BPD: Argument leads to stabbing in Binghamton Monday night
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (WIVT/WBGH) – A stabbing near Carroll and Pine Streets in Binghamton Monday night appears to have stemmed from an argument at the Greater Binghamton Transportation Center, Binghamton Police announced.
At around 9 p.m. on April 28, officers of the BPD responded to the area of a reported assault. Officers found the victim who had sustained several stab wounds to his upper body. The man was taken to a local hospital and is currently listed as stable.
Through further investigation, police believe the incident was not random in nature, and may have stemmed from an argument at the transportation center at 81 Chenango Street just prior to the reported assault.
BPD did not mention a potential suspect and is continuing to investigate the situation.
Anyone with information to please contact the Binghamton Police Detective Bureau at 607-772-7080.
'We're citizens!': Family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects
'I can't do that': Teen flees Saigon as city collapses
What's next for Space Command?
BU Forum: How AI and higher education work together
Democrats push bill to ban discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds attempt to vouch for a man of many faces
Jun. 5—Decades ago, a convicted murderer whose death-penalty sentence was overturned on appeal was returned to Champaign County for re-sentencing. As part of that process, the defendant was asked to submit letters from friends and acquaintances for the judge to consider when imposing a new sentence. The letters are akin to recommendations — the writer says good things about the defendant as part of an effort to get him a lower sentence. In this case, the defendant chose poorly, selecting a former employer who was horrified by the defendant's crimes. "Lock him up forever" was the gist of this "recommendation" letter. It was a rare display of candor by a letter writer who took a hard look at the defendant and what he did. That letter came to mind while reviewing the 200-plus letters submitted by the defense on behalf of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. He's due to be sentenced June 13, and his lawyers contend he should get a wrist slap — probation, home confinement and a "reasonable" fine. They're hoping the favorable letters submitted mostly by a cross-section of political and business elites will boost Madigan's prospects for leniency. But some stood out like sore thumbs because they were a bit off key. Here's one example: Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf vouched for Madigan's "lifetime commitment to improving the lives of all Illinoisans," specifically citing Madigan's key role in arranging for the construction of a new White Sox stadium that prevented the team's move to Florida. Reinsdorf praised Madigan for "saving the White Sox." But from whom? Well, from Reinsdorf, who threatened to move the Sox unless taxpayers helped pay for a new stadium. Reinsdorf now is asking the state to help him build a new Sox stadium because he no longer likes the current one. Another letter came from former U.S. Rep. William Lipinski, a longtime political ally. Lipinski described Madigan as "Mr. Integrity." Hello? Anybody home? Madigan was convicted on corruption charges. In this context, the "Mr. Integrity" appellation seems a bit of a stretch. Former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar urged leniency for Madigan, noting that he "always kept his word" when they worked on legislative proposals. Legislative leaders like Madigan must keep their word when they make commitments because trust is the glue that holds deals together. A leader without credibility — like former Gov. Rod Blagojevich — won't be an effective leader for long. Others suggested Madigan's age of 83 means he's too old for prison. Madigan is a supersenior, but he was no spring chicken when he and his co-conspirators embarked on their years-long bribery conspiracy. Further, Madigan's advanced age was no impediment to his four-decade tenure as speaker of the Illinois House. Madigan would still hold that post if fellow Democrats hadn't forced him into a 2021 retirement that was followed by indictment and conviction. Madigan is a devoted husband and father. He's helped hundreds of constituents over the years, something that goes along with an elected official's job. Madigan's daughter, former attorney general Lisa Madigan, noted that her dad performs household duties and takes good care of his ailing wife. A couple who run Madigan's favorite Italian restaurant noted he is friendly, helpful to his employees and gracious to fellow customers. "He is always a gentleman," wrote restaurant owners Ilona and Luciano Silvestri of their longtime customer. Like many people, Madigan is many things, some good and some not. He was especially good at playing bloodsport politics in Chicago until he suddenly wasn't. In that context, being a gentleman doesn't count for much.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Tim Walz Encourages Bullying
