Anonymous wrote:Reports out now that Daniel Perry will be charged with Neely's death tomorrow.
The specific charge has not been disclosed.

This did NOT go to a Grand Jury. This was Alvin Bragg's decision.

The warning has been sent. Do not go into the jurisdiction that Alvin Bragg is responsible for.
You are not allowed to protect yourself or loved ones or even strangers.
You are not allowed to defend yourself.
Stay out of NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

Totally agree. PP that post was addressing. They need to be forcibly treated in these instances.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

NP here. I get everything you have said. I also think such individuals should be in longterm requires hospitalization and not able to freely keep cycling and possobly cause harm to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in mental health and am left leaning.
At least two things need to happen to deliver mental health treatment more effectively. One is the threshold for involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment needs to be lowered. Right now it is only mandated when there is “imminent” risk of harm to self or to others. The definition of harm needs to be broadened. The timeline expanded beyond imminent.

Second, family need to be involved. If not family then community, to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, to monitor compliance with treatment, attending appointments.

No, it’s not the family’s responsibility. People who won’t take meds and are dangerous without them need to be kept in facilities. Maybe instead of building housing for the homeless sich facilities should be built in low COL areas.

You talk like any of us can do something about this problem. Of course most of us believe dangerous people should be kept away from public spaces, whether they are kept in facilities or somewhere else. But in reality that is not happening right now. I don't know what to tell you. Write to your congressperson or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in mental health and am left leaning.
At least two things need to happen to deliver mental health treatment more effectively. One is the threshold for involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment needs to be lowered. Right now it is only mandated when there is “imminent” risk of harm to self or to others. The definition of harm needs to be broadened. The timeline expanded beyond imminent.

Second, family need to be involved. If not family then community, to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, to monitor compliance with treatment, attending appointments.

No, it’s not the family’s responsibility. People who won’t take meds and are dangerous without them need to be kept in facilities. Maybe instead of building housing for the homeless sich facilities should be built in low COL areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

Lots of words but none of that means that person gets to ruin public spaces for everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:I work in mental health and am left leaning.
At least two things need to happen to deliver mental health treatment more effectively. One is the threshold for involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment needs to be lowered. Right now it is only mandated when there is “imminent” risk of harm to self or to others. The definition of harm needs to be broadened. The timeline expanded beyond imminent.

Second, family need to be involved. If not family then community, to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, to monitor compliance with treatment, attending appointments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.

It is sometimes part of the disease to reject medication and treatment. And state-provided housing comes with rules that addicts can't always adhere to. A young man close to me from an UMC family has been struggling with mental illness and substance abuse for over a decade. He has walked out of most every housing situation he has ever been placed in (halfway houses, group homes for recovering substance users, etc.) and goes on and off his meds because they make him feel bad. He cycles in and out of jail, state-managed homes, and treatment programs. And he has an involved family that has been torn apart by his behavior. There is no end in sight. You seem to think it's a moral problem or character flaw, but the dually diagnosed (mentally ill and substance using) have a particularly hard time managing both. It is not as black and white as you make it seem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait why are we not victims? Oppressed, marginalized, assaulted and worse. Underpaid, undervalued. Quit minimizing our concerns.

Sorry, if you are posting here, your life is nowhere near as hard as a homeless, mentally ill, orphaned Black man.

He had treatment and housing options that he refused. He was no victim. His hardships were his own choice.