Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Black suspected serial killer caught after fifth white victim brazenly gunned down in Kansas City

++Addition++New information on the killer's history:
"A city citation for harassment quoted Scott as stating: “I want to shoot the school up, Columbine-style.”

He also said he wanted to kill himself and “kill all white people,” according to the report.

He was sentenced to 180 days in jail but the sentence was suspended and he was given probation. Scott was ordered to stay away from the school. 'Intense' supervision was ordered."
My insinuation of likely racial motivation for the murders is strengthened. My doubt that the killer will end up being charged with hate crimes is correspondingly weakened.

---


It's unlikely you've heard about this. If not for living in the Kansas City metro area, I wouldn't have either.

If the races were reversed, you would've heard about it, of course. Everyone would have.

Fredrick Demond Scott, aged 22, allegedly killed five middle-aged white men. Four were killed while they were using an asphalt bike trail that runs along a creek flowing from west-to-east on the south side of the metro, the fifth--which led to killer's capture--was committed in broad daylight on a city street.

I regularly walk my dog or pull my kids in a wagon along the same trail, albeit 15 miles away from where they happened. I've biked that stretch several times though. I took these pictures in the area that the first murder occurred less than a month after it happened:




Parenthetically, "dindu nuffin" isn't a baseless assumption. He claimed as much by confessing to one of the murders. Taking Scott at his word, then, he literally did not do nothing when it comes to the murders--to the contrary, it looks like he did quite a bit!

None of the victims appear to have known the killer prior to being fatally ambushed by him. They could all reasonably be assumed to be Trump supporters based on their demographic profiles.

Alas, we may never know the true intent, as the killer's expressed motive seems entirely disconnected from his victims:
While the motive in the killings remains unclear, Scott “repeatedly” told investigators that he was angry about the 2015 shooting death of his brother, Gerrod H. Woods, 23.
Here's a picture of said brother's killer:


He was presumably gwan to go to college! before gang involvement derailed him.

What one young black man killing the brother of another young black man has to do with the latter black man killing random older white guys in a different area of the city isn't obvious to me. It probably has something to do with systemic racism against black bodies. My white privilege probably precludes me from understanding it. If whites are the cause of and solution to all of life's problems, it makes sense I suppose.

It's unlikely that hate crime charges will be brought against this alleged serial killer no matter what he ends up saying. While blacks are 27 times more likely to murder whites than vice-ver-sa, they are only 1.6 times as likely as whites to be convicted of hate crimes.

It's easy to excoriate Fake News for their sins of commission, and it's right and good to do so, but their calculated sins of omission are even more damnable.

32 comments:

Sid said...

Physiognomy is real, man. The murderer and his brother both look like monsters. It's not even their being black (in this context) - I know lots of black people who have lively, friendly faces. These guys look dead inside. It's unnerving.

The middle aged white men look like the kind of men who are ignored, but are what keep society together. Without knowing anything about them, I feel awful for them and their families.

Duke Norfolk said...

Chilling, being a 54 YO white man myself. I live in rural MO, other side of state. Generally my risk is low, but you never know these days, do you? And even my neck of the woods is getting slowly darker lately. And the hate for whitey is being fomented intensely. Yes, I carry.

Be careful out there.

James said...

Better be careful. White conservatives will soon be virtue signaling to the world that you noticing that blacks are different from, less intelligent, more unstable and dangerous, and uglier than Whites is "racism" and "White Supremacism". Even though every other race and country in the world recognizes it, when Whites do it is on par with pedophilia and serial killing. Your platform host may kick you off for being a "nazi", AE.

Mama Pepe said...

diversity is still our strength though

https://youtu.be/82x4X6bNqs4

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Very well put. Those visages do not operate in a moral universe familiar to you, me, or just about anyone reading this.

Duke,

It's unlikely that any of the victims even saw him coming, as they were all shot and killed in the back (or back of the head). Eternal vigilance.