Wannabe tough guy Tim Walz encourages Democrats to bully Trump. I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. The loving and tolerant Left is back at it with their uplifting and unifying message. Just kidding. Instead, as the keynote speaker for the Democratic Party state convention in South Carolina, failed VP candidate and current Minnesota Governor Tim Walz told his fellow party members to, 'be a little meaner, a little bit more fierce.' He then went on to baselessly call President Trump a bully and encouraged his party to 'bully him back.' He added an expletive in there too, just to keep up his image of being all rough and tumble! In reality, Tim Walz is the furthest thing from intimidating, physically and politically! Even so, his message is incredibly inappropriate and reckless. President Trump has had TWO close attempts on his life. For Walz, or anyone else who considers themselves a political leader, to continue to label him an 'existential threat' or 'wannabe dictator' or worse, encourage bullying, is why we are in the political climate we are in. Political violence doesn't just spring up out of nowhere. Tim Walz should be ashamed and embarrassed of himself! I'm embarrassed just looking at him! I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Erupts in Fury over Low Arrests—and Hands Dems a Weapon
The potential deportation of people like Carol Hui, which has shocked locals in the Missouri town where she's lived for 20 years, has inspired a searching debate: What did people think they were voting for when they chose Donald Trump? The relentless smearing of 'illegals,' the 'mass deportation now' signs at the 2024 GOP convention, the vows to herd migrants into giant camps—how could voters not have known that Trump would remove as many as possible? These are hard questions with no simple answers. But here's one thing we can reasonably be certain of: Most voters had no idea that to execute Trump's mass deportations, the administration would shift huge amounts of law enforcement resources away from combating serious and dangerous crimes, potentially hampering efforts to keep us safe. Yet that's exactly what's happening. And this hands an opening to Democrats—including those skittish about this issue—who are looking for fresh ways to make the case against Trump's deportation regime. NBC News reports that top Trump adviser Stephen Miller recently erupted in anger over what he sees as woefully lagging deportation numbers, privately threatening to fire senior Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials over it. He demanded the detention of 3,000 migrants each day, sources told NBC. It's not surprising that the failure to impose maximal cruelty and suffering on the vulnerable would infuriate a dime-store fascist like Miller. What's striking, though, is that this has prompted the administration to devote 'more than 5,000 personnel from across federal law enforcement agencies' to arresting undocumented immigrants, per NBC. This includes 1,800 agents from Homeland Security Investigations, which usually probes crimes that don't involve noncriminal migrants, NBC reports. It also includes 2,000 employees from law enforcement agencies at the Justice Department, like the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. This is already hindering other crime-fighting. 'Prosecutors say cases without immigration components have stalled or are moving more slowly,' reports NBC, adding that federal law enforcement officials say the 'increased focus on cases with an immigration angle is pulling resources from other law enforcement priorities.' It's difficult to gauge the precise impact of all this without more detail. But Deborah Fleischaker, a former chief of staff at ICE, says it's reasonable to surmise that the sheer bulk of resources being reallocated will adversely impact other enforcement efforts. 'Shifting that number of law enforcement agents from those types of agencies inevitably will mean fewer resources fighting transnational criminal organizations, drug smuggling, counter-terrorism, and child exploitation,' Fleischaker told me. Now ask yourself this: How many voters understood that when Trump vowed to remove 'illegals,' it would drain extensive resources away from fighting crimes like those? The answer has important implications for how Democrats should proceed now. They often seem to assume that Trump has won the argument over immigration, particularly over the undocumented population. But recent events suggest this is still very much open to contestation. For one thing, Trump's higher-profile arrests and deportations are demonstrating that ordinary voters who wanted a more orderly immigration system—and believe this is what Trump promised—are recoiling at the forced removals of unauthorized immigrants who have, to varying degrees, integrated into American life. The best recent example of this is