Law and Order: Driver accused of transporting 15,650 untaxed cigarettes

But Officer I an just a really heavy chain smoker!

Supah Skillz Lockhart
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001275190549&sk=wall

Supah must've allowed his skillz to slide and his self description fits. If his "unfourtonate" circumstances led him here and he doesn't like it, he's now old enough to go back to the Bronx and lead his life of criminality there.

I like this part on his wall:
Supah Skillz Lockhart
walmartttt , hopefully some mins & ciggarettes ,
Like · Reshare · 21 hours ago via mobile ·

He announces he's on his way to WallyMart and then gets busted there..HAHAHAHA!

Edited for decency:

About Supah Birthday_8*24*92..
full name _Earl shateek anthony lockhart
age_18
i was born and raised in nyc [the bronxx] :] for 15 years of ny life . Unfourtonate circumstances led me to the town of batavia :[ but shi** happens i guess!. I have a serious attittude. And a serious anger problem & a serious violence problem.!.i dont really like people!.i stick to my self nminus the few pwoplw i actuall talk too!
_shaneeka
_Dee
_taylor
_chris
_jesie
_uncle doug
_lance &&
_jeanine!
one thing i hate is a motha fuc**in cop callin snitch, and people who swear they cant get dey ass beatt!.
other than that i could be a nice person!.im always makin somebodyy laughh ! Guess it just comes natural ta mmee.!
:] hmu for moreee!

Sorry ladies, looks like he's taken.

WOW I thought I had spelling problems

Doug, I really appreciate the extra Facebook research you do on the police blotter participants, always good for a laugh.

Hey Doug, interesting coincidence I noted....in his family list isnt that the same Chris Preedom who is facing charges over stabbing someone in the eye?

Jeff, if it's publicly open and I don't have to hack it to see it, it's fair game!

Kyle, one in the same. Check Chris Preedom's wall and you'll see the same gibberish (is that what ebonics is?) that is on Earl Lockhart's facebook page. Earl is also in Chris Preedom's friends list.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002128272145&sk=wall

I agree, all Facebook stuff is fair game, the good and the stupid.

I have used Facebook for some silly stuff but always mainly for keeping contact with friends, and family over the distances that I travel. It was also very handy when I was hospitalized recently.... as I was unable to call everyone and made it possible for many friends to arrange to visit me while I was in. I hate though its darker side what with the recent spate of suicides from cyber-bullying and such. But like any tool you must learn to take the good with the bad.

Kyle, facebook is perfect for keeping in touch with family and friends. I use it for that every day but it's also locked down as tight as possible. If someone leaves it wide open for the world to see, there's no reason for an adult to be upset when they break the law and their online trash gets spilled.

Example:
Supah Skillz Lockhart
Jst scraped theee ffuc** outta my bowl ,
so rezzin hits it is ,
[lms if yuh up ]

I have nothing against passing one around the burn pit but telling the world that you just scraped resin from your bowl to smoke probably isn't the smartest thing to do. When you hang your laundry out on a line, everyone gets to see what you wear.

As far as online bullying goes, I mostly blame parents for the problem. They usually are oblivious to what their children are up to and they rely on modern technology to babysit. Children don't need unfettered access to the internet or smart phones. It really is that simple. APPS are available for smart phones to monitor their usage and they can also be locked down with parental controls. Computers can also be controlled with administrative tools and usage can be monitored with 3rd party software. There's no reason to allow a child to be in their room alone for hours on end with access to every website in the world. Electronic bullying is as simple to end as the on/off button. Snoop on your kids and see what they're up to, it's your responsibility as a parent. Kids simply don't have the same rights as adults.

A good part of that issue can be laid at the feet of public education. Spelling isn't important as long as the teacher can understand the student's intent. On most papers that are turned in, it's not graded (the spelling).

I was at a BSA meeting last night and the guest speaker was from the FBI Cyber Crimes Unit. The vast majority of parents, even the diligent ones aren't aware of their child's total cyber activity. in his words; "You may think you know everything your son or daughter is doing on the internet but I can assure you, you don't."