James,

Fortunately, at least in this case, additional information about the case that came out today provides protection:

"A city citation for harassment quoted Scott as stating: “I want to shoot the school up, Columbine-style.”

He also said he wanted to kill himself and “kill all white people,” according to the report.

He was sentenced to 180 days in jail but the sentence was suspended and he was given probation. Scott was ordered to stay away from the school. 'Intense' supervision was ordered."

Defending this guy would be even harder than defending Antifa for cucks like Romney and Ryan.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mamas and Pepes,

Great stuff, that's the best one yet. Bravo!

Pangur said...

This will be minimally covered in the press for the usual reasons, as you note.

I have also used those trails, albeit years ago when I lived in Kansas City. I can see how they could be used to ambush someone, there's plenty of cover, or was when I was there last.

Speaking of Kansas City, it certainly has it pluses and minuses, one plus being able to get away from the east side, at least if you can afford to live in JoCo. It never guaranteed you perfect safety, but it least got you (mostly) out of Indian country.

Feryl said...

"It's unlikely that any of the victims even saw him coming, as they were all shot and killed in the back (or back of the head)."

Right, weak/slow/aging people in particular are not going to able to fend off an ambush from an agile and strong attacker, and having a gun is mostly not going to equalize the situation.

While I do think that guns can deter home invasions, they jury's out on just how much utility they have in terms of protecting people from assault and street robberies (criminals generally don't politely notify you in advance before pouncing on you).

It seems to me that the cult of the gun took off in the 90's. Though many law abiding people were well-armed in the 70's and 80's, people came to understand crime as being like this kind of act of god aided and abetted by sleazy culture, inept authority figures, and clueless liberals. When people started getting out less often in the 90's, and crime began diminishing around 1993, we were to believe that the authorities had finally gotten their head out of their ass (per liberals) or the often gun-toting public had made a stand (per conservatives). Nah, it just got harder to commit crimes when people got more uptight and cautious.

One staple of 80's movies is the purse snatching. A skinny kid lunges for a purse, grabs it, then takes off at 20 MPH into an alley or crowded street. What good is a gun going to do you to stop or deter this kind of thing?

The outgoing environment of the 60's-80's+youthful population bulge=high crime. Gun control or lack thereof had little to no effect, positive or negative aside from ownership probably deterring home invasions (which by the 80's became very common in the UK and appear to have remained a fairly big problem, not helped by the authorities punishing armed home owners after about 1980).

James said...

Yep, you're a racist. Here you are trying to justify condemning this aspiring rapper that turned his life around just because he was guilty. Everybody knows he was angry and was justified in killing them due to those men's White Privilege and their racist micro aggressions.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, it is difficult to pin down the utility of CCW, but if you buy John Lott's statistical analysis, there was a direct relationship between higher rates of CCW and lower-than-comparison-states violent crime.

Overall, the violent crime rate fell from 1993 to 2014, but it didn't fall evenly for all states. The ones with the most gun-toting citizens led the way.

It's unknown if there's anything any of the victims could have done to avoid their fate, but also unknown are instances (there may well have been some) when the evil man was hunting but turned away from an initial target for a reason having to do with said target's behavior.

Most people go out in public on Condition Green (not a care in the world.) Those fielding on Condition Yellow may be just "heads up" enough to make other targets look easier. This seemed like a bit of decent discussion on a related topic:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Street-robberies-and-you-The-Basics/5-1285487/&page=1

A favorite passage: When to shoot

The time to shoot is immediately upon seeing his weapon. You are not a police man who has to try to arrest the guy. No need to scream at him. No exposure while you yell for him to drop the gun.

In deer hunting the experienced hunter takes the first good shot. May not be the perfect shot but it never is. Novices pass up a doable shot waiting for a better shot and then the deer is gone. Take the first good shot you are offered. Hopefully your alertness and hostile cues will prevent you ever having to fire. But once you see his weapon, shoot.

