‘Teen Takeover’ terrorizes Chicago as hundreds of children destroy property, attack tourists

This WAS NOT a flash mob.

Lol.

The attempts at equating it is comical.

 

Sure. I agree.

So, can we dig into the reasons why so many balck, male, young, lower middle-class, American Chicago residents are partaking in this particularly damaging unrest?

 

The 13% strikes again. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along....

 

2nd time, it is a method used by law enforcement to check on social media, for flash mob recruitments.

 

Your idea of "organized crime" is different from what most people consider it.

There is nothing new in unruly teens, but wait 15 after abortion bans.

 

Yeah, damaged property, guns shooting in the air, and a man got sent to the hospital. A whole lotta nothing everyone. Just ask a lib

 

Two people shot as well. But Democrats don't really care about black gun violence. Or Trans gun violence. Or Muslim gun violence. Just white gun violence needs to be stopped....unless you are named Fetterman....then you get elected to the Senate by democrats.

 

Again, nothing new everyone. Guns being shot in the air, damaged property, and a man got sent to the hospital. Not a big deal people.

organized crime fits the bill. How was it not organized? They even use social media and do it right in front of your face but nope, not organized.

 

There should be no difference in law on criminal Justice. Period

 

Organized crime means mafias and cartels, not bunch of screaming teens.

 

I don't pretend to know exactly in this case, and actually asking the kids themselves would be a novel start.

Factors I might consider could be;
- Feeling like they're constantly presented in media and culture as a fundamentally flawed generation destined to failure.
- A general sense of apathy and pessimism for a future they will have to live in and a perceived lack of concern from those of us old enough that we won't.
- A lack of support and consideration for their role in society, and thus limited suitable availability for entertainment and recreation.
- Seeing powerful adults justifying disruption, damage and violence as valid ways to get what you want.
- Frustration and resentment from perceptions of large and growing economic disparities and wealth gaps.
- Ever increasing difficulties for parents, teachers etc. in the face of pretty much constant criticism and conflicting demands from all directions.

There will inevitably be the common factors of peer pressure and mob mentality meaning most of the people involved won't have any conscious reasoning for events they just got drawn in to and the possibility of some people encouraging more extreme action for their own purposes (personal amusement, political motives etc.), but those are just general human things rather than specific to these subgroups.

 

Screaming, shooting, destructive teens that organized their actions, planned them out, carried them out, and hurt people. It’s organized

 

If you want to define "organized crime" as a bunch of screaming kids, then so be it, but hardly anyone else does.

 

If a group of teens get together on social media, group chat, or whatever and say "Let's meet at Walmart, rush in, grab as much as we can, and run out", that is organized crime...

 

Hardly anyone else defines these actions as just screaming kids, only you bud, only you

 

Feel free to define "organized crime" any way you want, but vast majority of people, including law enforcement, would define is as an organized crime enterprise, with hierarchy and are typically involved in serious crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering, extortion, armed robbery, counterfeiting, money laundering. Mafias and drug cartels are examples of organized crime.

Only me? How could you possibly know that? After all, they were kids, and they were screaming.

You think when FBI or DEA say they fight organized crime, that this is what they mean?

 

Either you're an adult under the law or you're not. Period

 

Indiana's prosperity has been boosted by people and businesses leaving Chicago, and Illinois generally. This episode will further encourage that trend.

 

was your video the only one that shows 100% of the crime? Do some homework, there’s people beaten in cars, smashed windows and 2 people shot. Attacking tourists?

sounds like you’re just apologizing for black criminals who are destroying property and assaulting people. Don’t look at all the violence everybody, let them act like a zoo!

 

Yes American kids when something bad is attached, but all of he sudden hyphenated when they are claiming they are disadvantaged.

 

Hehe. Ain’t that right. Just American now eh? Drop that prefix when it suits the narrative.

Can’t make it up

 

Remind me again why I have to carry my kids on my insurance till 26 years of age? Pop your liberal sucker out their mouth and quit babying them

 

Who said you have to?

 

Yeah I'll tell you why.. peer pressure to not "act white" which means working hard in school and speaking proper English, being taught by the adults around them that "whitey" is the enemy, and more than the others the destruction of the family unit by demonrat policies such as the "Great Society" (Ha! What was it the infamous comment LBJ made when they were pushing that abomination?)

