Union Station smells like urine, has a homeless problem, and is half deserted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

I’m old enough to remember that people were called racist for opposing Cathedral Commons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

Please put these number in your phone. Use it if you see someone lying prone OR shouting aggressively. The man who attacked this woman was off his medication and I'm sure not acting normally beforehand. If a passerby had called in their concern--you don't need to supply your name, just the address where it is happening--you might have saved this elderly woman a vicious beating around the head. The passivity of DC residents is part of the problem.

If you see someone outside in need of shelter or a welfare check, call the Shelter Hotline at [phone] or dial 311

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

Please put these number in your phone. Use it if you see someone lying prone OR shouting aggressively. The man who attacked this woman was off his medication and I'm sure not acting normally beforehand. If a passerby had called in their concern--you don't need to supply your name, just the address where it is happening--you might have saved this elderly woman a vicious beating around the head. The passivity of DC residents is part of the problem.

If you see someone outside in need of shelter or a welfare check, call the Shelter Hotline at [phone] or dial 311

This is a laugh. People in DC are passive because they have already called these numbers and seen nothing is done. What exactly would happen if you reported an aggressive panhandler? A violence interrupter shows up and talks them into taking medication? Get out of here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

Please put these number in your phone. Use it if you see someone lying prone OR shouting aggressively. The man who attacked this woman was off his medication and I'm sure not acting normally beforehand. If a passerby had called in their concern--you don't need to supply your name, just the address where it is happening--you might have saved this elderly woman a vicious beating around the head. The passivity of DC residents is part of the problem.

If you see someone outside in need of shelter or a welfare check, call the Shelter Hotline at [phone] or dial 311

This is a laugh. People in DC are passive because they have already called these numbers and seen nothing is done. What exactly would happen if you reported an aggressive panhandler? A violence interrupter shows up and talks them into taking medication? Get out of here.

A crew does a wellness check. They try to direct them to shelter or treatment. At the very least , their behavior is noticed and interrupted for a moment. My theory is that if that happens enough times a day, maybe they will accept help or move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

Please put these number in your phone. Use it if you see someone lying prone OR shouting aggressively. The man who attacked this woman was off his medication and I'm sure not acting normally beforehand. If a passerby had called in their concern--you don't need to supply your name, just the address where it is happening--you might have saved this elderly woman a vicious beating around the head. The passivity of DC residents is part of the problem.

If you see someone outside in need of shelter or a welfare check, call the Shelter Hotline at [phone] or dial 311

How do you know he was off his medication? Maybe he was and still would have beat the woman senselessly. That is just an excuse. He still needs to go to prison. He still committed a violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

Your slippery slope is broken. "Next" is not a logical followon in this case. The people who want to remove confederate statues are NOT the ones erasing history books. The ones who want to erase history books are the neoconfederates who instead of actual history want to teach fiction about "happy slaves" and "the war of Northern Aggression" that "wasn't about slavery." Also, a huge percentage of confederate statues aren't even worthy of being called "artifacts" - many were cheaply mass-produced (with interchangeable CSA vs USA) and installed between the 1920s and 1950s, long after the actual Civil War.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

Your slippery slope is broken. "Next" is not a logical followon in this case. The people who want to remove confederate statues are NOT the ones erasing history books. The ones who want to erase history books are the neoconfederates who instead of actual history want to teach fiction about "happy slaves" and "the war of Northern Aggression" that "wasn't about slavery." Also, a huge percentage of confederate statues aren't even worthy of being called "artifacts" - many were cheaply mass-produced (with interchangeable CSA vs USA) and installed between the 1920s and 1950s, long after the actual Civil War.

Now ..not erasing history books now ..they won't erase them completely. They will revise it from time to time.into something that will benefit the power structure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

Your slippery slope is broken. "Next" is not a logical followon in this case. The people who want to remove confederate statues are NOT the ones erasing history books. The ones who want to erase history books are the neoconfederates who instead of actual history want to teach fiction about "happy slaves" and "the war of Northern Aggression" that "wasn't about slavery." Also, a huge percentage of confederate statues aren't even worthy of being called "artifacts" - many were cheaply mass-produced (with interchangeable CSA vs USA) and installed between the 1920s and 1950s, long after the actual Civil War.

Oh please. Can you provide even one example of a modern, commonly used text book teaching about "happy slaves"? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

Your slippery slope is broken. "Next" is not a logical followon in this case. The people who want to remove confederate statues are NOT the ones erasing history books. The ones who want to erase history books are the neoconfederates who instead of actual history want to teach fiction about "happy slaves" and "the war of Northern Aggression" that "wasn't about slavery." Also, a huge percentage of confederate statues aren't even worthy of being called "artifacts" - many were cheaply mass-produced (with interchangeable CSA vs USA) and installed between the 1920s and 1950s, long after the actual Civil War.

