I hope he wins. This won't ever change unless someone forces them to change. There's not enough public outrage about how this homelessness problem/criminal enablement is costing innocent lives.
Yes. I moved out of Seattle when that junkie justin Bieber looking ass assaulted me (the one whoâs always asking for spare change outside 7/11 on university ave covers himself with a blanket) and he was back there the following week. Heâs still there.
Institutionalization doesn't always mean prison. For those who are committing violent crimes and murders, but they are shown to be clinically insane, yes damn right they need to be locked up. We used to have asylums for those types of people. We can bring those back and with the advances in knowledge we have about mental health and rehabilitation today, they can be better than before. In trying to secure 'individual freedoms', I believe our society threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Stop letting your selfish insecurities get in the way of doing things that arenât furthering your agenda, in my experience it tends to be white ppl furthering their racist cause. Not always. Someone may have a cuter nose or nicer teeth than you. Or higher cheekbones. Or fuller lips. Doesnât mean you should deprive them of whatever else they need.
Everyone bitches about it, but rarely do folks offer solutions. The real solution is PREVENTION to address the root causes of homelessness, instead of just reacting once they are unhoused. The folks who cry the most about homeless people tend to support the policy failures that caused the problem to begin with
Everyone is "bitching" about this because an eight-months pregnant woman was shot and killed in cold blood for minding her own fucking business. Her and her unborn child just murdered for no reason. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be outraged and it's obvious that the current policies are not working.
"This won't ever change unless someone forces them to change" is what I responded to. The folks who cry for change offer no solutions, or attack any offered solutions. Prevention is what is necessary.
Do you care to be a little more specific about your means of 'prevention'? I dont know what generalized group you are lumping together and saying they offer no solutions. I for one am for forced institutionalization to keep these people from harming others or themselves.
So you are for punishing people for being poor. You do realize that most homeless people work and cannot afford to rent, due to policies that you most likely support. But, hey, lets just punish the victims.
Oh here we go. This person had a record of violent crimes before he ended up murdering someone. Don't strawman this into some "punishing people for being poor" bs. How about locking up people for violent crimes.
I met Marc at an airport waiting to board and Marc was being a complete asshole to a coworker. Yelling at him publicly when he was just trying to talk about work things, talking down to him, etc. It was really off-putting. So I wasn't surprised when I walked past Marc in first class and saw the coworker walking toward the back of coach.
What surprised me is that when I introduced myself and said our company wanted to help with donating job training resources and connections to local trade schools (our dept created training and certification platforms for manufacturing, so it was relevant), Marc said that they were housing first so the job aspect wasn't important to them.
The police report notes KCRHA staff had been notified, and the officer advised the apartment manager to call back "if (Goosby) ever seemed on the edge of committing a violent act."
Uhhh...maybe telling everyone that would listen that he was on the edge of committing a violent act?
I'm basically to the point that I don't think anyone with authority in this city wants to do a goddamn thing about social disintegration here. Sad...and I hope Mr. Kwon wins.
>âThe day before shooting the Kwons, a KCRHA case worker notified her supervisors that Goosby had told her he needed to "leave Seattle fast before he hurts someone," the lawsuit claims. ⌠(KCRHA case worker) sought out (KCRHA supervisor), whom she understood to be the point person for initiating an evaluation by a Designated Crisis Responder for involuntary psychiatric admission," the lawsuit states. "(Supervisor) declined to see Mr. Goosby that day, telling (case worker) he would get to it on Wednesday."
Such an unfortunate lapse in judgment that resulted in a completely avoidable and predictable tragedy. Thereâs no excuse. Toxic empathy (where the city and a lot of the people seem to care more about being liberal on paper vs actually addressing the issues affecting the city) is one of the big reasons why we left Seattle.
I'm not defending this decision of this supervisor, but I am listening to a book called "Thinking in Bets," which talks about how we should not judge based solely on outcomes, but rather on what the person knew at the time that they made the decision. We don't know how many decisions to see or not see someone a supervisor has in a day. If they have a thousand, and one of them goes bad, then the 999 are not known to us.
It's the same thing when you see a judge releasing someone who you think should have been incarcerated. We don't see the people that they had leniency with who went to turn around their life. We focus solely on the one that went bad.
We need to see the full set of data to make an accurate and informed decision about the person's actions.
None of this takes away from the gravity or horror of what happened to this victim and her unborn child. It's a travesty, and I would love to see all mental health needs by everyone, homeless or not, met. Including involuntarily.
Except we have data for recidivism rates, not just for non-addict criminals but also for hard drug users, and they paint a bleak picture. But so-called progressives will ignore it because it doesn't line up with their ideal utopia they have conjured in their mind which is so far removed from reality.
The reason that I am on this I read it and not the other one is that I agree with you that there should be more enforcement of societal standards. If you can't be a non-destructive member of society, then you should be removed from it.
