Relative Something

Recently, in the ‘Opinions’ section of a local paper, I came across a letter that had been submitted in response to an article about squad cars getting sophisticated video cameras in an effort to deter racially biased policing. That article had the headline, “New way to fight gangs is unveiled.” The letter writer suggests “that a new way to fight gangs would be to talk to them.” It struck me as amusing to imagine what this might look like. Who would be the best person to do the talking? A regular patrol officer? A detective? Someone from the Mayor’s office? A former gang member who served time and then left that life when he or she got out? A gang member’s parent? A business person whose property gets tagged with gang symbols? An administrator or teacher from the local school? A local NFL celebrity?

When would be a good time to talk? Do we ask the gang to gather all their members and talk to everyone at once, or try for small groups or individuals? Would it be better to meet them on their turf or invite them to some site away from their place of ‘business’? What would the discussion be like? Do we need to tell them why their activity as a gang is a problem for the rest of the community? Do we need to give them an opportunity to talk about why they choose to be a gang?

Is there any possible way that the gang members are going to be interested in this idea? Hey, if they are for it, I’m all in! I’ll pay for donuts.

I don’t mean to belittle the whole issue of gangs by the amusement I felt for the idea, but it struck me as so out of proportion, for the complexity of the reasons gangs exist and operate as they do today, to suggest simply talking.

And, as long as I’ve already gone this far, let me reveal a bit of the darker side of strange ideas that find their way into my head. During the barrage of football coverage I watched last weekend, I heard an announcer commenting about a particular impact from a block or a tackle in a way that led me to imagine he might as well just come out and say what it sounds like he wants to say… that he was trying to kill the other guy. He wasn’t saying it, because that isn’t what he meant, but it is a phrase that gets used to describe such a hit, and it is what I was hearing him leading toward; not the literal meaning of kill the guy, but figuratively, to dispatch him out of the play. After having heard all the hyped up pre-game analysis and posturing that goes on every week for over an hour before games get underway, and surfing 2 or 3 different games being broadcast simultaneously, I suddenly heard in my head, “kill,” and had this thought: Why hasn’t someone like “Saturday Night Live” done a skit of a gang fight under the guise of a televised football game broadcast. Maybe because it would be in poor taste. Wait, that has never stopped them before.

It would be easy. Before the fight the analysts can talk about the previous won-loss records of the gangs involved, which members wouldn’t be able to fight because they are injured or incarcerated. We could meet the gangsters by having them each state their names and list what school they are not going to anymore. I can see an easy feature on one or two guys where we learn more about how far they have come to achieve the spot they now hold in the gang. Then it would be simple to mock the normal football play-by-play and color commentator analysis by applying it to a clash of two gangs in combat with each other. I guess the sad part about the whole sick thought is that it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch. It fits a bit too well, doesn’t it?