Hush on skin tone. Got it. Red Line attack-take 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they won't benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

PP here. Missing a word in original post--now bolded.

In reading the above it sounds really Draconian--but maybe some folks who think about this stuff for a living could make it more palatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4) it was rush hour. ... Could nobody help the man/call for help sooner?

I dunno, but if I were there I sure as f*** wouldn't get near a group of 10 teens in this city.

l

Funny how Americans won't intervene when a fellow citizen is being beaten on a crowded train during rush hour yet some Americans foiled terrorist attack in a midair flight. What happened to American courage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

Did you see the deleted threads? Offered suggestions there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

Disperse them to other "lower poverty" areas where, presumably, education sucks? Uhm, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

What makes you think other areas want to take on your problems?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about socioeconomic status? Because that draws an unfortunate line between races in this city, but certainly it's the main factor.

No one here cares about that. Jail the thugs! Because jails work so well to prevent crime!

I really believe jail just hardens these young men and solidifies the trajectory that they're already on. Then they get released and have street cred for having served time, and are more of a problem to society because they can't get a job with a record. And so their spiral downward into a life of a crime continues.[/quote

It certainly does. This is why there has been a huge push to decriminalize marijuana related charges. Of course we all know that blacks tend to be punished more harshly than whites for the same crime due to racism in the judicial system. A lot of men are sitting in jail over weed and end up getting tangled up with the wrong types plus it ruins their future employment prospects which leads to a forced life of crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

What makes you think other areas want to take on your problems?

Who is the "your" in your statement?

[Anonymous]

1. The title of this post is begging for trolling behavior.
2. We need information such as skin tone in order to identify those involved. Some of them escaped by passing through the emergency doors into other train cars, so maybe people on those trains can help...but they need to know what they are looking for.

I'm finding it frustrating how, very often, crimes are committed and the media leaves out race. Sorry, telling me a male of a certain height committed a crime and hey, if I saw anything please contact police. Well, describe the person fully so I can maybe help. Trying to be PC is dangerous in these situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

Disperse them to other "lower poverty" areas where, presumably, education sucks? Uhm, no.

Do you think that our inner city schools serving students from concentrated pockets of poverty are "better?"

Look - no matter how you "cut it up," the results are the same. When I pass a pocket of low-income townhomes sandwiched among some fairly nice single family dwellings, the kids heading to the bus are all minorities. On the other side of the street, however, are the white and Asian kids heading toward the same bus stop. Walk into many high schools and you'll see the segregation in the cafeterias.

Being "dispersed" means you'll end up with others in the same situation but you'll be an even smaller minority in number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok what do you propose we do with violent criminals?

23:36 here. I don't know, is the short answer. In one of the deleted threads I suggested basically demolishing high-crime, high-poverty areas and building new mixed income dwellings in their place that allow for say, no more than 10% low income residents. I think the inner city poor should be dispersed--but not just to PG County; they should be dispersed far and wide into lower poverty areas. Of course, many might argue that forced dispersement is a violation of people's rights, and that they benefit from lost social ties and upheaval etc., but perhaps it could be incentivized--e.g., $3K per family or 3 months rent-free for relocation to a particular district.

Of course this would take a huge monetary investment and time commitment, but perhaps if things get bad enough in gentrifying areas there will finally be the political will to invest in such a mass relocation plan. Perhaps certain cities could serve as demonstration projects pending good results, at which point it could be rolled out nation wide in select urban areas. I'd imagine such an effort would take 10 years or more.

Just brainstorming here--this is not my field at all.

The following Wiki article suggests mixed results for past efforts to break up concentrated poverty. Since it apparently didn't work as well when relocation was optional, I think incentives might be good to encourage residents to move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_poverty#Policy_interventions:_deconcentration

This didn't work in Chicago. Next idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only who doesn't know what happened? Link pls!

You're the only one who doesn't know how to use Google.

Man suffers concussion, broken jaw on Metro’s Red Line in rush hour attack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/12/22/man-assaulted-on-metros-red-line-during-rush-hour-attack/

[Anonymous]

We need to demand birth control for anyone that gets even one dime of government assistance. We should also start jailing the moms and dads of kids who are not in control.

I will pray for this man and his family. And I hope they sue Metro.

[Anonymous]

What do we think would have happened if DC were a concealed carry jurisdiction? I shudder to think about it, but I'm not a gun lover. What say you? Safer or less safe in a situation like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4) it was rush hour. ... Could nobody help the man/call for help sooner?

I dunno, but if I were there I sure as f*** wouldn't get near a group of 10 teens in this city.

l

Funny how Americans won't intervene when a fellow citizen is being beaten on a crowded train during rush hour yet some Americans foiled terrorist attack in a midair flight. What happened to American courage?

Very different situation. An airplane suicide mission versus a metro train that lets people on and off.

How long did the attack go on for? Twenty seconds? That might not be enough time for concerned passengers to find others to stand up to the criminals. A lot of people probably were staring at their phones and didn't notice.