That's pretty sad, Kevin. When I was a student from the late 60's through the 70's and into the early 80's, spelling and sentence composition was graded every day. When did mediocre become acceptable? Public education isn't doing anyone any favors if they tell a student it's alright to be illiterate as long as they can somehow manage to "splain" to the teacher what their meaning/intent is.

Kevin, exactly! It's impossible to monitor your children 100% but that doesn't mean a parent should just shrug their shoulders and let their child think they can get away with everything. In the back of every kid's brain should be this nagging little voice saying "Is getting caught worth it? If I get caught I am so DEAD!" Even better yet would be to instil in a child's brain the values of respect and discipline.

Every child from every generation has tried to get away with whatever they can but they were also dead meat if they were caught, and they knew it. Parents of today don't seem to discipline their kids at all. If their kids get into trouble, it's not their fault! Kids time doesn't seem to be as structured as it used to be, either. It used to be that when you got home from school, there were chores to do, then homework and then dinner time with the entire family. There was no slouching off into the other room to eat. Maybe there was play time outside after dinner when the dishes were washed.

Kids have entirely too much free time. They're not taught how to have self worth, self direction or good values towards their fellow human being. Those are just my opinions derived from decades of living and observation.

"When did mediocre become acceptable?" About the same time that the self-esteem movement became the accredited style of teaching in public education. After all, how can everyone be special if they're actually not. It's taken until the past few years to realize that was a giant mistake.

I will never understand why people just do not limit access to their Facebook profiles. It's very easy to do and it just makes sense to avoid public embarrassment. In the last few years at every job interview I've had (from the mundane on up), or when I'm taking on a new client these days, they have checked me out on Facebook.

I haven't had a job interview in 19 years, long before the internet craze. Pagers were popular in the early 90's but the vast majority of them could only display phone numbers. If I remember correctly, cell phones in the early 90's resembled a desk phone and the battery/phone pack was contained in a small luggage bag and they were ungodly expensive. My how the world has changed! There was a time when getting on the internet meant you used a dial-up modem, an extremely slow $3000 (or more) computer. Bulletin boards, mIRC and dalnet were all the rage and so were the newsgroups. It was an adult's world and few kids were online. I remember when that all changed. It was about 1998 to 2000 and cable broadband exploded across America/Canada. Computers became more affordable, internet access was fast and more things could be accomplished with a multimedia based rig....and look what we have now...

Daniel, people generally don't enable their online security either out of ignorance or out of laziness. I don't think they realize that the split second they launch their text, it can't be called back. It's forever archived somewhere.

Supah Skillz Lockhart, one thing i hate is a motha fuc**in cop callin snitch, and people who swear they cant get dey ass beatt!. Jokers like this are this way because, no one respects them probably and probably his own family ignores him. He got attitude because, he probably is not smart enough to get a pesonality.

"Daniel, people generally don't enable their online security either out of ignorance or out of laziness."

Just take out 'online security' and enter anything practical that takes some effort, and it makes sense every time Doug. :)

He sounds lost, scared and alienated to me. He's fallen to peer pressure from hanging with the wrong people. A person's attitude and confidence is directly connected to the company he or she keeps. He has choices and doesn't even understand that yet. He thinks he's okay right where he is and doesn't realize how fast time goes by. If he reads any of this thread, instead of taking some constructive criticism, he will cop an attitude something like "deez stupit peeps don't no wht dey talkin bout..dey need tuh mind dey own biz and step outta mine." Not bad, huh? I learned all that just from his facebook page!

My public school teachers in California in the '60s and '70s, and professors in the '80s, were strict about grammar, spelling and punctuation. A student's "intent" was neither here nor there. No ebonics. No hillbilly-onics. We had regular spelling tests in English and learned to dissect and understand sentence and paragraph structure in beginning composition. I always tried to do my best in school and apply the information I was taught. Otherwise what's the point?

