Mother Sheilds Her Children From Gunfire, Get Shot in the Head, Lives - Polidicks

[QUOTE]MUSKEGON, MI – The two young children of [URL="http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/07/condition_of_carmesha_rogers_s.html"]Carmesha Rogers[/URL] have their momma back, and the comfort it brings the two affectionate youngsters is evident by the look on their beaming faces. Four-year-old Kasharee climbs onto the lap of her mother, then sits down on the knee of an MLive reporter Thursday, Aug. 22. In the background, 3-year-old Jeremy, runs into the same room, all smiles, vying for the attention of his mother. But Trainor doesn't mind a full house. She's just glad to have her daughter she refers to as a "hero" back in her life. Trainor “can’t take her eyes off” Rogers’ face – her kind eyes, soft smile – and is beyond grateful to have her child home. “I’m so excited,” she said. Trainor recalls the day she got the call from physicians that Rogers was improving. She got a second call days later that stopped her in her tracks. “I got a phone call about four days later. I said ‘Hello?’ and she said, ‘Momma, I love you.’ I dropped the phone. I hurried up and got my clothes together,” Trainor said. “I got up there and peeked in her hospital room door and I said, ‘Did someone call me today?’ She rolled over in the bed and said, ‘Me, Momma.’ I just started bawling. I just cried,” she said. “That was the first time I cried since that first day she was in the hospital. After that I didn’t cry no more. I needed to be strong for her.” Rogers, 27, welcomed an interview – a chance to tell her story about how she “beat the odds” and has a second chance at life with her children, her parents and her husband, Jeremy. Rogers was shot in the head while shielding four children on her front porch from gunfire. By some miracle, her mother says, she only suffered a slight brain injury after the bullet penetrated her head and became lodged above her eyebrow. “I haven’t lost my memory. I can use both my hands, braid my daughter’s hair. I can walk. I feel like nothing happened,” Rogers said. Rogers is the sole survivor of [URL="http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/07/muskegon_police_investigating_9.html"]a later afternoon double shooting on July 9[/URL] that left her childhood friend, Alexis Brown, 27, dead. Rogers was released from Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital on Aug. 14 and is trying to rebuild her life, staying clear of ongoing street violence that has plagued her neighborhood for years. [B]“It’s becoming hell on earth here,” Rogers said. [/B] [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/08/muskegon_woman_shot_in_the_hea.html#incart_river_default[/url] This violence is not isolated to places like Chicago, or Detroit. The violence is spreading, personally I think it's the Mexican Cartels moving in heroin, causing power struggles between gangs because that sure sure seems to be the root of Chicago's problems. [sp]this happened an hour away from me[/sp]

Maybe it's a contributing factor, but honestly, if the sound of gunfire is as normal as turning the lights on you need to move somewhere else. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=breakyourfac;41939622] This violence is not isolated to places like Chicago, or Detroit. The violence is spreading, personally I think it's the Mexican Cartels moving in heroin, causing power struggles between gangs because that sure sure seems to be the root of Chicago's problems. [sp]this happened an hour away from me[/sp][/QUOTE] Indeed it is. The cartels and the street gangs they control are known to be positively ruthless and they don't really give a flying fuck who gets in the way. If they don't get who they want to get they just keep shooting until they do.

[QUOTE=TestECull;41939740]Maybe it's a contributing factor, but honestly, if the sound of gunfire is as normal as turning the lights on you need to move somewhere else. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] Indeed it is. The cartels and the street gangs they control are known to be positively ruthless and they don't really give a flying fuck who gets in the way. If they don't get who they want to get they just keep shooting until they do.[/QUOTE] It's a combination of hard crackdowns in the 90s, leaving gangs with no structure. Which leads to 'renegades' who will say "oh yeah bro I'm a GD" and when they shoot a 6 year old little girl, nobody beats they ass for it, shit goes unpunished because there's no leaders, no structure. Combine that with the fact that these kids haven't ever practiced shooting their guns, they show them off more than using them so half the time these young motherfuckas can't even aim, and you're right they don't give a shit about who they hit.

[quote] a chance to tell her story about how she “beat the odds”[/quote] This isn't 'beating the odds', this is cockslapping death in the face while waving both middle fingers at it.

Ovaries of fucking titanium. Thats what becoming a mother is supposed to do to you, being willing to risk your own life for a child, and especially your child.

My thoughts while reading the title were "dawww, NOOO, daww"

Is it just me or do places like this need the fucking national guard in there?

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940030]Is it just me or do places like this need the fucking national guard in there?[/QUOTE] That would make things far worse. Military presence of any kind would cause escalation I'd think.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;41939788]This isn't 'beating the odds', this is cockslapping death in the face while waving both middle fingers at it.[/QUOTE] Actually what it is is just an injury that turned out a lot less worse than what it could have been.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41940034]That would make things far worse. Military presence of any kind would cause escalation I'd think.[/QUOTE] How so? Gang members wouldn't dare engage the army and in the unlikely event that they do they will be hopelessly outnumbered, outgunned and outskilled. Let me clarify - living with soldiers on the streets wouldn't exactly look presentable, but I'm 100% certain that the citizens would prefer to see soldiers at 4 AM than gangmembers.