If a guy is coming at you with a gun in his hand shoot him. Shoot him right then. If you don't shoot first you may not shoot at all. I have known more than one person who was shot and received life changing injuries and also shot their attacker. Their only regret was not shooting sooner. Like Bill Jordan said "Nothing disturbs your enemy's aim like a slug delivered to the belt buckle area".


Is this "cult of the gun?" I'll leave that to others' opinions.

Feryl said...

"Defending this guy would be even harder than defending Antifa for cucks like Romney and Ryan."

We really need to purge Leftist idealism from our ranks, as it enables the worst cuckery. The Jack Kemp types can always tell themselves that one day, with the right approach and enough effort, almost any kind of person or group can be persuaded to join the cause. It's a fool's errand, of course. Better to let each ethnic group/gender/whatever do it's own thing in it's own element, however disagreeable it seems to The White Saviors out there.

The Left blames "minority" (not judging from current world demographics, but whatever) problems on white oppression. The modern Right mostly doesn't disagree with the Left over innate ability, but rather, it chides the Left for encouraging victimhood. Thus No Child Left Behind and such which to paleo types is as mordantly laughable as anything pushed by the Left.

The Stupid Party could've embraced the Sailer strategy and turned it's long-term fortunes around faster, but since when was it hip to celebrate the people who created the West? Besides, admitting that certain things were beyond our grasp and efforts to change reality are fraught with terrible unintended consequences just ain't gonna made the dreamers out there feel better.

Feryl said...

"Overall, the violent crime rate fell from 1993 to 2014, but it didn't fall evenly for all states. The ones with the most gun-toting citizens led the way."

Sure, and at that time hair styles got straighter, people started shaving their pubes, drowsy mumbling appeared in pop/rock music after being non-existent in the later 70's and 80's, etc.

Nobody in the 70's or 80's cared for would-be experts trying to claim that they had the "solution" to stop crime. People liked watching stuff like Dirty Harry and Robocop, and those movies never pretended that heroes could magically wipe the scum totally away. At best, they'd get some of the bad guys and give the public somebody to root for. But whether it was due to inherent or learned corruption, there were always going to be dangerous assholes out there who could strike at any moment.

Little did anyone know that the "solution" to stopping crime was to just stop getting out as much; those who didn't follow that advice and lingered/dawdled past the point of what was "comfortable" were viewed with suspicion, and as such, as we got further into the 90's and 2000's fewer and fewer people felt confident about living the way people did in the late 60's-early 90's. People just chanced things more often in the 70's and 80's, and that kind of impulsivity combined with then youthful demographics gave us higher crime rates.

Assuming that anyone reading this was born before, oh, 1987, you can probably remember that with each passing year, as the 90's progressed, it seemed like people lost interest in hanging out like they once did. The overall peak in outgoingness was probably the late 70's, but it was a very gradual decline after that.

Also, New York City, which isn't exactly known for it's gun-ownership, had it's crime rate fall faster than many other cities in the 1990's. Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that heroic gun slingers had much to do with it.

Feryl said...

If a guy is coming at you with a gun in his hand shoot him. Shoot him right then. If you don't shoot first you may not shoot at all. I have known more than one person who was shot and received life changing injuries and also shot their attacker.


There's a kind of LARPiness and cockiness with modern gun lovers and wannabe vigilantes. Actual vigilantism was much more common in the 70's and 80's, and it was sweaty, often impulsive, and often tribalistic (e.g., NYC Italian kids in the late 80's chasing down and then beating a black kid).

The rhapsodizing about the logistics of self-defense, and trying to run the stats to "prove" that some hot button issue or person is to blame/credit for the crime rate, is only something you see among people who've become accustomed to order and safety. Sure, there are still dangerous people and areas out there, but Crikey, it's not 1982 anymore. Attacks upon us and our loved ones now have gaps between them that are often years long (off the top of my head, I can't remember anything that's happened to my immediate family recently, there's hardly even vandalism anymore these days). In the 70's-early 90's, we're talking months between crimes ranging from "nuisance" stuff to outright beatings/rapes. And since people had more friends and greater interaction with others in the 70's and 80's, that made it all the more likely that we'd hear about crime victims who we had some association with.