Now ..not erasing history books now ..they won't erase them completely. They will revise it from time to time.into something that will benefit the power structure

Nope. Right now it's the right wing who is banning books right and left. Spare us your pathetic BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took a train from Union Station yesterday. First time in a while. I was stunned at the homeless encampment in the circle out front. Stunned. WTH?? Why is the city letting an essential traveler/tourist site turn into homeless village in plain site?

I’m curious. I always thought US was federal land. When Ashcroft was US Attorney General, he required or demanded that the statutes removed and redone with covering shields. He was offended by their nudity. If he had the authority to revive and replace artifacts like that, it would seems yhst is federal property and not DC or private property. Maybe you are blaming the wrong overseer

I despised John Ashcroft but this is not true.

Yeah, that's not true. They've had the "modesty shields" since they were installed in the early 20th century:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/roman-legionnaire-modesty-shields#:~:text=The%2046%20Roman%20legionnaire%20statutes,stand%20in%20the%20loggia%20arches.

Meanwhile, let's not mind that statues in America are being melted down, not just having parts covered, because they 'offend'.

Every human has anatomy. Pointless and stupid to be "offended" over that. Whereas, it was a choice to be a racist, slave-supporting Confederate general, whereas it is today a choice to remain racist and to glorify those Confederates with statues and we are right to be offended by that.

Censorship, rather than educating around an issue, will ALWAYS be controversial. And while the type of offense may not be the same, the effect of erasure--versus moving them or putting an explanatory plaque--is the same. Melting down/destroying/defacing these statues is not the answer to being offended by them. It's exactly the same uninformed response as pasting on a leaf.

The history belongs in textbooks. What's the point of keeping the statues and monuments to bad guys? The only thing that serves is to validate evil people like Dylann Roof.

Oh the history books will be erased next. Where do you think the evidence comes from to 'write history'--from artifacts. Maybe it will be good that the evil of slavery etc. is eventually forgotten about?

Your slippery slope is broken. "Next" is not a logical followon in this case. The people who want to remove confederate statues are NOT the ones erasing history books. The ones who want to erase history books are the neoconfederates who instead of actual history want to teach fiction about "happy slaves" and "the war of Northern Aggression" that "wasn't about slavery." Also, a huge percentage of confederate statues aren't even worthy of being called "artifacts" - many were cheaply mass-produced (with interchangeable CSA vs USA) and installed between the 1920s and 1950s, long after the actual Civil War.

Now ..not erasing history books now ..they won't erase them completely. They will revise it from time to time.into something that will benefit the power structure

Nope. Right now it's the right wing who is banning books right and left. Spare us your pathetic BS.

This is a dopey side -bar, but in fairness it's you and your ilk who randomly brought up putting modesty shields on statues, which opened the door to a discussion of censorship. Please don't pretend left isn't currently engaged in cultural policing as well.

[Anonymous]

You can’t blame the democrats for trying to hide t
which party was the pro-slavery party.

Anyway, back on topic it’s too bad about Union Station, O remember when it had B. Smiths, and a restaurant called The Americas I remember having a nice meals there when the in-laws were in town.

I used to sometimes leave a little early for work to get a muffin at the Corner Bakery when I used to be in the station every day, years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panhandler gives brain bleed to 70 year old woman at Cathedral Commons.

"The documents state 33-year-old Alexander Adams approached the couple and asked them for five dollars. When the couple only gave him one dollar, he replied, "That is not enough" and proceeded to punch the man. Then, Adams grabbed the woman's wooden cane and began to strike her in the back of the head repeatedly breaking the cane into two pieces. "

Giant should ban panhandlers from their property. Why doesn't Mary Cheh propose a law for this?

I've seen them be verbally aggressive and the one with the loud music and microphone at Van Ness is annoying , but this physical attack is disturbing. The beating would have probably been worse if they didn't give the panhandler anything.

Please put these number in your phone. Use it if you see someone lying prone OR shouting aggressively. The man who attacked this woman was off his medication and I'm sure not acting normally beforehand. If a passerby had called in their concern--you don't need to supply your name, just the address where it is happening--you might have saved this elderly woman a vicious beating around the head. The passivity of DC residents is part of the problem.

If you see someone outside in need of shelter or a welfare check, call the Shelter Hotline at [phone] or dial 311

This is a laugh. People in DC are passive because they have already called these numbers and seen nothing is done. What exactly would happen if you reported an aggressive panhandler? A violence interrupter shows up and talks them into taking medication? Get out of here.

A crew does a wellness check. They try to direct them to shelter or treatment. At the very least , their behavior is noticed and interrupted for a moment. My theory is that if that happens enough times a day, maybe they will accept help or move on.

So it turns out this man had been ARRESTED a few hours earlier for assaulting a woman and taking her phone. So DC has become so lenient and cares so little about the safety of citizens that a man can physically assault three people in one day? And be arrested twice in a day for violent crimes? I probably won’t be calling 311 or 911. I will just get some mace and protect myself accordingly since the city government doesn’t give a sh** about my safety.