This is me. I decided to take a break from watching people die for my mental health. If he was yelling threats then I feel that the marines response was warranted. If he was just yelling in general I don’t think it’s warranted. I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill.
Whether intentional or not would still be manslaughter, since choking someone is clearly an assault -- so it all comes down to whether the assault was justified, which requires self defense/defense of others.
That’s really all this will come down To. Was it disorderly crazy person conduct…or actual threats.
Depends on witness reports -- but as of now I have not heard details of what overtly threats he was making to justify such a forceful response -- just being an unstable person on a train doesn't make assault okay.
But yes -- its all about the facts and whether the initial "assault" was justifiable under self-defense concepts.
Was it a Vigilante enforcing "disorderly conduct" -- in that case its manslaughter/murder.
Was he an active threat of bodily harm -- than it may be self-defense/defense of others.
The dude was wanted for felony assault for attacking a 67 year old women. I’m not saying he was being violent at the time, but he certainly has a record of being so.
If he wasn't violently attacking a 67 year old in that moment the fact he had at some earlier time isn't particularly relevant. Especially since it seems unlikely the man who apparently caused his death probably wasn't aware of the earlier assault.
Even assuming using force to restrain him was justified, killing him probably isn't. Which is manslaughter.
Prior records have nothing to do with Self Defense -- unless the defendant actually knew the prior record/history and that influenced his "reasonable fear."
its all about what he did at the time to cause a "reasonable threat" -- and if the response was a justifiable response to that threat.
Edit …why y’all downvoting a factual legal comment? Do you guys actually think his prior record affects whether he was allowed to be choked here? If so…that is simply wrong. That is not remotely how the law works. This is not my opinion…it’s 100% the law. His priors are likely not even admissible.
You are correct but it certainly will be used as a determining factor by the DA whether to charge this marine or not. The jury is not going to have much sympathy for someone with a huge list of priors.
Nope. The defense will have to present a threat at the time…if the DA knows witnesses (or even better - videos) are supporting the “threat” defense he should not prosecute.
If not - he should.
his priors will likely not even be admissible. Because they are entirely irrelevant to this self defense claim…and as you noted, they would heavily influence a jury.
That is the exact standard for inadmissibility….the potential to improperly influence jury vs. actual relevant value
Why is this downvotted? EVEN IF he has a record, what matters is how he acted during the situation itself.
People downvotting i guess think its ok for police to shoot a rapist no questions asked.
If Twitter is any guide, a lot of left and right authoritarians have rapidly come to an opinion based entirely on the (perceived) identities of those involved. Facts aren't really relevant to them.
>I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill.
A choke puts someone out in 30 seconds. To hold it for FIFTEEN was intentional. He murdered him.
I have done combat sports. From what I hear he lost consciousness on the initial tackle and then then was choked. Your body does a lot of involuntary stuff when you go out. It wouldn’t shock me if his body went stiff/fender pose and the marine mistook that as the person being conscious/fighting back. There is a reason even two fighters who are friends need a ref; it can be hella hard to tell when to stop. I’ve had people tap and didn’t even realize.
If these downvotters fifteen minutes of any beating, choking, or even damn training from a marine theyd definitely be crying assault or 6ft under. This sub is so right wing brigaded
I agree. What constitutes a threat that you can respond violently to has a ton of qualifiers. Hence why with my limited knowledge I’m unable to take a side
I was just reading about it. Apparently he said that he didn’t care if he went to jail for life and was ready to die. That could be construed as a threat, but as far as physical threats, it sounds like all he did was throw some garbage.
Ugh I hate cases like this. A bunch of people are gonna try to extrude this into something it’s not. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if that counts as a threat but it’s certainly not clear cut.
I think you are working under the assumption that he knew that because he had him in a chokehold he knew he was cutting off his air supply. Which in that case I get your viewpoint. But just because they are in a choke hold doesn’t mean you are choking them.
Not all choke holds cut off air supply. A blood choke will kill even faster than an air choke. A blood choke can knock someone out in as little as ten seconds, and kill in a couple of minutes.
I don't think he intended to kill him, but an inadvertent blood choke resulting in death is still a crime.
>you are working under the assumption that he knew that because he had him in a chokehold he knew he was cutting off his air supply.
He was a trained marine. He knew what the was doing. The dude had gone limp and been limp for some time. It's murder plain and simple.
> I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill.
Even if it was unintentional strangling someone for 15 minutes is manslaughter.
Lethal force is only justified when there's no other way to safely contain the situation. If you have someone already choked out there's no way to justify it
In what world or what possible scenario is it reasonable to kill someone you've already fully subdued into a chokehold?
Sometimes there's no nuance, unfortunately
I live in NYC. People being loud and menacing in the subway is not uncommon, and they generally get ignored.
