Friday, April 15, 2011

Spring Break Starts With A Bang

Just as schools were letting out for spring break, there were three shots fired near Wilson and Broadway. We heard the shots, then the sounds of people running and screaming. Police were on the scene within a minute.

A reader posted on our Facebook page: "Shots just fired somewhere around Wilson and Broadway/Sheridan. Sounded like a fight beforehand with "Let him bleed" being yelled."


  1. Well that is a bummer, the streak is over. We made it two relatively warm weeks without any gun fire.

  2. Why don't they have cops STATIONED there every day???

  3. I do not understand for the life of me why this story is written the way it is. What kind of douchebag makes light of kids being exposed to guns?

  4. Emily, I see nothing mocking children being exposed to gunfire.

    Perhaps you should be more worried about the fact that children were running from guns than how a story about it is written.

    You sound like a lovely lady with your priorities in order. Scold a blog for non-existent humor before wondering what you can do to alleviate the fact that children getting out of school are being shot at. Good work, you!

  5. Emily, I don't think they meant it that way. Based on their facebook page, I think the writer is honestly scared for the Stewart school children. Any more facts on this? Gang bangers fighting?

  6. Emily, I too was struck by the title of the post and felt that the pun seemed to make light of the situation. I believe something like "Shooting at Wilson and Broadway" would have been a less catchy but more respectful title. However, I was glad the information in the post was reported objectively. I am glad this blog exists as a source of information, but I sometimes have mixed feelings about the tone that is taken; it can feel a bit cynical and jaded at times. But since it's a blog and not a news site, I feel there's more room for opinion. Ultimately, I think the authors should stay aware of the wide range of readers that access this site, and try to be mindful of how their comments might make others feel, especially those who have been personally affected by the event.

  7. That's a shame. I was beginning to think the camera they installed there was helping.

  8. I am very grateful to get this information ASAP and without its being delayed by group-think and politically correct committee consensus about the article's title.

    My vote is NOT to filter (censorship is not very democratic and is always a highly subjective endeavor, you know) the language of a public, volunteer-monitored blog down to the lowest common denominator of readers' sensibilities, level of comprehension or possible reader mis-presumptions about the writer's intent and motives.

    This blog is a volunteer effort, and if someone doesn't like an article's title, that's unfortunate, but it is not as important as getting the information out to the rest of us.

    Some others may have the time to organize and monitor a separate politically correct and parentally-controlled blog - perhaps even one written by a committee of Carmelite nuns. Great, do it, but leave the rest of us who want quick access to information out of your project.

    Title-critics are always free to wait to read about the incident, if you can find any coverage of it, in the S-T or Tribune.

  9. I agree that censorship should not be the goal, and that's not at all what I was advocating for. Nor do I get wrapped up in this idea of being "politically correct" - that has become an overly used term and does not capture my bottom line. My question is simply this - if my child was shot in Friday's shooting, would "Spring Break Starts with a Bang" have been an upsetting title? Maybe, maybe not, but perhaps something to think about. That's why I'm not saying someone should carefully and painstakingly contemplate every word and phrasing that goes into these articles because, you are right, that is ultimately still a subjective process and would delay the availability of the information.

    I just took Emily's opening to make an overarching point about the tone I've picked up in the blog, and emphasize that a simple question of "How would this affect someone directly involved?" to be asked; that's not "political correctness," just some basic concern for your neighbors in the community who are also looking to this as an important source of information. But, as I mentioned before, by being a blog this site gets to walk the line between having an angle and being an objective news source, and therefore my thoughts are my opinion and not demands I am entitled to place upon the authors.

  10. btw, from where I was, this sounded as if it came from the elementary school area and not from the high school.

    Not that either one would make it better but just to clarify.

    Cops showed up right away and there was a CPD SVU parked in the little street for a good hour or two afterward... meaning they were either investigating or were staying there to insure safety for the kids being picked up, etc. from that area after the shooting.

    Anyone have more info? Where are all the police scanning peeps?

  11. It's not the shooter's fault. It's society's fault!

  12. I appreciate that "political correctness" may not be exactly descriptive of the time-consuming consideration of who might be offended or who might be reading a blog item to the detriment of the useful timeliness of getting the information to the public.

    Whatever one wants to call this concern about headlines, I don't want this concern to dumb-down or delay the detailed coverage of important news getting about shootings or other public safety issues in our community.

    This discussion seems rather hypothetical. If a parent has a child in the line of fire and is reading headlines on a blog and being offended by them, rather than racing to attend to the child, I think there are bigger parenting issues involved.

    I understand the concern over possibly flippant article titles, but these concerns should not hinder complete and timely dissemination of public safety information to the rest of us. I think both of our concerns are valid. There's no reason both can't USUALLY be achieved, and I applaud this blog for generally doing just that.

    I have noticed a tendency in some media (NOT on this blog) to edit or withhold information because a child or family member involved might read it. I strongly object to this. I believe it is a parent's responsibility to monitor his or her child's reading, NOT the responsibility of the rest of us. I object when parents expect others to put up with their children running around and causing havoc in a restaurant or other public place. Parents should teach their children appropriate public behavior and should monitor their children's (and their own) reading material - the rest of us are not responsible for doing this if a parent chooses not to.