But I've noticed that within the last 15 years of so, it's not "cool" to be enthusiastic about learning or to study hard in public schools. I know young teens who purposely use a limited vocabulary and act dumber than they are. A couple of them, who seem otherwise self confident say "I'm dumb" or "I'm not that smart" and often (at least when speaking with me) "what does that word mean?"

More kids seem to make an effort to act like they can take or leave school. The harder lessons become, the more apathetic they seem. I was one of those kids who put my hand straight up in the air, wiggled my fingers and had that pleading look that said "please-call-on-me-I-bet-I-know-the-answer!" Are there any kids like that now?

The movie star Will Smith was raised by his grandmother and he says she would not tolerate sloppy grammar and would tirelessly goad him into speaking English correctly. He is thankful she did.

For the self-motivated person, who looks to good role models although they may not be abundant, proper communication skills are worth the effort to acquire. But hey, that's just me.

Amen, Billie! Well said, well composed and great spelling! lol

I loved to diagram sentences. I liked the order and logic that made it all come out right. I struggled through penmanship. I never learned to hold the pen/pencil right, but eventually conquered cursive and enjoy using it.
The "I'm dumb" syndrome is not exclusive to the teens of today. It is appalling to hear senior citizens say:
"I don't watch the news, I'm too dumb to understand it."
(This was confirmed after this person watched a movie about the Ramsey killing. At one point, I was asked if it was a true story. I commented that it was on the news for over a year, almost every night. The person never saw one bit of the coverage.)
"I like to read, but I won't join a book discussion because I'm too dumb to contribute."
"The folks don't like smart people, so it is best to act dumb."
So, it isn't just the teens. From what I can see, they have excellent role models.

Good points, Bea. And true, many teens do have good roles models if they would only emulate them! I have always liked smart people and didn't care one wit if others did or didn't. But no one likes a smart aleck.

About sentence structure, I've forgotten the rules concerning the finer points, but I know how to use them to craft a proper sentence. We were taught cursive but not penmanship, which is I guess is a lost art practiced, understandably, by fewer and fewer people today. I'm left-handed and like many lefties my handwriting is not pretty but at least it's legible.

1) the 'ebonics' flap surfaced in the late 1990s when the Oakland Unified School District recognized Ebonics as a legitimate language. Afro-American and southern dialects had been acknowledged for decades- at least since studies in the early 1970s formally documented those dialects as subsets of American spoken-English. The flap over the Oakland, California board action was over-stated and over-reacted to. No accommodating adjustment was made in the school curriculum nor were English programs modified to embrace Ebonics. The board's action merely acknowledged a social reality: an urban dialect existed and could be regarded with the same validity as any other regional dialect. No more controversial than quantifying differences between Boston spoken-English and Tupelo spoken-English; no more threatening than the written shorthand that evolved in 90s AOL chatrooms.

2) the 'whole language program' was implemented in the 1980s as a holistic approach to composition. It immediately went under fire from those who favored a phonetic approach to language education. The primary objection to whole language derived from its underlying notion (as advanced by Noam Chomsky in the 1960s) that learning from fragmented portions of language opposed the fundamental manner by which children naturally learn language: context. This conflicted with the established method of teaching language by studying its components: phonetics, verb tenses, word meanings, etc.

3) Self-esteem's relationship to learning was documented in numerous studies that culminated in a formal integration of the concept during the 1980s- 90s. Again, this trend ruffled feathers from the outset as traditionalists reacted to the near-simultaneous elimination of corporal punishment in schools and Bible-based attitude toward 'pride.' With the usual bravado, dissenters ignored the over-whelming evidence that students with better developed self-image performed at a higher level and bemoaned the abandonment of discipline and culturing of spoiled children.

Schools often embrace practical trends that amount to radical changes in educational practice for students, parents and teachers. It is likely that these trends are imposed from the top down and require substantial change in application for teachers, who in turn resist the effort. Resistance is also exerted by the textbook and ancillary publishers who must adapt or lose money. Imagine all of the filmstrip projector manufacturers who groaned when the Apple IIe took off. ...Or the chalk producers when white boards took off, 16mm film Libraries when videotape took off.