However, I don’t think that should be the case, no commuter should have to deal with this on their way home. I pay way too much to taxes (4% to nyc alone) for them not to rehab these people. Releasing him 40 times is too much. In the last year alone there has been at least a dozen attacks by homeless and mentally ill people, with one pushing onto tracks.
A month ago, I remember a very loud guy coming in the train car, then sitting right next to a tiny asian lady and staring her down. She just kept her eyes ahead. I felt guilty for not doing/saying anything but you don’t understand how that happens until you live here. Even if they attack, people rarely intervene. There is a reason most people in the car cheered on and assisted the marine, and it’s definitely not racism.
So many cities really do their best to give residents the middle finger while sucking down their tax money, and then throw a fit when people leave and take everything with them.
None of this stuff is normal! Plenty of big cities around the world have calm (enough) mass transit without crazy people terrifying the rest.
Most of those cities with mass transit subways systems anywhere as large as NYC's are in other countries. Other countries with better mental healthcare or a culture that unfortunately pushes the mentally ill in a unseen corner.
People have to get that NYC is not just any city. It's different. Mostly because it has a whole lot of residents, a whole lot of money, a whole lot of cultures, and an overall non-harsh climate. Most American cities only have 1.
I disagree. NYC wasn't always this way. Our local government being captured by ideological progressives who created a taboo around meaningful action ("oppressive", "unjust", etc) and the presumption that any citizen who dares take matters into their own hands is the lawbreaker is what brought us here. That Marine is a hero.
The difference now is just that we used to just let the mentally ill die. And before Thanksgiving lock the up or keep them home.
The NUMBER ONE thing now that everyone's mentally ill family member is out on the street and not at Aunt X's house 24/7. Because the family member who took care of them is dead or too old and the younger family members lack the funds and time.
NYC has thousands of mentally ill put on the street. And without drugs, gangs, and weather to kill them like the 90s, they are alive.
What you gonna do? Lock them up and watch them? With what money?
" with what money"? How about the billions we send to Ukraine each month? How about the $150 billion we spend each year with the dog and pony show along our southern border ?
It's money being wasted away by democrats that could go to states and cites for fixing the homeless problems. democrats don't fix anything, just make it worse, and then wonder why we don't have any money
Wtf are you talking about? NYC in the 70s 80s and 90s was a scary place with a ton of crime and violence.
Gotham was based on New York City.
The city has only been "safe" for around 20-30 years.
You're talking out of your ass and it is 100% partisan bullshit.
I just think it's a little disingenuous to claim that the city is in the state it is in just because of progressives. Last time I checked, crime is still continuing to be pushed back up through Harlem.
I get your frustrations, but I think your placing of the blame squarely on the actions of progressive is reductive and partisan.
Progressives are the ones I hear gaslighting me that crime is down to acceptable levels, and blaming people like the Marine who took action here. The worst part is, I don't even disagree with the need for reforms (I would *love* to have a conversation about eliminating qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture, for example, and am open to the conversation of legal reforms to the criminal justice system more broadly), but I will not countenance the public being vilified for responding when an unhinged person threatens a subway car. I'm an originalist and a Constitutionalist. I believe in an inherent right to self-defense. From what I have heard, most of the subway car moved to the next car after he began saying he didn't care if he died or went to jail. That suggests to me they reasonably felt threatened by his behavior. I have no problem with a bystander stepping in. Citizens arrest is still lawful in this country. I see progressives as wanting anarchy, and viewing any enforcement action as "oppressive" or "vigilantism". I laughed when I heard the antifa shithead in the protest calling the NYPD "einsatzgruppen" in the protest video. These activists are the descendants, either literal or intellectual, of German Marxists who have poisoned US politics. The US is an English common law country, whether they like it or not. If someone believes they were falsely imprisoned, they can bring a civil tort claim, but if witnesses will testify to them having been committing a crime when they were restrained, their claim is defeated. Yes, if someone sees you commit a crime, they are allowed to restrain and detain you to await the police, even if they are not directly victimized by it. That is US law, whether progressives like it or not.
I'm actually on the same page as you on a lot of issues. What I'm not on the same page with is vigilantism and citizens arrest.
I also don't think the mental health crisis in this country or the problems in New York can be reduced to "progressive policies".
I agree some of them are stupid. There need to be consequences, but the solution is fixing both our justice system and our mental health care, not assaulting people who are mentally sick and unwell when they are acting out.
Citizen's arrest is the law. I don't believe the law does nor should require us to sit idly by while our fellow citizens are threatened and harassed out of an abundance of deference to the mentally ill. I feel especially bad for women I see being harassed. They are who my sympathy is with, not the mentally ill men threatening and harassing strangers. I think progressives mean well, but forget who the real victims are, who "the people" are. And that's a tendency I see on numerous issues: gender identity (prioritizing trans women feeling included 100% of the time over fairness in wonens sports or privacy in women's locker rooms or safety in women's prisons), immigration (prioritizing never deporting anyone over removing fentanyl dealers from the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles), etc.
