you don't need to be among those that can.  Period.

"server repercussions"

 

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

"server repercussions"

 

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

ROFLMAO

Clevelander17 and TBideon you guys are on the ball, and Bizbiz, thank you for your honest interpretation of what you saw. 

Hts121 and MTS, what planet are you living on? 

Clevelander17 and TBideon you guys are on the ball, and Bizbiz, thank you for your honest interpretation of what you saw. 

Hts121 and MTS, what planet are you living on? 

 

A planet where I do not believe all people should be judged or lumped into categories based on the actions of a few.

 

If the situation were the other way around and I stated white youth should be treated a certain way or that white youth act a certain way based on socio economic studies I would accused of racial profiling. 

 

Based on how I grew up and my current - financially and socially - status in life I could look down my nose at a lot of groups of people.  Yet that would be fair or make sense.

 

I've said it before, there are people on this board that are blatant racist or scared of certain ethnic groups so I believe, they assume all people of those groups are the same.

Clevelander17 and TBideon you guys are on the ball, and Bizbiz, thank you for your honest interpretation of what you saw. 

Hts121 and MTS, what planet are you living on? 

 

I've said it before, there are people on this board that are blatant racist or scared of certain ethnic groups so I believe, they assume all people of those groups are the same.

 

Possibly, but Ive seen none of that in this discussion, just you and Hts121 turning it into that....

 

 

I did what?  Show me the post and I will be happy to explain to you how you are blatantly misinterpreting it.  I think I've been involved in a constructive construction with both of them.  Prior to your entrance, that is.

 

FYI, I live here on Earth, but I come from a planet called Krypton.

And I live on a planet called "Keep the thread on topic or it gets locked!" which happens to have a moon called "how the f#ck do you people have so much free time during the day to post your damned diatribes?!?"

Interesting/troubling story in the Plain Dealer today about the crime reporting situation in Cleveland Heights: 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/public_misled_on_cleveland_hei.html

 

With the Coventry situation over the past summer (and the closing of the suburban crime thread), the Josh Cribbs parking ticket story, and now this (amongst other stories), I think that CH probably deserves its own crime and safety thread.

Probably best to just ask that the suburban thread be unlocked.  The crime and safety issues in CH warrant discusiion (although nobody seems all that interested judging from the lack of response) but probably don't need their own thread.  Regardless, I don't think non-moving traffic violations really have much to do with crime or safety.  The flash mob thing is already going in other threads.  But the sex crime issue is certainly a hot topic.  Considering the high disparity in this category in the various suburbs, I would guess this issue isn't completely limited to CH.

^At some point we can unlock that thread, but we'll want to review it to make sure it's been properly pruned.

Surprised to not see something about this posted here.  It's been all over my FB page as I have a friend who lives right near this house.  Sometimes I get nervous about the future of Lakewood.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/lakewood_man_charged_in_fatal.html

Surprised to not see something about this posted here.  It's been all over my FB page as I have a friend who lives right near this house.  Sometimes I get nervous about the future of Lakewood.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/lakewood_man_charged_in_fatal.html

 

I worked on W. 110th around 2005 or so, and a friend of mine lived on Franklin at the same time.  Parts of Lakewood have been heading this way since at least then.

Surprised to not see something about this posted here.  It's been all over my FB page as I have a friend who lives right near this house.  Sometimes I get nervous about the future of Lakewood.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/lakewood_man_charged_in_fatal.html

 

Can the suburban crime thread be opened and the post on Lakewood be moved to that thread?

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18861.0.html

 

 

Unlocked. Mind your manners and stay focused.

I've been waiting for this thread to be re-opened for a long time.  Now let's see if I can dig up that response I had saved somewhere... ;)

It looks like the Dan Ficker case is heating up again.  He's the guy who was shot by a Cleveland policeman in Parma.

 

I virtually always support the cops, but something smells about this case.  Why did they go to his house and wait for him, but never contact Parma PD?

^tons of things fishy about that case.  Never contacted Parma PD, the Cleveland cop was given approval by his supervisor to leave his jurisdiction while on duty...  despite all that, you don't fight & wrestle with an officer on duty

I certainly wouldn't..... but the cop was in fact out of jurisdiction and not in hot pursuit.  Therefore, without knowing the specifics of any mutual aid agreement Cleveland may have with Parma, the Cleveland cop was not acting with lawful authority and had no more authority to arrest, detain, etc. than you or I as citizens.  I can tell you that if a Parma cop came to my doorstep and started giving me 'orders', I would tell him "f&ck you... get off my porch before I have you arrested for trespassing"

911 calls released in Willowick McDonald's shooting

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/227265/45/911-calls-released-in-Willowick-McDonalds-shooting-

Note to self, do not wear fur in Cleveland Heights!

---

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/heights_woman_charged_with_usi.html

 

A Cleveland Heights woman with an apparent passion for animal rights remains in federal custody today. Federal prosecutors say she tried to hire an assassin through Facebook to kill "someone who is wearing fur."

 

Federal agents arrested Meredith Lowell, 27, Tuesday morning at her home, charged with solicitation to commit murder.

 

Clearly a nutcase (just look at her picture).  Her instructions were to target someone of "at least 12 years of age".  She also wanted to be present so that she could pass out papers immediately after the shooting.

I feel terrible for her brothers. I've been close friends with them for almost 20 years.

 

The girl is mentally challenged and cannot take care of herself. She's always been troubled but not like this, nothing violent, never malicious at least wheh I was arround.

 

A complete shock

I feel terrible for her brothers. I've been close friends with them for almost 20 years.

 

The girl is mentally challenged and cannot take care of herself. She's always been troubled but not like this, nothing violent, never malicious at least wheh I was arround.

 

A complete shock

 

Sorry?  she could have really hurt someone.  I dont know them, and I'm sure there is more to her situation than what has been reported, but if she has a history of mental illness, her family obviously is/was not prepared to deal with it and maybe she should have been in institutionalized.

You clearly don't know anything about the complexities of a mental illness and how it affects a family. Your lack of empathy surprises no one.

And with that, we move on....

 

Beachwood mother gets 10 years for hiring hitman to kill ex-husband

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/beachwood_mother_gets_10_years.html

 

The suburbs are getting dangerous!!!

 

Beachwood mother gets 10 years for hiring hitman to kill ex-husband

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/beachwood_mother_gets_10_years.html

 

The suburbs are getting dangerous!!!

 

 

What the hell?  That is crazy!