[turbanplanner]

The prejudgement here is horrific.

Also, there's multiple pedestrians injured every day in the city. Why are we highlighting the rare injury on transit.

We'd save a lot more lives in this city by banning cars, rather than banning the homeless. (assuming the death rate among the homeless doesn't change).

Because realistically, the public feels if you got hurt on foot or on a bike there's a good chance you "deserved it" though those people are also quiet when I point out a double digit percent were hit on the sidewalk.

But there's no scenario where someone "was asking for" getting assaulted by a homeless person.

I don't think transit assaults are rare. There are something like over 3000 assault/security related *delays* each year.
Before people put words in my mouth I don't feel in significant danger but to say there's no problem feels careless.

 

[hawc]

why is your assumption that he was homeless....

Fair point. Could be a well-adjusted housed man from Leaside. It's probably that.

The prejudgement here is horrific.

No, the stabbing is what's horrific.

 

[nfitz]

No, the stabbing is what's horrific.

I think that goes without saying. Both are horrific. But only one person has prejudicially blamed the most vulnerable of us.

 

[Mr.Tang]

Who is the most vulnerable among us in this context? (genuine question - the stabber or the stabbed?) I guess the fact that one may come at this question from such different perspectives says a lot about the current debate.

I would refer you to scroll through the TCC Service Alerts posts and just look at how many times per day our system (which is essential to the city and really is crucial to those most in need) is bogged down by a small minority of people. Whether you think they are victims or culprits - or even if you remove the moralization - it is massive challenge to just running the system.

 

[Mihairokov]

Who is the most vulnerable among us in this context? (genuine question - the stabber or the stabbed?) I guess the fact that one may come at this question from such different perspectives says a lot about the current debate.

The stabbed, obviously, but this question insinuates that the people doing the stabbing are homeless. If a car runs someone down on Bloor or Parkside should we also assume they're homeless? Why not? It seems like we blame everything else on them.

Likewise, for your second point, it also assumes it's the same group causing these issues each and every time, which is an inherent bias built into this line of questioning.

TTC's rail incursion issues could be solved with platform doors but we live in a city controlled by penny-pinchers who don't use transit and so delays from this is the result of that.

 

[T3G]

The stabbed, obviously, but this question insinuates that the people doing the stabbing are homeless.

Precisely this. We have ***zero*** information about the suspect, but the discussion is on going as though him being homeless was a sure thing.

It could have been a homeless person. It could also have been a gang member taking revenge, or a deranged ex-lover doing the same - both groups of people would not be precluded from using the TTC under any bylaw I can think of. There is currently equal evidence to suggest any of the 3. Personally, I like to wait until I have actually have... well, ANY facts on hand before drawing conclusions, but these days it's more fashionable to run one's mouth as soon as one sees a headline.

IF it turns out that the suspect was indeed homeless, then I'll concede the topic. But drawing a conclusion based on zero information is absurd.

 

[SubHuman]

I was in Manhattan all weekend (stayed at 6th Ave and 56th) and throughout my subway use visiting the WTC, Union Square market, Central Park, etc. noticed almost no vagrants and zero beggars or crazed junkies on the subway, near subway entrances or tbh almost anywhere. I don’t know what NYC or the MTA is doing, but kudos...

As pointed out here in recent months, I suppose this might have something to do with it.
New York City commits to involuntary commitment. Compulsory treatment of the severely mentally ill was once taboo. No longer

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-budget-mental-health-reform-involuntary-commitment-law

... prioritized untreated serious mental illness and sought to move the city’s approach to it from a culture of abandonment to one of intervention ...

 

[Admiral Beez]

As pointed out here in recent months, I suppose this might have something to do with it.
New York City commits to involuntary commitment. Compulsory treatment of the severely mentally ill was once taboo. No longer

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-budget-mental-health-reform-involuntary-commitment-law

Interesting, and a good model for Toronto. I'd like to see homeless addicts added to mentally ill for mandatory treatment. I imagine there's a lot of crossover there.