 

Well it's too bad that FOX doesn't have news copy writers who are as good as you, Oldyoungin, who are smart enough to mention people being shot, first thing. That would be considered the right way to do it. The article which I read, however, did NOT do that. Notice that the genius editor, did not even include that fact, in the article's title:

Teen Takeover’ terrorizes Chicago as hundreds of teenagers destroy property, attack tourists


No mention of anyone being shot, nor of any arrest numbers. Instead the title highlights that the teens "destroy property, attack tourists." And the word "attack," is one that FOX has used in the past, for people just yelling at someone. So one could not possibly get the sense of this, from the article's title, as one gets from your own description.

Moving on, the first paragraph mentions only the "sound of gunfire." The article's second paragraph contributes no additional detail, to speak of, other than the word, "unruly." In paragraph #3, the detail considered most important to mention, is that teens had been "crowding streets." How long do they expect a person to read, before they divulge the most important facts?

Fourth paragraph talks about kids "blasting music" and trying to get into a park, which is, at that hour, only for those 21 and over. You think I'm shitn' you? Here is the utterly incompetently written, first four paragraphs, of the 5 paragraph article:

<Snip>
Hundreds of teenagers stormed the streets of downtown Chicago, smashing car windows, attacking bystanders and sending panicked tourists running from the sound of gunfire.

Where are their parents at? That's my question," a woman who identified as a Chicago native told Fox 32 as the unruly scene played out in downtown Chicago on Saturday night.

Fox 32 cameras captured video of teenagers crowding the streets and police seeking to restore order to the area.

Large groups of teens were seen blasting music from Bluetooth speakers and roaming in front of traffic, with some attempting to gain access to the city's Millennium Park, which is off-limits to those under 21 after certain hours, and the downtown Art Institute.
<End Snip>


Oh, what a terrifying image! They are blasting music, and "roaming in front of traffic." I do declare, I hope my smellin' salts have been replentished!
Still no mention, I'll point out, of anyone being shot, or the "double digit arrests," which are among the 3 facts you use, to summarize the event, in your one sentence. I will concede that FOX did mention "smashing car windows." Still, the two pictures do not match; and even the fifth paragraph, falls far short of getting the reader to the place you describe with such an economy of words:

<Snip>
Some teens in the group began jumping up and down on cars, smashing windows and attacking people inside. One woman told Fox 32 her husband was attacked from the driver side of his vehicle and beaten after a group of teens jumped up and down on the couple's windshield. The man was taken to a local hospital for treatment.
<End article>

They reiterate about broken car windows, which might give one the impression that this is meant to be a top takeaway, from the story. Plus "jumping up and down on cars," and once again, their using the expansively non specific word, "attacking." Before I became acquainted with Right wing media, I would have taken that word to be referring to a physical attack, but that is not its exclusive usage, by FOX and others.

So my "La la land," impression, I personally blame on the poorly written, FOX article, which only, in its very last sentence, describes a single incidence of battery, by using the word "beaten," and mentioning that the person went to a hospital, for treatment. Still, a wide gap between your one sentence summation, and the entire FOX article.

I suppose that FOX, as a News Network, is analogous to the type of restaurant, for which it is best to eat first, before visiting for dinner. See my commentary, above, on the article supplied, from the OP; and you have already read my impression of the video, that went with it. Maybe you could do a better job of picking your linked information source, for readers, in the future.

So, this was a major riot, and that had been the only footage, that FOX could come up with? Just curious-- to whom would you attribute the fault, for my not crediting the attack, with its due degree of seriousness? Please read, if you haven't already, my covering of the entire article, accompanying that lame ass video, above.

On my returning to the article, after all of the lambasting I received for my depiction, I did find one link for an associated story, which would have indicated the true nature of this story, but which was in a completely different looking, blue colored lettering. The way that the article appears, there are frequent interruptions for ads, and it is typical to see links to different stories, in these articles; additionally, there was a wide gap between that link, and the continuation of the article I was reading, so I did not read that link to another story, as being an essential part, of this story, which, whether or not you agree with me, was a POS article, and an awful choice, by the OP, to use. From that material, offered, my impression, I still contend, was justified. I had not seen any prior coverage of this incident, which would have been necessary, IMO, in order for me to appreciate what a poor description of events I was reading and watching, in the OP's linked article.