[removed]

To the surprise of no one.

Up next at CPAP: Kendrid Hamlin

Charged with simple assault. Misdemeanor. Catch and release, back on the streets with a history of violent and sexual assaults.

Better start carrying multiple cups of hot coffee in old west gunfighter holsters, congressperson.

He has several bench warrants? He may have been homeless at some point? Reading this brings to mind a revolving door. When there is one, that is one matter, but if there are millions, that’s difficult.
She returns to Minnesota and is thankful for her quick response. I am truly grateful and happy she was not physically injured, but I think these issues of crime, and also mental health…should be carefully reviewed. Seems like we are overwhelmed in these areas.

In and out of the legal system when it sounds like he should have been in the mental health system.

Except, perhaps, all of the people in the comments when this first occurred who we positive it had to have been a partisan attack.

looks through the comments

...so, none?

He'll spend 2 weeks in a "mental health facility" where they'll do nothing and then he'll be right back to where he started

[removed]

When someone attacks a politician, it's not that unreasonable to assume it was done for political reasons, given this country's track record.

[removed]

[removed]

Sickening. Glad she's ok.

[deleted]

Back in the day he'd get an involuntary lobotomy.

[removed]

[removed]

I mean, at some point we need to, as a nation, decide if we're ok with involuntary incarceration of people who haven't committed a crime to prevent them from committing crimes in the future.

Not applicable here since he did, you know, commit a crime, and I understand the desire to get mentally ill people off streets, but let's not pretend that we aren't wading into thorny ethical and legal territory.

There's no real mental health system. It was dismantled in favor of prisons

I mean if they’re Muslim and held in a black site we’ve seemed ok with it. I doubt the mentally ill would stretch those ethics all that much.

Well he screwed up and attacked an important person....if he attacked one of us normies he'd be out on the streets again.

[removed]

[removed]

Pull a "Dredd" move and bite his dick off.

Everyone on this sub was so convinced it had to be politically motivated Republican terrorism. Nope, just typical big city catch and release.

How many chances should a scumbag get before permanent separation from the rest of society? Seems like the line needs to be brought down to a smaller number.

That dude is (or was as of recently) also a frequent poster on FBI’s Facebook page, commenting about disbanding the FBI, and advancing conspiracy theories like Ray Epps, Election fraud, Epstien, and Hunter’s laptop.

Routine trips through McDonald's drive thrus to get a fresh cup of coffee ought to do it. Or did McDonald's fix that?

Exactly they're shocked when repeat offenders do the same things they already did multiple times

Constantly vote for soft on crime politicians/DAs and complaining about high crime but failing to connect the two.

New York Mayor has entered the chat

[deleted]

>I mean, at some point we need to, as a nation, decide if we're ok with involuntary incarceration of people who haven't committed a crime to prevent them from committing crimes in the future.

I'm gonna vote no on indefinitely imprisoning people who haven't done anything yet.

We incarcerate more people than any country, not more than any developed country, any country.

And we still don't have the lowest crime rate.

What we need to do as a nation is accept that not providing healthcare to everyone, and letting children grow up in poverty isn't working.

They mean in the first posts reporting the attack before we knew, not this one where we know it was apolitical.

Yeah. The downvotes are silly - clearly in talking about his article and posting and thread. Not some other thread. People should live less on this site and go outside.

Given how good their hack job against her was and they had the fine mostly reduced, I doubt it.

>How many chances should a scumbag get before permanent separation from the rest of society? Seems like the line needs to be brought down to a smaller number.

How many people would that put in prison?

Because we already incarcerate more people than any country on earth, and we still aren't the safest country.

But somehow, if we just put more people in prison for even longer it will start working?

It won't. England at one point executed children for stealing, and people still stole.

Incarceration in nessecary, sometimes for life, but you cannot incarcerate your way out of crime. Giving everyone who has thrown a punch more than once life without parole isn't going to have the results you hope.

We already incarcerate more people than any country on earth, but still don't have the lowest crime rate.

Maybe you're missing something here?

Maybe if repeated criminal offenders were actually put in jail at all as opposed to drug users, minorities and people disagreeing with cops, then the system will work.

There are too many variables for you to make such a dunce conclusion.

>Maybe if repeated criminal offenders were actually put in jail at all as opposed to drug users, minorities and people disagreeing with cops, then the system will work.

Only 1 in 5 incarcerated people are there on drug crimes We would still have a top 5 highest incarceration rate if we released them all.

However, you're broadly correct as a lot of violent crime and theft is driven by the war on drugs. So reforming our drug laws would do a lot to decrease the incarceration rate overall.

Despite what some people want you to believe, people who seriously injure someone are usually are incarcerated for a significant amount of time. Almost half of the people in prison are there for a violent crime.

The only violent incident prior to this one listed in the article is an attack on police. The injuries were not serious nor were the injuries of the representative. Had he been incarcerated for a year, or 10, it's unlikely it would change his behavior as he appears mentally ill. He would be in his 20s or 30s when release and capable of committing more crimes.

He could be incarcerated for life, but consider how many people that would put in prison. We already have almost a million people in prison for, presumably, more violent crimes than this guy committed, and we do not have the lowest violent crime rate. It's also worth noting that incarcerating him for longer would not have prevented the injuries to police.

What the people complaining about justice system reform are avoiding is a solution that prevents crime.

Allowing children to grow up in poverty increases the chance they will commit violent crimes. Not providing healthcare to people with mental illness does too.

If we released all non-violent offenders from prison, including all thieves and drug criminals, we would still have a higher incarceration rate than anywhere in Europe. And we still don't have a lower homicide rate than them. At this point we have exhaustively proven "lock more people up for longer" is not a way out of violent crime.

No. It was dismantled by the Federal government. Costs and responsibilities were sent to the states. Austerity during the 70s and 80s had those programs cut and shifted to localities that could not handle these issues.

>There are too many variables for you to make such a dunce conclusion.

It's fascinating that you can confidently figure out the answer, but when I point out the flaw in your argument, suddenly, "there are too many variables! We can't know!"

[removed]

Off you trot, then.

[removed]

They're also not mutually exclusive. Someone willing to attack another for partisan reasons could also have a history of "lewd and violent incidents".

I think the issue isn't involuntary commitment always being dystopian, its what we do with involuntary commitment in terms of how the institutions are run and the access people have to get released from it. It's at least theoretically possible to have involuntary commitment that is humane.

I think most cities are seeing the results of what happens when we mostly can't involuntarily commit people -- drug addiction, homeless camps, and some dangerous behavior towards other people. Many of these people will reject any kind of voluntary treatment, and its a big problem. We're giving people who have mental health problems more agency than they actually have to reject treatment.

You both said tje same thing.

Where were her body guards??

They are not the same thing. The above implies resources from mental health was moved to prisons which is not what happened. The other explains the series of cuts caused by strained government budgets in the 70s.

I get that both rhetorical nihilism (words have no meaning and deliberate conflation) and epistemological nihilism (outright rejection of subject knowledge or basic inquiry) are popular on Reddit. But those are really lazy ways to look at the world because it requires purely passive contrarian thinking.

> People should live less on this site and go outside

Says the person with over 100k comment karma. Glass houses and all that

You're describing the cause, above commenter is describing the effect. Because mental health was basically erased from the government's list of services, a lot of people who would end up there now don't get any kind of help until they're in deep shit and get arrested.

Not that most prisons actually do anything to make sure prisoners are in a more mentally or emotionally stable position when they're released, but practically that's where the buck gets passed to right now.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Over 6 years. Not a ton of time on here.

[removed]

I'm both half and double you.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]