Or.. she undoubtedly didn't get a lethal gunshot wound to the head.

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940058]How so? Gang members wouldn't dare engage the army and in the unlikely event that they do they will be hopelessly outnumbered, outgunned and outskilled. Let me clarify - living with soldiers on the streets wouldn't exactly look presentable, but I'm 100% certain that the citizens would prefer to see soldiers at 4 AM than gangmembers.[/QUOTE] I'm sure they would, but how far would military intervention go? Patrolling the street on a purely anti-gang motivation or would they cooperate and assist LEOs in normal duty or would they replace LEOs or what? Because the instant that you put soldiers of any kind on the streets in any fashion, people are going to cry out and accuse of martial law, military police state, whatever, regardless if its actually either of those things. [I]that[/I] would cause escalation.

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940058]How so? Gang members wouldn't dare engage the army and in the unlikely event that they do they will be hopelessly outnumbered, outgunned and outskilled. Let me clarify - living with soldiers on the streets wouldn't exactly look presentable, but I'm 100% certain that the citizens would prefer to see soldiers at 4 AM than gangmembers.[/QUOTE] It's sickening that our country has reached the state where posting soldiers in the streets to keep order is on the table. We're supposed to a stable country god damn it.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41940192]I'm sure they would, but how far would military intervention go? Patrolling the street on a purely anti-gang motivation or would they cooperate and assist LEOs in normal duty or would they replace LEOs or what? Because the instant that you put soldiers of any kind on the streets in any fashion, people are going to cry out and accuse of martial law, military police state, whatever, regardless if its actually either of those things. [I]that[/I] would cause escalation.[/QUOTE] So basically your solution is to do nothing because people will bitch about it? Yes, putting military checkpoints and having soldiers do regular patrols in high-risk zones is bordering on police-state bullshit. On the other hand when you have so many civilians at risk and it's obvious law enforcement can't deal with the problem, you [I]have[/I] to do something. That's sort of why the national guard exists and they would be better suited than anyone to deal with the problem in my opinion. If people start stirring about it then so what? There's no way to remedy [I]that[/I] stupidity.

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940058]but I'm 100% certain that the citizens would prefer to see soldiers at 4 AM than gangmembers.[/QUOTE] We shouldn't have to see [I]either[/I] of those. If we have to seriously stoop to having [I][U]soldiers[/U][/I] patrol the streets rather than police officers, then get me out.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;41940210]It's sickening that our country has reached the state where posting soldiers in the streets to keep order is on the table. We're supposed to a stable country god damn it.[/QUOTE] It's appalling, but I don't see any other way. The police simply doesn't have neither the manpower, nor the equipment to effectively deal with this rooted problem. The US military agencies do. Still I can imagine the headlines: "US soldiers kill AMERICAN CITIZENS on the streets", when it really was a shootout between gangsters and soldiers, but as I said - stupidity shouldn't stop the attempts to resolve the issue. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;41940257]We shouldn't have to see [I]either[/I] of those. If we have to seriously stoop to having [I][U]soldiers[/U][/I] patrol the streets rather than police officers, then get me out.[/QUOTE] Then [I]get out[/I]. When the law-enforcement can't manage, what do you do? Just leave the innocents in the hands of crime?

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41940192]I'm sure they would, but how far would military intervention go? Patrolling the street on a purely anti-gang motivation or would they cooperate and assist LEOs in normal duty or would they replace LEOs or what? Because the instant that you put soldiers of any kind on the streets in any fashion, people are going to cry out and accuse of martial law, military police state, whatever, regardless if its actually either of those things. [I]that[/I] would cause escalation.[/QUOTE] I've never understood why people in the US are so scared of their own military everyone I know in the US Army loves the ideal of the US but not the government itself, they wouldn't turn on their own people even if they were ordered to