the Trump voter from Missouri who said of Carol Hui's arrest: 'No one voted to deport moms.' This has prompted chortling online, with many citing those 'mass deportation now' signs and saying: You absolutely did vote to deport moms. But as data analyst G. Elliott Morris explains, even if that's technically true, data shows that majorities do not want to deport 'moms' or other unauthorized immigrants who haven't committed serious crimes and have assimilated in some meaningful sense. Morris looked at recent polling on various types of deportations—of people who have lived here for over 10 years, or haven't broken non-immigration-related laws, or have jobs here and no criminal record—and found all of them deeply underwater with the public. That people voted for Trump despite these views—after he explicitly vowed to deport people from all those categories—is usually explained as an informational failure. Voters concluded Trump only wanted to deport criminals. Or they believed Trump when he wildly inflated the number of 'criminal aliens' here, meaning mass deportations would of necessity target only such people. Or they just didn't process his vow to remove non-criminals at all. 'On immigration, lots of voters cast ballots for Trump because they were told that there were millions of violent criminals here illegally, and that he would deport them all,' Morris writes. 'But many of them did not have information about the rest of his deportation plans.' This matters, notes Morris, because if numerous 'moderate Trump supporters' out there oppose 'deporting non-criminal parents,' then there's an opening to supply them with information that this is actually happening, which Democrats can do. This creates space to turn them against Trump on this issue. That's all true. But I'd like to suggest another layer to this, one that could prompt Democrats to take this on more aggressively: Voters almost certainly didn't grasp the deeper ideological priorities animating the Trump-Miller worldview. Polls sometimes show that majorities support deporting undocumented immigrants when that's posed as a yes-or-no question, but they also show that opinions change under more nuanced questioning. If respondents are asked whether they favor deporting longtime residents, they oppose it. Or if they're offered the alternative of a path to legalization, they support doing that. In short, opinion on immigration is confused and self-contradictory. All that data suggests that when voters hear 'deport people here illegally,' they understand it as something like 'restoring order and the rule-of-law to our immigration system.' And so, if majorities oppose removing longtime residents and support giving law-abiding immigrants legal status, then it's likely they want a system that secures the border and removes serious criminals but also one that creates orderly pathways to lawful presence for those who want to contribute peacefully to our economy and society. Unlike Miller, that is, majorities are not ideologically hostile to the mere presence of peaceful unauthorized immigrants in this country; they just want the system to work. Yet Miller and Trump see that presence as itself posing a dire public emergency, or even a civilizational one. In this worldview, there can be no desirable pathway to lawful status here for these people, because they inherently represent a public threat—they are 'poisoning' the nation's 'blood.' Making them legal wouldn't change that. It would only make the threat they pose more insidious. That's why Miller is capable of tweeting that the House GOP budget bill is the 'most essential piece of legislation' in 'the entire Western World,' largely because it ramps up deportation resources. To him, saving the 'Western World' rides on deporting all those unauthorized people, including all those 'moms.' All this gets at the deeper reason Miller and Trump are shifting extensive law enforcement resources away from serious crimes into deporting noncriminal immigrants: They simply do see the presence of these people as an extraordinarily urgent national emergency, perhaps more urgent than all those other serious crimes. It is very likely that majorities would find those priorities deeply demented. As Fleischaker, the former ICE official, told me: 'The idea that immigration enforcement is the most significant national security and public safety concern that we as a country face is deeply unserious.' Which gives Democrats a strong case to make: Trump's twisted ideological obsession with deporting moms—and other unauthorized immigrants who have committed no serious crimes—is detracting from the fight against transnational gangs, drug trafficking, and child exploitation. To Trump and Miller, all those unauthorized immigrant moms really do constitute a national emergency. But there's no way majorities agree with this. Democrats: Miller's private outbursts reveal a new kind of Achilles Heel on this issue—time to seize on it, and prosecute the case accordingly.
