🚨 NYC knife wielding attacker stabs 5 people at Penn Station

[Chuz Life]

There’s a guy who was pretty famous for garbling up words. I believe it was a reverend Spooner. I always found that stuff amusing. So, naturally, I overused them for my kids. Let’s just say, they were less than amused back in the day.

Mission accomplished.

Eg: Our shoving leopard watches over us.

Or, “A well-boiled icicle” instead of “a well-oiled bicycle.”

This might be where my dad got it from.

 

[Lisa558]

Also, I understand that it is the courts which keep letting him go.

Yep. He was arrested for a similar stabbing attack in 2022, released in cashless bail, and then given probation where he would be free to roam around and keep stabbing people.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. He was arrested for a similar stabbing attack in 2022, released in cashless bail, and then given probation where he would be free to roam around and keep stabbing people.

Was it a "similar" attack, or was it just a fight with another homeless person?

The thing is, we all like to pretend the homeless are invisible until they do something, and then we act all shocked when they do something.

 

[BackAgain]

Was it a "similar" attack, or was it just a fight with another homeless person?

It was “similar” whether or not the other victim happens to be homeless.

The thing is, we all like to pretend the homeless are invisible until they do something, and then we act all shocked when they do something.

No. We don’t all “like to pretend” any such thing. In fact, society (especially in deep blue metro areas) tends to grant the homeless some special considerations:

You need to take a dump? Go ahead right; go there in full view of everyone on city streets and sidewalks.

Do you need another fix of your favorite controlled substance? Go ahead. We may have laws against that, but you folks get a pass.

Do you find yourself “needing” to stab other people? Well, hell. We can’t allow that. But … good news! You do get to have a lawyer cite your homelessness as evidence of your lack of responsibility (you just ain’t right).

The point is that homelessness is a legitimate public issue and society needs to become much more proactive in dealing with it, but minimally, society needs to stop enabling it.

 

[JoeB131]

It was “similar” whether or not the other victim happens to be homeless.



No. We don’t all “like to pretend” any such thing. In fact, society (especially in deep blue metro areas) tends to grant the homeless some special considerations:

You need to take a dump? Go ahead right; go there in full view of everyone on city streets and sidewalks.

Do you need another fix of your favorite controlled substance? Go ahead. We may have laws against that, but you folks get a pass.

Do you find yourself “needing” to stab other people? Well, hell. We can’t allow that. But … good news! You do get to have a lawyer cite your homelessness as evidence of your lack of responsibility (you just ain’t right).

The point is that homelessness is a legitimate public issue and society needs to become much more proactive in dealing with it, but minimally, society needs to stop enabling it.

When we invest in the outpatient treatment programs to help the homeless, then I will take your whining seriously.

 

[Hollie]

When we invest in the outpatient treatment programs to help the homeless, then I will take your whining seriously.

They will be doing that in California. Free dentures for the outpatient method heads. All your dreams come true.

 

[BackAgain]

When we invest in the outpatient treatment programs to help the homeless, then I will take your whining seriously.

I’m not whining. You have me confused with your own projection.

Anyway, the extent that society should have to support those “programs” is open for discussion. Maybe in its own thread. (And, why just outpatient treatment? Many of the homeless need to be treated while they are off the streets.)

But your silly commentary doesn’t have fuckall to do with what I had said.

And, don’t imagine that anybody gives a shit about what a stupid ***** like you does or doesn’t “take seriously.” I mean, seriously, that’s very vain of you. You’re inconsequential.

 

[Lisa558]

I’m not whining. You have me confused with your own projection.

Anyway, the extent that society should have to support those “programs” is open for discussion. Maybe in its own thread.

But it doesn’t have fuckall to do with what I had said.

And, don’t imagine that anybody gives a shit about what a stupid ***** like you does or doesn’t “take seriously.” I mean, seriously, that’s very vain of you. You’re inconsequential.

His posts are of such great consequence to me that I have him on ignore.

 

[theHawk]

Five stabbed near Penn Station, leaving one seriously injured as investigation continues — Fox News

Authorities say five people suffered stab wounds near NYC's Penn Station, with Amtrak Police leading the ongoing investigation into the incident.

apple.news

So, in NYC, some assailant stabbed several people in Penn Station.

My first mental image of the assailant is …

“What are the chances that the assailant is an Islamic mutant?”

On second thought, I also consider that the attacker could be a tranny.

What are your first guesses about who did it?

Surprise!

It was an African:

 

[luiza]

What are your first guesses about who did it

Little Jack Horner or Humpty Dumpty .

 

[JoeB131]

I’m not whining. You have me confused with your own projection.

Anyway, the extent that society should have to support those “programs” is open for discussion. Maybe in its own thread. (And, why just outpatient treatment? Many of the homeless need to be treated while they are off the streets.)

But your silly commentary doesn’t have fuckall to do with what I had said.

And, don’t imagine that anybody gives a shit about what a stupid ***** like you does or doesn’t “take seriously.” I mean, seriously, that’s very vain of you. You’re inconsequential.

NOt at all.

