The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

(CNN) -- A detail in the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Shaaliver Douse by a New York Police Department officer earlier this month has been stopping me from grieving his death.

The tragedy happened around 3 a.m.

Why was a 14-year-old boy out that late without his mother, Shanise Farrar, who called the shooting an assassination? Or his aunt, Quwana Barcene, who said the bloody gun police say was found near his body was part of a cover up? Where was the supervising adult who should have been with a 14-year-old boy walking the streets of New York at 3 o'clock in the morning?

"I'm not saying that he's the best one, but he's my angel," his grieving mother said.

Her "angel" was a suspected gang member who police say was chasing and shooting at an unidentified man when they encountered him. Her "angel" was arrested last month for attempted murder of a 15-year-old. Her "angel" left their apartment around 8 p.m. and she had no idea where he was until the next morning when detectives informed her that her son was dead.

I want to mourn for her loss, I really do.

But as callous and as heartless as this sounds, I just can't get past what awful parents she and the boy's father were. Children may be born angels, but with all the temptations out there in the world, it takes work to try to keep them that way.

I'm sure the three teenagers suspected in the death of 23-year-old Christopher Lane -- killed because they allegedly were bored -- started off as angels. But who, besides their parents, would call them angels now?

"I know my son. He's a good kid," said Jennifer Luna, the mother of the boy prosecutor Jason Hicks said pulled the trigger.
 Australians shocked by Okla. murder Australian student shot dead in U.S.

As a newspaper reporter, I covered and was around a fair number of crime scenes involving juvenile delinquents and few things bothered me more than listening to their parents. Crying, ranting, proclaiming how great their children were despite being kicked out of school or previous run-ins with the law.

That's not to say kids won't be kids. Of course they will be.

Which is why it is vitally important that parents be parents.

So when kids get bored, they don't think they should go "f**k with some n**gers," as then-18-year-old Deryl Dedmon Jr. suggested before he and his buddies ran over and killed 49-year-old auto worker James Craig Anderson, the first black person he saw, with his pickup truck back in 2011. Or randomly shoot a college student jogging down the street as entertainment -- though it seems the shooting may not have been as random as previously thought considering one of the suspects, who is black, tweeted that he hated white people back in April.
Parents are supposed to instill a sense of right and wrong in their children and then keep up the due diligence necessary to make sure they don't veer off that path. When parents don't do that, we end up with three 15-year-olds assaulting and breaking the arm of a 13-year-old on a school bus in Florida.

"This is life. I am sorry what happened to the victim," Julian McKnight Sr., whose son Julian was one of the boys accused in the attack, said after a court appearance. A second appearance is scheduled later this month.

"It's just the way it is. My son ain't never been no bad person, he just got mixed with bad people, that's all ... he sorry."
I am not a perfect parent with all the answers. But I do know that it was the father, and not the son, who was apologizing -- and that, my friends, is our problem in a nutshell.

We don't teach accountability, we don't expect accountability and I'm not even sure we even know what accountability looks like anymore. Some of us have become so addicted to pointing fingers at others for all the wrong that happens in our lives that self-assessment has become synonymous with blaming the victim.

Yes, there are cultural factors that make parenting difficult. And sometimes a bad seed is just that. But none of this excuses us from taking personal responsibility where we can.

I am tired of seeing "sorry" being used to cloak negligent parents.

Sorry won't bring back Christopher Lane or James Craig Anderson.

And they, too, were each somebody's "angel."

If sorry is not good enough to protect a bartender who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who drives and kills someone, why is sorry good enough for parents who, through negligence, are culpable for the crimes their undisciplined children commit?

If my son goes out and breaks the neighbor's window, I have to pay for it. Why is a window more sacred than another human life?

We need to hold parents more accountable, both culturally and legally, for the actions of their children. Maybe then more parents will be more engaged in the lives of their children on the front end, rather than the back end, in front of a judge. Society has avenues for juveniles who refuse to obey their parents. But where are the safeguards for society when parents decide not to use those avenues?