Remember too the mania for "self-defense" (esp. among women, LOL) and mace and being against "rape culture", all of which intensified in the 90's? Paranoia about crime and delusions of being able to stop it increased the more actual crime diminished. The streets were a lot more dangerous in the 70's and 80's, marginally safer in the 90's, and by the later 2000's the level of crime and our attitude toward it had changed a great deal (from being resigned to it in the 70's and 80's, to being paranoid about it in the 90's and early 2000's, to basically forgetting about it in the late 2000's-present day).

And yes, Virginia, I grew up in several places that were blue collar to middle-middle class that were 80-99% white, whiter than current demographics, and go figure, these places were palpably more unsettled in the late 80's and 90's. Not like there were tons of beatings and robberies, but certainly, hooliganism (like vandalism and brawls)and shouting matches and domestic situations were more common (my family was at times part of the problem) back then.

dc.sunsets said...

Okay. Joe Citizen leaving home with the burden/hassle of (oh, no!) all of 25 oz's of pistol is LARPing because Joe hasn't been robbed/raped/murdered recently. I don't know anyone who's boat has sunk, either, but I wear a life preserver while on the water.

Rabbits inhabit a world where evenly-spread risk from predation is ideal. It's unfair, or childish LARPing, or living a Walter Middy fantasy to actually notice even small risks and move even small burdens (25 oz?) to even slightly mitigate them. Just as the occasional buck or doe gets eviscerated by an owl in a bell tower (listened to that once at 3AM; a rabbit gives off an eerily human scream of agony) or a Channon Christian gets raped, raped, raped, sodomized, etc., etc., and eventually suffocated, but hey, it wasn't me, she (and the non-zero number of her sisters-in-victimhood annually) wasn't a family member, and so by your logic, even paying attention to such things is just--well--stupid.

Sounds good to me. As long as people like you are around people like me, the low probability I come into proximity with a vicious person renders my risk all but moot because you'll always be lower-hanging fruit.

You recall the old adage about the two men walking in bear country who note a boar is stalking them, you know, the one where one of the men sits down to put on his running shoes?

dc.sunsets said...

Also, New York City, which isn't exactly known for it's gun-ownership, had it's crime rate fall faster than many other cities in the 1990's. Whatever the reason, it's doubtful that heroic gun slingers had much to do with it.

For someone so facile with dates and years, you seem unacquainted with the concept of "control group." Perhaps John Lott's work was over your head. He actually made a reasoned attempt to control for, among other things, the probability of being arrested and incarcerated for violent cime, [something that varies widely across the USA] and NYC was on a roll for that in the date range you cite. That's the sort of thing criminologists are supposed to study, but then again, we live in the age of questionable "science." This is just your prime area of "doubt."

Isn't this blog largely a statistical analysis?

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The first TMNT movie, because I watched it so often, is the mental image I have of the 80s. Not a bad mental module, I'd say!

Pangur,

Your recollection is correct. There are several stretches where seeing another person for five or ten minutes at a time is not uncommon.

I live in Johnson County, the southern part.

James,

The victims are guilty! They should be dug up and shot again!

dc.sunsets,

Situational awareness is always prudent. It's not paranoia to always be assessing your surroundings. Don't wear sandals, don't stand with your arms crossed, etc. This image is enough argument for why carrying is better than not. The police can't even protect their own stuff--they sure as hell can't be relied on to protect you.

Feryl,

It is striking how common kids roaming through the neighborhood was when I was growing up in the early and mid-nineties. Young kids, from 5 or 6 on up. Now it's unusual to see anything more than a couple of ~12 yos riding around on bikes. I only live a few miles from where I grew up. Same SES, far different behaviors.

Feryl said...

