>Anyone who reads my original comment with honestly can see I did not conclude for "tough-on-crime". That interpretation came from your own bias.

And anyone can see where the downvotes landed to determine what readers thought.

I would've asked in good-faith if I thought you were a good-faith actor.

Maybe it's not as funny in the macro sense, but the sheer fragility required for an individual to shut out all opposing thought on purpose is mind-boggling.

Oh, and /u/Grass8989, since I can't respond in-line below after I got blocked by some fragile republican, here's what I wrote to you :

Sorry if it sounded like I took a stance on whether his should be a bailable offense.

I was strictly criticizing /u/NetQuarterLatte's view that being tougher on crime would've prevented this suicide.

That's way funnier than my assumption about his post being deleted by mods.

> She should be punished, but the state should absolutely not pay for anything

She's an arm of the state. The state wronged him.

/u/utamog: continuing here since the other chain was locked.

>Isn’t this article saying that an assault robbery was what snapped him in the first place?

No, the article is giving you a sequence of factual events. Any causal relationship is inferred only.

>You are advocating to let him out on bail so he can harm his wife more?

No, I'm taking issue with the comment by /u/NetQuarterLatte suggesting that his suicide was preventable by getting tougher on crime.

What's more likely: that Rikers is a horrible place that makes people want to kill themselves, or that getting hit in the head is the one-and-only reason he harmed his family?

My favorite part is when they pretend YOU'RE the one politicizing some poor guy offing himself with a sock because death was preferable to Rikers.

I don't understand. Did you think my criticism of /u/NetQuarterLatte's comment came coupled with policy suggestions that would have prevented this outcome?

Your mealy-mouthed response is pretentious, cowardly, and fools nobody.

Imagine clicking on a post about a person who committed suicide after spending two weeks in Rikers because he couldn't afford bail and concluding that getting tougher on crime is the answer.

Oh I'm sorry, did you think we were solving problems here?

No, I said people don't get Medicaid without announcing themselves and falling into one of those "under cover of law" categories.

I'm still not sure if it's ignorance or an agenda, so kudos there at least.

Hey, how about you read AND understand your own link before commenting again.

"Certain groups of individuals" is literally in your quote. It's not available to anyone who shows up regardless of immigration status.

Tbh I'm not sure if you're blurring lines out of ignorance or an agenda.

Sure, asylees are one group that qualifies. That's not unlimited migrants.

Some qualify for Medicaid and some don't, just like it's always been.

People only care this week because it's election season.

Emergency life saving care isn't denied to anyone in the emergency room regardless of whether they can afford it, and despite your claims to the contrary you're saying it shouldn't be.

That's not "accepting and providing medical care for an unlimited amount of migrants"

There's always a possibility of getting socked in the face randomly. If you don't know, now you know.

Career criminal? Like, he earns a living punching former transit presidents?

No, and neither does the US