I'm tired of hearing how good the kids who commit heinous crimes are. Maybe we should start putting parents on the witness stand so they can tell us exactly what they did to raise such perfect children.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/22/opinion/granderson-criminal-kids-responsibility/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

I have never heard of LZ Granderson so there's that.

That's actually surprising to me. He's well educated, gay, very liberal, attractive black man who is a very popular writer. Very active in supporting GLAAD and other similar organizations.  I think you would like him.  

I'm a little surprised to hear so many people say that they don't know who Granderson is. The guy is all over ESPN and CNN.com pretty regularly. I usually really enjoy his editorial work, whether I agree with him on specific topics or not.

I'm a little surprised to hear so many people say that they don't know who Granderson is. The guy is all over ESPN and CNN.com pretty regularly. I usually really enjoy his editorial work, whether I agree with him on specific topics or not.

In a sharp political divide separating liberals and conservatives, the shooting death of an Australian man by three teenage boys in Oklahoma is being advertised by the right as a race crime.

There are two problems with that theory.

First, the boys who committed this atrocity are black, white and biracial.

Second, there is no evidence that racism motivated their mindless assault. Apparently these were three bored teenagers with a gun. They wanted to prove their manhood, be initiated into a gang or just stir up life by proving how tough and crazy they can be.
That is the real tragedy here.
But that is not enough for some people who are intent on playing racial politics with the story.

The focus on race in this story among some on the right comes from a desire to pay back left-wingers who insist the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a racist act.

The same tit-for-tat racial appetite was on view earlier this month after a video emerged of three black teenage boys savagely beating a younger white boy on a school bus in Gulfport, Fla.

The victim has told authorities that the three boys attacked him because they tried to sell him drugs and he reported them to teachers at his school. 

What is being lost here is the larger problem of criminal behavior, gun violence, random murder

In that case, the young white man did exactly the right thing by reporting the criminal behavior to the school. He should not be labeled a “Narc.” And he most definitely did not deserve what happened to him. The young man should be applauded for having the courage to come forward. If more young people of all colors did what he did, our schools and communities would be much safer.

But most people do not step up because they fear exactly this kind of violent reprisal from the criminals -- some black, some white, some Hispanic and some of every other color. But all criminals.

But, again, there is no evidence that the attack was racially motivated.

What is being lost here is the larger problem of criminal behavior, gun violence, random murder – most often among people of the same race and especially black on black. Those daily, ongoing tragedies in our nation never get the attention of the civil rights leaders or the loud voices on the right wing because those stories do not serve their political agenda.

Instead, the tragedies that generate their selective anger are stories that, in the case of the right-wing, put civil rights leaders and left-wing media on the defensive.

In the case of the left wing, and much of the media, the Martin shooting fits their preferred narrative of blacks as victims. It plays to charges of racial profiling, stereotyping of young black people as criminals, and reminds people of the nation’s damaging days of slavery and lynching.
Yes, there is a media bias and double standard for coverage of racially-charged crimes.

The liberal media did not cover the bus incident because it was black-on-white violence and therefore did not fit their outdated world view of an America still being plagued by white-on-black violence. Most racial violence in American history is white on black violence – from the abuse of slave masters, to lynching, to KKK bombs and assassination of black leaders.

Today too many in the mainstream media do not report on black-on-white crime or even black-on-black crime because it disrupts the liberal narrative of African Americans as victims and whites as the historical perpetrators of racial crime.

The thinking is if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don’t hold protests over it, it must not be a major issue or a real problem for the black community.
Instead of focusing on the damage done to the nation by drug culture, family breakdown, pornographic movies, music and bad schools, some politicians among us are distracted by the race of the boys involved. In both the Oklahoma murder story and the Florida bus story the political attention is the result of lingering anger on the right over charges of white racism in the Martin killing.
So, let’s be honest about the political game being played with this tragedy. It is a cynical, dangerous game of one-upping the other side by claiming those other folks are the real racists.