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;41940282]I've never understood why people in the US are so scared of their own military everyone I know in the US Army loves the ideal of the US but not the government itself, they wouldn't turn on their own people even if they were ordered to[/QUOTE] And to be perfectly honest, I believe soldiers wouldn't have to fire a single shot and they'll give everyone tremendous moral support. I really don't think gang members would dare engage or even go anywhere close to trained men armed with assault rifles, bearing the US flag on their shoulders.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;41940034]That would make things far worse. Military presence of any kind would cause escalation I'd think.[/QUOTE] The only advantage the gangbangers would have would be knowledge of their land, and they'd be too fucking high to take advantage of that. It'd be a rout. It'd also be a PR nightmare. Imagine all the hell a city that had to resort to calling in the nat guard to deal with the gangs would catch... [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;41940210]It's sickening that our country has reached the state where posting soldiers in the streets to keep order is on the table. We're supposed to a stable country god damn it.[/QUOTE] We are a stable country. Indeed we do have a bit of a gang problem, but it's all daisies and roses compared to..say...Syria. or Egypt. Or any one random dusty shithole in Africa.[QUOTE=Stopper;41940260]It's appalling, but I don't see any other way. The police simply doesn't have neither the manpower, nor the equipment to effectively deal with this rooted problem. The US military agencies do.[/quote] I'm in agreement. I think deploying Nat Guard units, with some USAF helo support, to support local LEO would go a long way towards curbing the gangs. or at least chasing them out of the country. They may not be afraid of the fuzz right now, but if they know that the fuzz will just call in the military on their dumb asses they'll think twice. [quote]Still I can imagine the headlines: "US soldiers kill AMERICAN CITIZENS on the streets", when it really was a shootout between gangsters and soldiers, but as I said - stupidity shouldn't stop the attempts to resolve the issue.[/quote] Mhm, the media is the main reason why deploying troops domestically = bad idea. We're kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place there, do we either A: Leave LEO to the gangs and hope for a miracle, or B: Send in the nat guard, solve the problem, and deal with the astronomical public backlash the sensationalist media in America will inevitably stir up?

wow it's not like it's that bad that you need martial law far out lol

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940236]So basically your solution is to do nothing because people will bitch about it? Yes, putting military checkpoints and having soldiers do regular patrols in high-risk zones is bordering on police-state bullshit. On the other hand when you have so many civilians at risk and it's obvious law enforcement can't deal with the problem, you [I]have[/I] to do something. That's sort of why the national guard exists and they would be better suited than anyone to deal with the problem in my opinion. If people start stirring about it then so what? There's no way to remedy [I]that[/I] stupidity.[/QUOTE] WHat I'm saying is there is a problem, I don't know the solution, but it seems like military on the streets would not be the best solution. It'd be nice if you didn't twist my words like you did.

martial law is like the most last resort thing and i'm pretty sure homicide rates have steadily been on the decline rather than exploding

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41940424]wow it's not like it's that bad that you need martial law far out lol[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's not [I]that[/I] bad - Detroit is [I]only[/I] the sixth most dangerous city in the USA with an estimated 1 in 46 chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime. Also about 1 in every 2000 people being murdered every year and about 14 in every 1000 become the victims of assault. It's [I]really not that bad[/I] when you compare it to the US median average - 0,1 in every 2000 people get killed and with 2,5 assaults per 1000. And it's not like Detroit also has a problem with lack of funding to deal with said crime rates. Detroit is only competing with New Orleans for the highest murder-rate in the country. So how about them apples?

so do you want martial law in 6 cities then if detroits only number 6?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41940483]martial law is like the most last resort thing and i'm pretty sure homicide rates have steadily been on the decline rather than exploding[/QUOTE] Nope, sorry - Detroit's homicide rate's been increasing steadily. Especially now with the declared bankruptcy. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;41940579]so do you want martial law in 6 cities then if detroits only number 6?[/QUOTE] No, I'd have martial law in [I]all[/I] the cities that have a spiraling gang problem.

that seems a bit much to me [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] but i guess that's easy for me to say when i don't live there [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] i still don't think bringing the army in is the solution. like, what exactly would they be doing? just patrolling all the dangerous neighbourhoods? or would it be like in iraq, having military checkpoints and shit. what happens when gang violence turns to gang insurgency? gang culture is still a culture and many gangsters are willing to die for it and certainly to kill for it

[QUOTE=Stopper;41940580]Nope, sorry - Detroit's homicide rate's been increasing steadily. Especially now with the declared bankruptcy. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] No, I'd have martial law in [I]all[/I] the cities that have a spiraling gang problem.[/QUOTE] Because that wouldn't have backlashes in every corner of the country or anything. You officially declare martial law [I]anywhere[/I] in the country and the populace is going to [I]flip its shit.[/I]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41940607]that seems a bit much to me [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] but i guess that's easy for me to say when i don't live there [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] i still don't think bringing the army in is the solution. like, what exactly would they be doing? just patrolling all the dangerous neighbourhoods? or would it be like in iraq, having military checkpoints and shit. what happens when gang violence turns to gang insurgency? gang culture is still a culture and many gangsters are willing to die for it and certainly to kill for it[/QUOTE] Patrols, checkpoints, checkups - anything that needs to be done to curb the gang violence. And what happens is you have poorly armed and untrained gangsters shooting at trained soldiers armed with assault rifles.

I love stories like these. I hope they'll all live a good life from now on.

I'm laughing my ass off at these Non-Americans. You don't know what has caused these people to form gangs, and trying to stop it with brute force would cause a fucking civil war. Everyone calling for military patrolling the streets is as bad as the guys who say "Hang the bastard!!" when they catch a murderer. Knee jerk reactions get you nowhere.