We have decided that it's perfectly acceptable to have the mentally ill wander the streets because it's more important to give tax breaks to billionaires.

It's not like the billionaires or millionaires are going to be the ones who are going to get knifed at Penn Station. It's going to be regular folks.

Obviously, some of these people should be locked up in long term care, but thanks to Republican SCOTUS rulings, they can't unless they are an 'immediate' danger.

 

[BackAgain]

NOt at all.

We have decided that it's perfectly acceptable to have the mentally ill wander the streets because it's more important to give tax breaks to billionaires.

False and false. You are one of the cult who demanded that we not keep people institutionalized. And while I do sympathize with their conditions and their plight, I also recognize that having them out on the streets (like a zombie army) is no way to give them any meaningful treatment. And it’s not particularly safe for the rest of us, either.

It's not like the billionaires or millionaires are going to be the ones who are going to get knifed at Penn Station. It's going to be regular folks.

How expected that you’d try to turn it into an “us” versus “them” thing. Your silly mantra (of those billionaires getting the benefit at the expense of the rest of us) is tired leftarded nonsense.

Obviously, some of these people should be locked up in long term care, but thanks to Republican SCOTUS rulings, they can't unless they are an 'immediate' danger.

You make up your “facts” as you waddle along.

Justice Stewart, who authored the opinion
O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was nominated by Eisenhower. But the Senate which confirmed him was under Democrat control at the time. O’Connor is the main case addressing the issue.

“If an individual is not posing a danger to self or others and is capable of living without state supervision, the state has no right to commit the individual to a facility against his or her will.” (A head note synopsis.)

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)

O'Connor v. Donaldson: If an individual is not posing a danger to self or others and is capable of living without state supervision, the state has no right to commit the individual to a facility against his or her will.

supreme.justia.com

It was basically a liberal opinion and while it makes some good sense, up to a point, it clearly disproves your claim (that somehow it was a “Republican” court decision.

 

[JoeB131]

False and false. You are one of the cult who demanded that we not keep people institutionalized. And while I do sympathize with their conditions and their plight, I also recognize that having them out on the streets (like a zombie army) is no way to give them any meaningful treatment. And it’s not particularly safe for the rest of us, either.

I agree, but the billionaires get their tax cuts and they don't get treatment.

How expected that you’d try to turn it into an “us” versus “them” thing. Your silly mantra (of those billionaires getting the benefit at the expense of the rest of us) is tired leftarded nonsense.

Not at all. In other countries, they don't even HAVE billionaires, but they do have adequate mental health care.

Justice Stewart, who authored the opinion
O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was nominated by Eisenhower. But the Senate which confirmed him was under Democrat control at the time. O’Connor is the main case addressing the issue.

You are missing the point. SCOTUS at that point was six REpublicans (Two appointed by Ike and four appointed by Nixon) vs 3 Democrats (one each appointed by FDR, JFK, and LBJ)

For the record, it was a unanimous decision. ALL NINE justices agreed that we shouldn't lock people up against their will.

 

[BackAgain]

I agree, but the billionaires get their tax cuts and they don't get treatment.

Oh please give it a ******* rest with your perpetual attempts to divide us. Billionaires of course do pay taxes. As Trump pointed out to you slimey asshole friend, Shrillary Rotten Clinton, many years ago: wealthy intelligent people take advantage of our absurd tax laws. If you morons don’t like those laws, you have done a shit job in re-writing then. Even in Dumbocrap Administrations and control of Congress.

Not at all. In other countries, they don't even HAVE billionaires, but they do have adequate mental health care.

Nonsense.

Why is it that idiots, like you, make up bullshit and always expect that other people will buy your dishonest nonsense? Newsflash. You’ve overplayed your hand and overstayed your welcome. Nobody with an actual working brain buys what you’re trying to peddle.

You are missing the point. SCOTUS at that point was six REpublicans (Two appointed by Ike and four appointed by Nixon) vs 3 Democrats (one each appointed by FDR, JFK, and LBJ)

Oh no. I got the point. And I refuted it. Now you’re just spinning shit hoping to keep your ruse going.

In the meanwhile, the Dim controlled Senate confirmed him.

Again, for you shitlib regards, Presidents do NOT “appoint” Justices. They nominate them. Then, the Senate either confirms that nomination or the nominee doesn’t become a Justice on the bench of the SCOTUS.

For the record, it was a unanimous decision. ALL NINE justices agreed that we shouldn't lock people up against their will.

Yes, you moron. I know it was unanimous.

So much for your theory about a “Republican” SCOTUS. All rational people believe that locking people up simply because of some mental illness is uncivilized.

But that wasn’t how you started your claim. You, being the flip-flopping shitlib retard troll that you are, said, “Obviously, some of these people should be locked up in long term care, but thanks to Republican SCOTUS rulings, they can't unless they are an 'immediate' danger.”

I heartily approve of that condition. If a mentally ill person is a threat to himself or others, that’s when they should be institutionalized.

Your self contradictory positions say a lot about you. None of it good.