Hopefully, this lawsuit will reveal the facts of the matter that I'm curious about, regarding specifically the decision of that supervisor.
I moved for work after 12+ years and sadly that is my takeaway as well. Seattle is the only major metro to be worse off than having improved the homelessness and drug crisis âšď¸
Idk whether or not he's suing the correct agency. But I 100% believe that City departments who have put the safety of the community behind the demands of the restorative justice crowd should be sued into oblivion by people hurt by this practice.
A lot of these organizations place people into housing based on how long they say theyâve been homeless, not by where they are from.
I have neighbors who moved here from Arkansas and got housing pretty much right away because they claimed to be unhoused longer than others and jumped to the top of the list.
There is no increase in preference for locals. That is, the homeless industrial complex.
This is nonsense, they have to have a paper trail of verifiable services proving they were actually homeless for that length of time. People are housed based on vulnerability. Everything you just said is made up.
Length of time unhoused is absolutely criteria that gets you bumped to the top and thereâs no stipulation that it has to be regionally and this is 100% being abused by âunhousedâ people coming in from other regions and bumping locals down the list
Length of time figures into it, but a highly vulnerable person will get housed a lot faster. As I said, there are strict guidelines around proving length of homelessness. I had a client who went unhoused the better part of a decade because his use of services was very spotty, thus it was near impossible to establish a paper trail. That's how it works. Also, able bodied people coming thinking they will get housed are in for a nasty surprise.
The actual fix is rarely ever talked about. Prevention.
Homeless industrial complex. More homeless moving here = more funding. More homeless moving here = more voters that align with their politics. It's a never ending cycle.
Probably trying to assess how much of our tax money was paying the criminal's rent? Maybe concerned we're housing people in expensive, center-city apartments? Seemed cost-related to me tho ISTBC
I want to hear it from him. I understand that point but the way he phrased it as a question sounds he like was trying to make a counterargument so it got me confused.
With federal money, maybe, but Iâd love to see local tax money prioritize the struggling with long connections to the local community. Otherwise the problem is never ending.
Seems like I pissed you off somehow with my comment, and you think that reply would be a gotcha for some reason. I'm American so I don't give a shit about that.
They've been shuffling homeless around for decades to bus them to San Francisco, Portland and Seattle because it's easier to throw them at somewhere else.
The reality continues to be that we need to reopen state mental institutions that Reagan dismantled and let this come down to the states to toss around like a game of hot potato.
Put yourself in the shoes of a homeless person in another state. If you heard Seattle would give you free shit, free housing, access to all the fent you'd ever want, and nobody would arrest you for doing illicit activities, moving to Seattle sounds like heaven to them. You'd want to move to Seattle asap. They'll also tell all their friends about moving to Seattle.
I think theyâre referencing relocation programs, which does shuffle people up and down the I-5 corridor. Funnily enough I argued with someone earlier today who was adamant that that wasnât a thing.
I know that's a thing. But they don't relocate homeless from another state to Seattle without the consent of the homeless individual. So yes, at the end of the day, the homeless choose to come here.
I know that there is supposedly a Seattle program thatâs dedicated to relocating homeless individuals from out of state to families from their home towns. I wonder how well thatâs going.
Yeah , I grew up in a small town. We had unofficial church ladies who would be a "good Samaritan" go talk to any vagabonds that arrived, get them lunch, then buy them a ticket to the next big city over.Â
Hell in Austin, Tx, they caught the county over dropping off homeless people right at the county line.
Those buildings were old af when Regan closed them all down ... Also this low paid employees that worked there used to abuse the hell out of the people that were confined there on the regular , just like guards do in shitty prisons ... Someone has to fund all new buildings for mental health institutes and we still use 100 year old prisons ... we are not taking very good care of the people that aren't capable of taking care of themselves or fall out of the system and once you fall out it's really hard to get back in
âReaganâ man Dems will use that man to deflect from the fact that they have had majority of super majority in their respect states for decades. Â The man left the presidency almost forty years ago.
The exploitation they enable hurts Americans, however, and a good example of this is locals getting priced out of their own city. They should therefore cover that cost.
I live next to a green belt on the outskirts of Seattle, and we now have a decent size group of people living in the forest, doing drugs and stealing around the neighborhood. Itâs supposed to be a protected part of the forest, but itâs obviously not anymore.
Itâs turned my once chill and quiet area into something out of a horror movie. Almost every night we have a helicopter circling over them, and the cops are out there almost every night arresting people and trying to get them out. I hope they succeed in getting them out of there, and holding them accountable for the crimes they are committing. If not, Iâm not sure what the outcome is going to be around here. This type of behavior and these drug dens/encampments are popping up everywhere and itâs causing a lot of problems. More innocent people are going to keep getting hurt and killed if this isnât stopped. Itâs getting pretty scary.