 

[SubHuman]

... I'd like to see homeless addicts added to mentally ill for mandatory treatment. I imagine there's a lot of crossover there.

I'm not a legal expert, but as I understand it, specific drug treatment programs probably require permission from the person to give/inject the drugs involved in the treatment.
But I would hope and expect that someone doing something like this --
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/arti...on-tracks-at-west-end-toronto-subway-station/

could be detained under the Ontario Mental Health Act, regardless or whether or not it involved drugs. And I'm not sure who or what would be helped by just releasing them to do it again.

 

[evandyk]

Aside from the issues relating to confining someone and forcing them into medical treatment when they haven't been tried or convicted of any crime, there is a practical issue in that we currently don't have adequate treatment options available for homeless addicts who are ready for help and actively want it. So spending those resources on people who don't want the help is a misdirection, until you have plenty more available. And nobody is proposing throwing tons of money into addiction treatment. Even though it would likely be money well invested, given the public costs of managing homelessness and addiction.

Anyways, we still have no information to suggest that the person who did this is homeless or addicted to anything. There are lots of reasons people stab other people. I was at a place with City News on over my lunch break and there were like 3 different stabbings highlighted on their ticker.

 

[Mr.Tang]

I see the confusion. People here are upset about the assumption that the stabber is homeless. This honestly did not occur to me so apologies for not understanding. I guess because the housing status of the stabber is completely irrelevant in this situation.

That said, there clearly is still a service and security issue with a small number of individuals who cause a disproportionate amount issues due to antisocial behavior on the system. I also think it is an unhelpful distraction to spin over a fight as to what label is appropriate for these individuals and who it would or would not offend. There obviously is no one single label (through mental health, drug abuse, etc are likely common denominators). Instead of focusing on the type of person that is a problem, we should define behaviors and police them much more strictly.

 

[APTA-2048]

Aside from the issues relating to confining someone and forcing them into medical treatment when they haven't been tried or convicted of any crime, there is a practical issue in that we currently don't have adequate treatment options available for homeless addicts who are ready for help and actively want it. So spending those resources on people who don't want the help is a misdirection, until you have plenty more available. And nobody is proposing throwing tons of money into addiction treatment. Even though it would likely be money well invested, given the public costs of managing homelessness and addiction.

I want everyone suffering addiction and poor mental health to receive humane and compassionate care. Do I trust people to elect a government that will deliver that (spend money)? F*ck no. That was part of the problem of asylums in the first place. Most people just want the problem to stop affecting them personally. Look at any thread about homelessness including this one here. The whole story of Ontario: people wanting nice things with as little cost and effort as possible.

 

[81-717]

There are lots of reasons people stab other people.

But VERY few (if any) legitimate reasons.

 

[gabe]

But VERY few (if any) legitimate reasons.

TTC is an insane asylum on wheels, it doesn't take much for the some nut case to crack. The other week i saw a guy kicked this foreigners shopping bag all over the bus, because she was talking too loud on her speaker phone. Her stuff went everywhere! Milk leaked everywhere , fruit and veggies went rolling all over the bus. lol Just another insane day on the TTC. No wonder people drive.

 

[jje1000]

TTC is an insane asylum on wheels, it doesn't take much for the some nut case to crack. The other week i saw a guy kicked this foreigners shopping bag all over the bus, because she was talking too loud on her speaker phone. Her stuff went everywhere! Milk leaked everywhere , fruit and veggies went rolling all over the bus. lol Just another insane day on the TTC. No wonder people drive.

We cannot enshrine public transit as a ‘moral’ and ‘progressive’ transit mode and then allow the lowest denominator to run roughshod and dictate people’s experiences on it.

Those that can (voluntary riders) will simply choose vehicular transit instead as it allows them to escape these sorts of social dysfunction even at a cost.