D.C. -

NYC saw quicker reductions because a lot of important white people live there, and the high density is such that failure to corral criminals quickly becomes a serious problem that needs to be fixed, and NY'ers hated Dinkins because they knew a black mayor would never have credibility with crime and unrest problems. In SoCal, Malibu and the Hollywood Hills are practically on a different planet than the ghettos, and transportation works a lot differently in LA (and indeed the US in general) than it does in NYC. All the same, eventually basically the entire US saw a reduced crime rate by the late 90's. The exact rate may have differed, since after all, why would every city experience the exact trends at the same rate?

WRT gun-ownership, how exactly did America go from being peaceful folk happy to hunt, fish, work on the factory line, mow their lawns, iron their laundry, etc. to the libertine and quite dangerous world of the late 60's? Americans owned more guns in the mid-century than in later decades; neither the zealous pro-gun crowd nor the anti-gun crowd ever bothers to take into account cultural and psychological factors. Like wise for either side of the incarceration debate. Hell, even on a racial level, much of the mayhem of the 60's and 70's cannot, and I mean cannot, be put down to non-whites when America in the 60's was 90% white. I'll grant that blacks were a major problem, basically wasting one block after another in these decades, but just the same the average white was becoming much more poorly behaved. Domestic disputes, virtually unheard of in the 40's-early 60's, beset many a household by 1970, with divorce soaring.

America experienced one crime wave after another from 1967-1992. Variance in poltical polices (gun control, incarceration, etc.) may have had some effect on the degree of crime, but the overall pattern of impulsive, unruly, and violent behavior still held true and was remarkably resistant to attempts to control it (hotheaded younger people do not fully grasp cause and effect, esp. when the trend is to not think things over too much).

Also, bar room brawls, teen vandalism, and the like are essentially the result of group psychology and heightened excitement. The opportunity for this kind of thing diminishes when people are cocooned in their own world, if not always physically than certainly psychologically. The sight of people off in ear bud land became an iconic part of 2000's and 2010's culture, similar to how, say, drive-in restaurants in the 40's and 50's allowed insecure patrons to stay in their vehicle the entire time.

Feryl said...

I coulda worded the first gun part better: what I'm getting at is that the average American, due to increasing urbanization and the deserting of small towns, has been getting less and less likely to own a gun. This initially supports the pro-gun crowd, who'd say that the high crime of the 70's and 80's occurred heavily in urban areas with many unarmed residents. Yet here we are decades later with urbanization continuing it's march, and crime has been at an ebb, mostly, since the late 90's.

Lott is an ideologue who couldn't care less about contextualizing the many cultural and emotional factors that are responsible for hedonistic behavior, of which many have little to nothing to do with heroic gunslingers or how many people the US is throwing in prison at the moment (many, many criminals do terrible things when they're 15, 16, 17, 18 years old; in a high crime period it's like playing whack a mole, with middle aged losers rotting away and many youngster following the trodden path).

I saw an 80's movie review done by a NY'er, who talked about being mugged; seeing, briefly, the cold and vacuous eyes that have seen too much. No macho posturing, false bravado, visions of fighting back; that's for the movies. Lyin' and now dead jackass Chris Kyle invented a vigilante story for one his books and that story was debunked by local police. Again, cocooners love to envision themselves as crime fighters but the boring truth is that crime cycles happen when people periodically start screwing around more and when they're tired of being disconnected from the highs and lows that come from getting out more often.

BTW, I'm not endorsing being clueless or being defeatist. It's just that I'm trying to warn the superheroes and ideologues out there to not get smug about "solving" crime. It comes, it goes, it happens. And just that I or whoever could get murdered, so too could somebody take a gun, any gun, and shoot themselves.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, I don't know you, so I have no context for your comments. Therefore, let me inform you that to such a blank-slate observer, you most assuredly do come off as endorsing cluelessness and defeatism. Since that's not your stated position, you may wish to hire a better content editor.