When will the political activists on the right and left work up their righteous anger over the real heart of the problem?
They should be in the streets demanding that all Americans do something about the breakdown of the family in America, especially in minority communities.

More than 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, as are more than 50 percent of Hispanic children and 30 percent of white children.
The research is clear – these students are much more likely to be at risk of dropping out of school, getting in trouble with the law and abusing drugs and alcohol.

Republicans and Democrats should be in the streets about rap music and movies that celebrate ‘Thug Life’ and that brag about how many people the hero has killed, how many women he has impregnated and how much money he has piled up from his criminal life.

For too long the problem has been excused and ignored by the liberal mainstream media, which desperately clings to the narrative that the biggest problem affecting minority communities in America is systemic racism and white racism. 

Race still divides us, but let’s not lose sight of the larger context for this case.

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Education released in March 2012, blacks make up 18 percent of the country’s public schools, yet they accounted for 35 percent of students suspended at least once and 39 percent of students expelled. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice reports that 58 percent of the young people in state prisons are African Americans.

The Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke once said, “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
There is an urgent need for people of good will -- of all races -- to take back our communities from the thugs, the gangbangers, the drug dealers and the pornographers.

The young man in Florida is a hero for standing in the way of drug dealing instead of being intimidated and keeping his mouth shut. I am sorry that he was attacked, but I am glad that he did not stay silent. He understands the real fight going on in our nation and it has little to do with the political fight between left and right about which group has the worse racists.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/22/let-not-play-racial-politics-when-bigger-problem-is-violent-criminal-behavior/#ixzz2cpfPmOZK

I love Juan as well although I don't think the black community is a fan in general. I don't always agree with him either but I think he cares about real issues. He gives the guys at Fox hell at times.  I'm assuming you are referring to this piece?

I have a question about the "breakdown of the American family":

Are crime rates worse than they were 50 years ago?

Well, that too.  I'm not sure if the downfall of American society is that we have stopped forcing people to stay in failed marriages.

More like people are giving up on their marriages way too easily these days.

Haven't you been divorced?

Nope.  Been married to my wife for over 25 years.  People nowadays treat marriage like dating and run for the hills when things get tough.  Apparently they forgot the vows they took at the altar.

This is stupid. I was raised by parents that stayed together "for the children". IT WAS AWFUL. My parents hated each other and my sister and I knew it. The constant bickering and antagonizing that went on in our house was far more traumatizing than a divorce would have been for us, so cut this bullshit out. On top of that 2 people were miserable for 20+ years "for the children".

Sometimes people get married, grow the fuck up, and realize they have nothing in common or hate each other. That's not just "running for the hills" when things get tough. It's figuring out what is best for you and your family.

Have you ever been married?  If not, then let me give you a piece of advice.  If you fall in love with someone, you should date for at least a year, then be engaged for at least a year.  That's plenty of time to find out whether or not you really love the other person or have a lot in common.

Sometimes people get married, grow the fuck up, and realize they have nothing in common or hate each other. That's not just "running for the hills" when things get tough. It's figuring out what is best for you and your family.

Haven't you been divorced?

It is hard to keep up isn't it?

This makes no sense.

You can make yourself like or dislike anything.

So basically fake it til you make it? That sounds awful.

I believe in divorce, though I never expect to get there.  I think that it's all fine and good to have these rigid rules for marriage, but ultimately, you're only one half of the equation.  If my wife is off banging dudes, all my loving her and understanding isn't going to make that OK.  Or if I'm beating her, I don't expect her to work to rectify that.  I'm all for working at it if it's what both sides want, but at some point, stick up for yourself and get out.

I believe in divorce, though I never expect to get there.  I think that it's all fine and good to have these rigid rules for marriage, but ultimately, you're only one half of the equation.  If my wife is off banging dudes, all my loving her and understanding isn't going to make that OK.  Or if I'm beating her, I don't expect her to work to rectify that.  I'm all for working at it if it's what both sides want, but at some point, stick up for yourself and get out.

