May 6, 2009

Cincinnati’s Latest Reason for Voting With Your Feet to Leave (With Accompanying Media Selectivity)

Filed under: Education,MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:06 pm

From Thursday’s Cincinnati Enquirer, updating a previous item Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion brought up on Saturday:

Charges against youths dismissed

UPDATE: The robbery case against three teenagers accused of attacking a woman outside the Westwood library in January was dismissed Friday morning.

Prosecutors dismissed the charge against one boy, admitting they did not have enough evidence to go forward.

When the 18-year-old victim failed to show up for the boys’ trial in Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Magistrate Elizabeth Igoe dismissed the case against his co-defendants, who also faced robbery charges. Igoe said charges could be re-filed if the witness decides to go forward with the case.

Police say the boys are part of a Westwood gang called the McFarland boys in which boys roamed in packs randomly attacking victims to gain status in the gang. In all, 10 juveniles were arrested.

Two others, including the group’s ringleader, were sent to juvenile prison on robbery charges. But the cases have proved difficult to prosecute. Three other boys had cased against them dismissed when victims in those cases failed to show up for court. Another got probation and another wasn’t formally charged.

That would make six juveniles (three in the current story and three others noted in the final excerpted paragraph) who have not been tried because of victim no-shows. In the absence of contrary evidence, one would have to believe that the no-shows are occurring because of fears of retaliation.

As to the bolded description of the gang — Uh, excuse me, the previous in-depth story on the McFarland Boys, carried immediately below the Update, told us that the attacks have been anything but “random,” and included a couple of useful facts about the most recent victim who didn’t appear in court:

The boys roamed in a pack, drawing power from their numbers.

They targeted white victims because they believed white people would only call police after being attacked. Black victims, they reasoned, would gather family members and retaliate.

Their victims included a 5-foot-1, 130-pound deaf woman they followed out the Westwood library, a Harrison Avenue businessman who came to the aid of a teenager under attack and a man who had a concealed carry permit and scared them off with his gun.

So what we have here is a situation where a criminal gang of pre-teen and teen-aged punks runs rampant with near impunity in a situation so out of control that victims won’t come forward.

As a result of this, if you happen to live in the formerly nearly crime-free Cincinnati neighborhood known as Westwood, and decide that it would be a good idea for you and your family to leave for a safer area outside of the city (and safer/better schools, given that this gang did much of their planning while in school), and one that probably has lower taxes to boot, that would seem pretty rational, wouldn’t it? Especially if you have kids or a physically weaker spouse you have promised to protect, it would also seem to be pretty responsible.

But it would appear, according to at least one pathetic Ohio blogger on the far left, that by deciding based on your circumstances that moving out would be the rational and responsible thing to do, and carrying through with it — especially, in this case, if you and your family happen to be white and aren’t relishing the thought of becoming the McFarland Gang’s next “random” targets — you’re all just a bunch of racists.

How sad. And how typical.

As described in last week’s PJM/BizzyBlog column, high crime, lousy schools, and high taxes have led hundreds of thousands of Ohioans from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds to leave Ohio’s largest cities — which is why all but one of them have populations much smaller than they were several decades ago. Asserting that it’s all about racism is itself a racist smear on those who have voted with their feet for the reasons just stated. Hundreds of thousands of apologies are owed, and will surely never arrive.

Voting with your feet also has a positive side-effect: It puts some distance between you, your family, and many such poisonous attitudes, which sadly seem to dominate urban politics, further accelerating the affected cities’ declines.



  1. Clearly they haven’t come across any “white folk” with a CCW…but when they do, they might wish the charges hadn’t been dropped.

    Comment by Rose — May 6, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

  2. Hate crimes?

    Comment by Tony B. — May 6, 2009 @ 9:22 pm

  3. #2, probably not directly, at least as the left would define “hate crime,” because their victim selection strategy appears to be more about getting away with it than direct antipathy towards someone who might be different from them in some way.

    But every crime involving a physical attack is a hate crime, which is why so-called “hate crimes” legislation is nothing more than political grandstanding.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 6, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.