You write about Lott as though you've read his work deeply, yet are critical. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

For all practical purposes you stated that people who practice (AKA train) for rare but (if you're the unlucky target) utterly catastrophic events are nothing but overgrown (usually chubby) kids playing cops and robbers. This puts you decidedly on one side of the equation, and protestations to the contrary are false. Your best representation of yourself is your first such representation, and trying to qualify or walk back any of it is disingenuous. If you'd have merely suggested that some people grossly overemphasize their investment of time and energy into such things, it would have been a well-supported opinion. Instead, academic support for your opposition merits an ad hominem and you use a snide, frankly chicken-shit term for those you criticize.

I repeat my earlier, (best) representation of my own position: I love having people like you around. You all make me and mine all the more safe. It only takes a tiny bit of body language to divert predatory targeting when the world is stuffed with prey.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, BTW, your claim Americans are getting less likely to own guns is absurd. The fastest growing location in IL for people getting CCL's is Chicago. More than the rest of the state combined, if I recall correctly. Not to mention that gun sales have been off the charts for 9 years (Thanks! O.) and no, they're all not being bought by the same prior gun owners. The club to which I belong has doubled in membership in the last couple years, and its "Intro" classes for prior-non-gun-owners are crowded.

I so tire of such "well, you guys are becoming marginalized" BS. Jeff Snyder nailed you all in 1993's publication of "A Nation of Cowards."

Audacious Epigone said...

The GSS does show a steady decline in the percentage of gun owners in the population. In 1973, half owned a gun. Today it is 1 in 3.

Mama Pepe said...

Thank you!

Feryl said...

D.C. -

This is escalating into a shouty flame war. You're clearly defensive about your investment in gear and training. Hey, it's a free country. To each his own. The last time someone in my immediate family had a gun was in the early 90's, and my blood aunts and uncles who live in the Upper Midwest and Out West as far as I know don't have guns right now and I don't think most of them ever did.

All else being equal, being armed or having some kind of martial arts training is preferable in the event of being accosted by a thug. All the same, anything positive or negative could happen to anyone at any time. Still, outgoing periods inevitably lead to people taking more risks and criminals being emboldened. Guns or no guns, training or no training, the world is going to become more dangerous to everyone within the next 10 years.

"Jeff Snyder nailed you all in 1993's publication of "A Nation of Cowards."

Yup, the 90's. The early 90's were a period of hysterical over-reaction, not unlike the late 60's or well, today. Everyone needs to chill out. The utopians and dystopians tend to get carried away in these periods; rarely is some kind of social/political trend/movement as bad or good as the crusaders make it out to be in these periods (Rush, Bill Clinton was a scoundrel but he wasn't that bad; he didn't start any major war, for one thing)

The GSS don't lie. Post-war suburban culture is well, sub-urban. It's not as conducive to gun-ownership as small town/rural living, where firing off your weapon is legal and less likely to be heard or seen. Fewer Americans per-capita live in either big cities or small towns these days.

"Not to mention that gun sales have been off the charts for 9 years"

Gun grabber paranoia. NRA types push the meme that a Dem president will surely outlaw firearms one of these days. Hasn't come close to happening, as guns have increasingly become a part of American identity for good or for ill(in other, less classically liberal and less individualistic countries, people are more receptive to the government throwing it's weight around). The Anglosphere is unique in it's complaining about the nanny state, and nowhere is there more bitching about it than in the US. Demographics do count, though. Non-whites are substantially more likely to grow up in high density areas that look down on traditional culture, and are also more likely to be clueless about the real causes of crime hence they will be more open to the idea that banning guns will be the solution (you gotta admit it would drastically cut down on the murder rate which is mostly dumb blacks shooting each other up). The more whites drop off, the faster trad. American culture will fade and then it's on to el norte Mexico or Brazil.

Feryl said...