So you're ok being in a loveless marriage? I would say not being in love with someone is a pretty good reason to split.

If you don't really love the person then you shouldn't get married at all. 

You sound like a 9 year old. I'm wondering if you've ever even been in a relationship.

I've been married for over 25 years.  Seeing all your male bashing posts makes me wonder the same thing about you.

So you're ok being in a loveless marriage? I would say not being in love with someone is a pretty good reason to split.

Seeing all your male bashing posts makes me wonder the same thing about you.

Except that I'm a real life person and people on this very site have seen with their own eyes guys that I've gone out with. So...there's that.

If you don't love someone don't marry them, it's really that simple. If you say the words, "til death do us part", you are in fact making a commitment. Aside from abuse or infidelity. If you just find yourself in a "loveless" marriage you should just deal with it. You made the free will decision now deal with the consequences. As an adult, if you make a commitment you should follow through with it. If you can't do that then you might be one of the "bad kids" that this thread is about.

Ha ha, I was wondering the same thing. It's all making sense now, that cat is out of the bag.

Divorce is a necessary evil? I can't even. Are you another one of these religious nuts? You have the simple thoughts of most religious nuts.

I mentioned nothing about an oath. I asked if he's a religious nut because of his simplistic views on things. Keep up!

Obviously I have no issue with keeping up. You quoted his comment about not getting married if you you don't intend on staying married and called him both simple-minded and a religious nut. This is exactly what I responded to.

And for the record, I do believe that "Landshark" is a catfishing all y'all.

If I didn't know better I would tend to believe that your post is both name calling as well as inciting to another poster.

And for the record, I do believe that "Shandlark" is a catfishing all y'all.

When did taking an oath (for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part) and meaning it become a "religious nut" experience?

So wait, divorce is a "necessary evil," yet "if you make a commitment you should follow through with it"?  How are those both true?

I have a related question:

If you do not believe people should get married unless they are willing to stay married until death, is the approved solution for people to simply live together?  I mean, divorce rates cannot apply to people who aren't married...

Divorce is a necessary evil? I can't even. Are you another one of these religious nuts? You have the simple thoughts of most religious nuts.

I have a low tolerance for stupidity and since most of the stupid here tend to be men maybe that's why you feel I  bash men. Some of my best friends are men and know that I would never do anything to offend them.  ::)

And for the record, I do believe that "Landshark" is a catfishing all y'all.

And for the record, I do believe that "Landshark" is a catfishing all y'all.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Please continue.

Mentioning the oath is not what makes me think he's a religious nut. It's the simple view that people can just force themselves to stay married and  that you can just will a relationship to succeed.

If asking someone if they are a religious nutjob triggers your "offensive" alarms, especially in the middle of a hotly contested thread about divorce, after the alleged religious nutjob in question laughed at her and referred to her as a male-basher, then you might want to recalibrate that alarm...or just strive to be more in touch with reality.  :)

Gee, ya think? ;)

How many lifetime oaths are even legally permitted by law in this country?

The idea of a commitment that lasts for the rest of your life is kind of silly, when you think about it.  A job that required a lifetime commitment would be insane (not to mention illegal).

I think the term "successful relationship" is a relative one. What I would consider a successful one someone else might not.

If you are talking about me. Again, I never said anything about "male bashing". I was agreeing with Landshark, that it seems the chick in question has never been in a relationship. At least not a happy, long term, mutually loving one, and probably won't ever be, but I could be wrong. Thanks

Yes. I'm a cold, frigid, old woman. You got me.

I also want to point out that the "til death do us part" thing is religious. Not everyone includes that in their vows.

But, what if that's NOT what I want in a relationship? Then what?
And, as pointed out I've been in a few relationships. People on this board have seen it with their very own eyes.

If a person knows upfront that marriage is "until death do us part". Then why would someone even get married if they had any thought that they might get a divorce?

Most people want a happy and loving relationship. Now I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking. What do you want in a relationship?

Someone that walks the dog before leaving in the morning.

Wow, you have high standards. Don't you?