The change that should really rattle parents' spines, not changes adopted by local boards; corporate and federal government teaming up to profit from NCLB and charter schools. ...Of course those educational options are sold to the public as tax reduction!

"It immediately went under fire by those who embraced a phonetic approach to language education."
Phonetics was introduced in the Batavia School System when my children were in grade school. It was, in my opinion, one of the worst educational concepts ever foisted on the students.
You can always tell an adult taught phonetics. They still can't spell.
To this day, I can still see that dreaded spelling list we had to copy and write as homework. I remember having to memorize the words.
That went by the wayside with phonetics. If the kids got it close to what the word should be then everyone was happy.
That is far more serious than worrying about a dialect.

I learned to read in school by memorizing words, such as in "See Jane run. Run Jane, run." I developed an ear for language by having my mother read to me nearly every night from books we borrowed from the library. It sparked my imagination and I loved it when the teacher read a chapter every day from a work of fiction for young readers ("Anne of Green Gables" "And now, Miguel" "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory").

Regardless of what studies show or don't show, I'm against corporal punishment in school and I think self-esteem being taught in school is a poor use of instructional time. Parents, relatives, and others outside the classroom are more suitable to the task, which is important indeed. But I think the "just reading, writing and math" approach should be augmented by the arts because I think learning about music, painting, dance, sculpture, etc., is very important to a child's development and fosters learning in other areas.

I have no problem simply recognizing that a dialog exists and so noting. But that also seems a little obvious and therefore superfluous. I do have a problem with dialects in any form being part of instruction, which I believe is exactly what C.M. indicated -- that they were not put into any curricula.

We should all be on the same page when it comes to speaking English, regardless of our various backgrounds.

Billy, I don't think self-esteem is 'taught' so much as it is fostered. I would suggest the analogy, 'carrot or stick;' self-esteem's place in the classroom falls in line with carrot. Instead of negative reinforcement, the self-esteem building teacher emphasizes success and reward. I recall from my own public school experience that far too often poor performance was exemplified and punished to demonstrate how not to do something. Ridicule was a prime element of teacher technique. I believe dunce caps, hair-pulling, ear-twisting, knuckle-busting, corner-sitting, enforced standing/kneeling and other forms of public humiliation have been eliminated from the classroom.

When I first began working at a local school district in the late 1970s, I encountered an Elementary Principal who - in addition to whistling circus tunes while navigating the hallways - employed some rather imaginative, though sadistic disciplinary techniques. I was discussing an engineering problem with one of the industrial arts teachers when I observed the principal with two third grade boys he had pulled into the hall. The boys had been engaged in a craft project that involved newspaper. Discovering that the ink came off on their hands, they had jointly changed the color of their faces by applying newsprint ink. The principal was underscoring their poor choice by forcing them (not to wash the ink off) to go to lunch with the ink on their faces so the whole school could witness their poor choice.

He then summoned the shop teacher and myself to join his ridicule meting session. Rather than asking for our independent assessment, he proceeded to put words in our mouths, advising the boys that we would remember them and their poor behavior when they reached secondary school and perpetuate the drubbing and reputation they had incurred that day. Realizing I was being exploited, relegated to bullying two eight-year-olds, I walked away.

That scenario portrays the opposite of self-esteem building.

As for, "We should all be on the same page when it comes to speaking English, regardless of our various backgrounds." There are three elements to the discussion: English language, composition and speech which can be further divided into formal, colloquial and technical applications. I'm sure you would agree that the techniques for teaching and rules for usage would vary between those categories. To return to the original thread, how one articulates in a job interview, a speech to the Paleontological Society or discussion around the pool table at a Bensonhurst bar would vary, yet remain appropriate for each milieu.

I have a good friend who was born in Jamaica. When he is in the company of fellow Caribs, he speaks Patois When he is hosting a Rotary Club picnic, one would be hard-pressed to detect his native dialect.