"It is striking how common kids roaming through the neighborhood was when I was growing up in the early and mid-nineties"

The term "wilding" became part of the lexicon in the 80's. Packs of kids use to cause tons of trouble in the late 60's-90's. One of the downsides of having more acquaintances and greater interaction is that it makes you more susceptible to mob psychology."Hey, Jimmy just broke a window, maybe I should get in on the act".

Boomers and X-ers all remember the juvenile delinquency of their peers and sometimes to varying degrees their own misbehavior. People just screwed around a lot in the late 60's-90's. Didn't have anything to do with gun control or incarceration, though it seems that Late Boomers have had it the roughest because hedonism peaked in the 70's when they were at an impressionable age. Smoking rates among high schoolers remained high in the late 90's, then in 2001 they started to diminish and by 2005 were very low; how did this come to pass? Those born in the 50's-early 80's saw too much, did too much, smoked too much in the 60's-90's. When you get to people born in 1986/87 and especially those born later, they hit puberty in the repressive and cautious youth culture of the 2000's and 2010's. Theirs' is a generation of sheltering and boredom, a vague feeling of "what have I missed out on?". Us Boomers and Gen X-ers had enough excitement in the 60's-90's, and consider that chapter of history to be closed and have many reasons to not want to open it back up if we're honest with ourselves (sure, we had fun, but a lot of our peers got hurt, arrested, humiliated, etc.).

Millennials will have some of the same life trajectory as Silents did. Both generations grew up around street smart older generations (Silents: Lost and GI, Millennials: Boomer and X-er) anxious to blanket their kids in an anodyne and predictable environment. Both Millennials and Silents developed a reputation, during a cocooning era, for being studious and rather mousy. In the 60's, now grown up Silents had their famous mid-life crises as suddenly it was ok for people to let it all hang out and just do their own thing. Losts and GIs had enough seasoning from the early 1900's that it wasn't necessary for older people to make weird art, do drugs, join a "movement", sleep around, etc. in the 60's and 70's. In the 2020's, perhaps a bit earlier, we're going to see Millennials, by then in their 20's and 30's, become intoxicated by a less restrictive environment analogous to the kind their parents grew up. Boomers and X-ers will be more non-plussed, and probably will realize that the "nice" little world they developed for their kids but is now slipping away was perhaps not the best idea after all.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Packs of kids use to cause tons of trouble in the late 60's-90's

One prank my group of friends played was for a few of us to pretend to be throwing a beating down on another friend from the view of the road (but not right on the sidewalk--usually several feet off). When someone would stop and yell at us to stop we'd run and the kid who was beaten would scream-cry that he was fine and please not to tell anyone and then he'd start hobbling off away from the car. The last time I remember doing it was when the police were called.

Feryl said...

The GSS "FEAR" variable is obviously subjective, but it does capture the sentiment at the time.

Afrraid to walk the streets, all races:

1973-1982: 42.7%, Yes

1984-1990: 38.7%, Yes

1991-1996: 42.8%, Yes

1998-2000: 38.4%, Yes

2002-2008: 32.9%, Yes

2010-2016: 32.0%, Yes

As you can see, people accurately sense the number of troublemakers out there. Millennials were too busy playing video games and sucking up to their parents to cause too much trouble. Also, even older cohorts by the 2000's were becoming homebodies. In the 60's-90's, there's a clearer division between child, teenager, young adult, and older adult culture, since people had "fuller" lives which often involved interacting with a like-aged group of friends. People talked about restoring "family" culture in the 80's and 90's, but the reality is that Boomers and X-ers didn't start to fully settle down until the 2000's (fewer friends and activities involving them, more time spent at home and with your family). That being said, we're all products of whatever's happening when we're teens and young adults, so a lot of Boomers will never fully shake the 70's out of their system (my 1960 born dad still complains about cops spoiling people's fun; in the 70's, cops were laughed at and handcuffed by liberals)

BTW, the mid-late 90's sentiment was a tad overblown, as it reflected the paranoia that had set in after the 70's and 80's. In the late 90's, few people grasped that things were getting safer since, well, we'd been hearing about terrible crime problems for 30 years at that point. Virtually every crime metric shows a decline beginning in earnest around 1994, and in fact, property crime rates peaked in the late 70's and very early 80's.