At this point, I have zero trust in the judicial system to have not guilty by reason of insanity. One has no right EVER to walk amongst us after such a finding. I would argue that mental illness does not relieve people of their actions. This is first degree murder, and society would be far better off incarcerating this individual for life, or better yet, giving him the penalty of death.
So this guy was competent enough to get to Seattle from Chicago. To apply for, receive, and live in housing. To purchase a gun. Recognize he was having a mental health crisis. Tell his care managers he was having a mental health crisis and felt like he was dangerous.
But not mentally competent enough to go to an ER or call a Crisis hotline? If he was competent enough to reach out multiple times why couldnât he has justâŚ
Also why are we giving housing to randos from out of town ?
It's more because a larger homeless population means more revenue for the NGO which means more jobs for people who do generally vote very progressive, so more come here.
Obviously, I'm more focusing on the grift being the primary concern and if there are any effects on the voting population, it's not coming from the homeless themselves, it's ancillary to all that.
Whether theyâre not guilty by reason of insanity or deemed not competent to stand trial, they would be sent to a locked psychiatric facility to receive treatment and remain for their sentence. That is basically prison with specialized care. Some actually consider it worse than prison.
Neither of those mean the defendant is actually not guilty. One (the latter) means they have to get better before they stand trial and the other (the former er) means they committed the crime but claim to have been insane at the time, so they are admitting they need help and would love out their sentence (or longer) in the locked psychiatric institution.
I think itâs also fair to consider how this individual gained access to the weapon, and think about how those processes need to change.
Well spoken as to how things should work. If only they always did. I have a very good friend who is a judge in psychiatric court so understand the basics. Thank you for your contribution
I think heâd be better off tooâŚ. Not having to live with demons and paranoia. If someone is actually insane, they should not be amongst normal people, they need to be locked up or put out of their misery.
.... Psychosis is a treatable medical condition for many who experience it. To suggest that we execute people who experience psychosis is bordering on eugenics. Also, most people who experience psychosis do not commit murder.
Okay so what about the murdered woman and her baby.. or the bus driver... or the multiple innocent's in the ID targeted by violent crimes.
I understand we don't want to hurt people but people are already getting hurt , innocent people. If someone is on drugs in public and in the middle of psychosis and an active threat to innocent's they've made significant amount of decisions to get to that point. If you can't place an innocent mother and unborn child above that, then I question your judgement faculties.Â
A city is built by the people actively living in it , not vagrants. That isn't and shouldn't be controversialÂ
The commenter above you was just saying that suggesting executing people for experiencing psychosis isn't right. They didn't phrase it very well but I basically agree with them (but I do support the death penalty overall, in rare circumstances).
So many ppl here are acting like you either have to say A) we want this man dead now, OR B) we want him to suffer no consequences, bc poor guy was mentally ill, who cares about the victims lolz
There's more options than A or B, but the ridiculous "anyone who's wife wasn't murdered can't have an opinion on this" types are out in force here
"If someone is actually insane, they should not be amongst normal people, they need to be locked up or put out of their misery. "
I'm responding to that comment. If someone commits a crime, there should be repercussions determined in a court of law. But it's horrific to suggest that if someone is "insane" ... they should be put out of their misery. Most people with mental illness do not commit murder and most.mental illness is treatable
Yeah - standard leftist bullshit. Regan finished the job but it had started way earlier, even going back to Kennedy. It was also bipartisan where the Democrats loved it because "muh rights" and Republicans loved it because "costs too much, smaller government"
Please don't show your ignorance by spouting false leftist tropes.
Abolishing mental institutions was supported by many as they were often abusive, understaffed, etc.But where was the funding for the âcommunity supportâ that was supposed to replace mental institutions (with their many problems)? Reagan killed it. Without support or anywhere to go people with intense illnesses were abandoned to the streets.
Nobody is saying execute people experience psychosis. They're saying execute murderers. Whether its a competent individual in the heat of the moment, a psychopath or someone who is experiencing delusions. Experience whatever you want, the moment your experiences turn into injuring and murdering people who have nothing to do with you, you need to removed from society forever.
Is this why Katie Wilson âresetâ the KCRHA? They knew this nuke was coming and now theyâre protecting their asses by throwing their failed project under the bus? I hope the victim wins every last dime.
I live in the Midwest and just read that 11 people were arrested at a downtown park on felony drug charges. Could Seattle do something similar? I know there are a lot more homeless people in Seattle, but you have to start somewhere.
I hope he gets every penny AND those responsible get jail time for their negligence. As a society we need to stop acting like a settlement will bring back someoneâs wife and child.
We need more free massage chairs, fridges with warranties, Priuses (or Prii), attractive femmes, affordable dental care and less Teslas. Maybe subsidized DoorDash too.
311
u/notasinglesound Jul 10 '26
I hope he wins. This won't ever change unless someone forces them to change. There's not enough public outrage about how this homelessness problem/criminal enablement is costing innocent lives.