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh please give it a ******* rest with your perpetual attempts to divide us. Billionaires of course do pay taxes. As Trump pointed out to you slimey asshole friend, Shrillary Rotten Clinton, many years ago: wealthy intelligent people take advantage of our absurd tax laws. If you morons don’t like those laws, you have done a shit job in re-writing then. Even in Dumbocrap Administrations and control of Congress.



Nonsense.

Why is it that idiots, like you, make up bullshit and always expect that other people will buy your dishonest nonsense? Newsflash. You’ve overplayed your hand and overstayed your welcome. Nobody with an actual working brain buys what you’re trying to peddle.

Oh no. I got the point. And I refuted it. Now you’re just spinning shit hoping to keep your ruse going.

In the meanwhile, the Dim controlled Senate confirmed him.

Again, for you shitlib regards, Presidents do NOT “appoint” Justices. They nominate them. Then, the Senate either confirms that nomination or the nominee doesn’t become a Justice on the bench of the SCOTUS.

Yes, you moron. I know it was unanimous.

So much for your theory about a “Republican” SCOTUS. All rational people believe that locking people up simply because of some mental illness is uncivilized.

But that wasn’t how you started your claim. You, being the flip-flopping shitlib retard troll that you are, said, “Obviously, some of these people should be locked up in long term care, but thanks to Republican SCOTUS rulings, they can't unless they are an 'immediate' danger.”

I heartily approve of that condition. If a mentally ill person is a threat to himself or others, that’s when they should be institutionalized.

Your self contradictory positions say a lot about you. None of it good.

The government does so much good with the money they already take from us with their threats of imprisonment, think how much good they could do once we let them take even more!

 

[JoeB131]

Oh please give it a ******* rest with your perpetual attempts to divide us. Billionaires of course do pay taxes. As Trump pointed out to you slimey asshole friend, Shrillary Rotten Clinton, many years ago: wealthy intelligent people take advantage of our absurd tax laws. If you morons don’t like those laws, you have done a shit job in re-writing then. Even in Dumbocrap Administrations and control of Congress.

I'm always wondering about someone like you, who is probably one medical crisis away from bankruptcy, sits up at night and wonders, "Oh, those poor Billionaires, they are paying too much in taxes."

Why is it that idiots, like you, make up bullshit and always expect that other people will buy your dishonest nonsense? Newsflash. You’ve overplayed your hand and overstayed your welcome. Nobody with an actual working brain buys what you’re trying to peddle.

Squeal like a pig, boy

Again, for you shitlib regards, Presidents do NOT “appoint” Justices. They nominate them. Then, the Senate either confirms that nomination or the nominee doesn’t become a Justice on the bench of the SCOTUS.

Get real. Republicans appoint Republicans. Democrats appoint Democrats. Six of the Nine justices on the court at that time were appointed by Nixon and Ike. This was a Republican Decision.

So much for your theory about a “Republican” SCOTUS. All rational people believe that locking people up simply because of some mental illness is uncivilized.

But that wasn’t how you started your claim. You, being the flip-flopping shitlib retard troll that you are, said, “Obviously, some of these people should be locked up in long term care, but thanks to Republican SCOTUS rulings, they can't unless they are an 'immediate' danger.”

I heartily approve of that condition. If a mentally ill person is a threat to himself or others, that’s when they should be institutionalized.

Your self contradictory positions say a lot about you. None of it good.

I wouldn't say "all rational people" think that. Most rational people see a mentally ill person sleeping on a heating grate and realize that's probably not something that should happen in a civilized society.

The problem with Pre-Donaldson Mental Hospitals is that they weren't hospitals; they were warehouses. In O'Connor's case, there were 1000 men in his ward and only one doctor, who wasn't even a psychiatrist.

What should have happened after O'Connor, if we were a civilized society, is that we should have created outpatient programs for the cases that could be handled with medication, and institutions that did actual treatment for those who needed more serious care.

Instead, we dumped them all out on the streets and let them (and us) take their chances.

 

[JoeB131]

The government does so much good with the money they already take from us with their threats of imprisonment, think how much good they could do once we let them take even more!

Chuzzy wants the government to be small enough to fit in a woman's vagina.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm always wondering about someone like you, who is probably one medical crisis away from bankruptcy, sits up at night and wonders, "Oh, those poor Billionaires, they are paying too much in taxes."

Your delusions are not related to reality.

Look. You’re a diseased shitlib maggot.

Your self-contradictory opinions remain valueless.

 

[JoeB131]

Your delusions are not related to reality.

Look. You’re a diseased shitlib maggot.

Your self-contradictory opinions remain valueless.

your concession is duly noted.

Just remember, when your insurance company decides not to pay for your Chemo, you can take comfort in their stockholders making a profit.

 

[BackAgain]

your concession is duly noted.

Just remember, when your insurance company decides not to pay for your Chemo, you can take comfort in their stockholders making a profit.

You pretend that anything I said amounts to a discussion.

That, of course, is typical of you. Flat out lying as you do seems pretty ineffective for you since you’re usually caught quite quickly.