Feryl said...

One prank my group of friends played was for a few of us to pretend to be throwing a beating down on another friend from the view of the road "

In the Little Rascals , the stuff made in the 20's-earlier 30's had unruly kids in often rough looking areas causing trouble since that was a higher crime/outgoing era where adults feared packs of youngsters. The more polished and twee stuff involving Alfalfa, Spanky, etc. came from the late 30's and 40's, when things got more tame.

From a 1915(!) NY times headline:

"WHAT CAUSES CHILD DELINQUENCY?; Sigmund Mendelsohn Believes the Accepted Diagnosis Is Faulty, and Offers a Different One"

It's all cyclical. In the late 30's-early 60's, (Silent and Boomer) youngsters were doted upon and praised, whereas in the 1910s-early 1930's adults bitched about kids causing trouble and were more likely to leave the kids to their own devices. Likewise for the late 60's-mid 90's ("Super Predators"), after which we entered another homebody cycle in which Millennials and Gen Z are complimented and coddled by adults

Feryl said...

From Isteve:

"I live a stone’s throw from Google NYC. Public order has been dropping precipotpusly in the last year. Earlier this summer, there were a couple of shootings, i saw a guy shoot up right in front of me, a surge in beggars, and street people.

Tonight, the Chonese lady from the laundry toöd me that last night there were four böack guys camped out on the stoop öast night (loitering blacks were just something you did not see in lower Manhattan in the Giuliani/Bloomberg years). These guys had triey to steal my bike, she said. Her concluging remark was; ‘Too many black people’"

Me again: I've read some stories in the local press about growing problems with bums/beggars/passed out drunks/drug addicts and dealers, etc. in the Twin Cities. As you can imagine, accompanied by the usual hand wringing about not imposing on POC and other unfortunates. The recent troubles were generally linked to late 2015 at the earliest, and by mid-2016 were becoming undeniable. Crime stats and the overall culture of the late 50's indicate a "thawing", so to speak, of the emotional ice age that prevailed from the late 30's-mid 50's. But the thawing was gradual, to the point that few people were that concerned in the late 50's and even early 60's. We're undergoing a similar thing right now.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I've never paid attention to that variable. Interesting how the drop over time is exclusively accounted for by changes among women. Male fear, which is much lower, spikes a little in the early 90s (after the crack wars had become well known, I'd guess) but otherwise are consistent over time.

dc.sunsets said...

Who responds to such surveys? Seriously, who tells a stranger such things today?

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

The GSS is administered every couple of years and each interview takes a couple of hours to complete. It's a big undertaking. Self-reported data always come with caveats, but anonymity is vigorously protected. It's the gold standard for social survey research.

Scotty said...

I don't know if a black murderer is lying when he says that he didn't do anything. Now, of course he in fact DID do something. However, I have seen no evidence that Africans have the ability to grasp that something they did in the past actually happened. According to the best research we have on the issue, Professor Eugene Valberg's work, Africans do not have the mental ability to connect past actions with present consequences.

Going off of my own judgement, I've watched some of the "dindu nuffin" videos on Youtube. I think that those black people actually believe that they haven't done anything to deserve being arrested. I saw one where a black woman is literally pulled out of a car that she drove into a convenience store and she's telling the cops that she didn't do anything. Connecting her actions not 2 minutes prior to being arrested, well that's a bridge too far.

It's entirely possible that she's lying and she's trying to get the cops to let her go. I have no evidence to go on beyond my own judgement, but I don't think that's the case. I mean, that would bring in an entirely different line of irrationality, but I think that most of the time black people cannot piece even the immediate past to the present.

It's one of several reasons why black people aren't capable of maintaining a society.