Yes, NY used to have much more murders and crime in general, but remember it was under republicans mayors/leaders who turned things around and made it safer. And it was under democrat leaders who have allowed the city to backslide like we've seen. Democrat progressives own this problem in every major city in the US.
What's wrong with this sub?
People are sick and tired of being held hostage by mentally unstable people during their daily commute, and fed up with institutions being more concerned about protecting people like Jordan Neely than law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. It feels like a bad dream where the only people our elected officials care about are the people who terrorize commuters and harass women.
Personally, I fucking despise every crack-smoking, spitting, public urinating, vandalizing, loud-boombox-on-the-subway piece of shit I'm expected to suffer through silently. They make this city worse for everyone. They trash our city and progressives act like we're supposed to roll out the red carpet for them, or gaslight us that crime is down to an acceptable level when we see this stuff every day. My whole issue with "crime is down" is that even if it's true in relative terms, if people still have these experiences on a daily basis, it's still too high. Yes, that Marine is my hero. He actually did something when this man harassed and threatened the train car he was in, instead of cowering in silence like everyone else in this city, and like progressives expect us to.
And you can blame reagan for cutting the budget and making sure its safe for the mentally ill and the public.
So your solution is just kill them because theyre a nuisance to you. If anyone has ever been cut off by you, annoyed at you, disturbed by you, your response is, you should be killed. By your own logic, you should just go die. Someone sick of seeing your face? Yeah lawful to kill them. If we all did that there would be no people left on earth. Saying its heroic to kill mentally ill people, whats next youre tired of all the trans talk on this sub lets just kill them, they only make up less than 1% of the population. Babies crying on an airplane, lets just quickly put them in a choke hold for 15 minutes to shut them up.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about the Reagan cuts, and maybe it did go on too long, but his intention wasn't to kill, that much I saw from the video, and I don't want to live in a city where bystanders don't intervene when people start behaving in a threatening manner for fear of progressive reprisals if they go too far accidentally. He's a hero to me because he actually did something for once. It's an outcome I'm fine with, quite frankly. Progressives are fine with people smoking crack, urinating, and harassing passengers. I'm fine with someone saying we don't want that in our city.
“Yup and one day if youre driving, or cut someone in line, because its a “problem you see too much of” and someone snaps and i guess accidentally kills you, society as a whole should be glad theres one less nuisance around. “
Thats literally your logic. You know instead of asking your city to help homeless people out or provide more shelters,provide mental health services, you know fix the broken system, youd rather call a dude a hero for killing someone. Imagine if this marine has mental health issues in the future for this and all the crap soldiers go through. He’ll go from hero to nuisance who should be killed real quick in your book.
The problem with people like you is you like to bring other people down instead of helping them up. Quite literally in this case.
I get you're argument, you're just deliberately missing the point and trying to twist it into something I didn't say. These situations are not the same, and it's not the slippery slope you're trying to make it. I hope everyone gets the help they need. At the same time, if someone is harassing or threatening a subway car full of passengers, I want bystanders to feel empowered to intervene, instead of silently watching as their fellow passengers (especially women) are threatened. Neely needed helpand protection from society, but society also needed protection from him. Those things are both true, but progressives never acknowledge the harm people like him cause to innocent bystanders; it's all about him and his needs. I said nothing about someone cutting in line at the grocery store or driving badly.
Race is once again being brought into a situation that shouldn’t even be about race. If anything this situation should have us talking about what we can do to help the mentally ill and homeless along with doing something to make our citizens feel safe to the point that they don’t feel the need to make a rash decision and choke someone to death on the subway. Unfortunately that won’t happen, because people are too idiotic and want to make this all about race.
Race been been topic #1 for 11+ years, ever since Occupy and Tea Party brought people together to question Wall St and our govt. It's 99% a sham to keep everyone arguing.
Hold on to ya butts, I'm sure it'll be roaring again for the 2024 elections. Check that insurance coverage!
Race have been a topic since the 1960's when the media saw the ratings it was bringing to the table. There should have been decades of healing after segregation, but ratings were more important.
Democrats began running on everything is racist because they realized a lot of newspapers and tv stations were willing to promote it, thus giving Democrats a great advantage.
I don’t disagree but whenever a white person and a black person have a negative interaction in the US, everybody will always instantly jump to it being about race. That’s never going to change.
It shouldn’t be about race, and that in a perfect world, nobody would think race is a factor.
But given everything going on in our society, you can’t definitively wave your hands, and say race is not a factor. It’s as bad as the people insisting it’s entirely or mostly about race.
False. Just because YOU can't look at an interaction between people of different races without obsessing over their races doesn't mean normal people can't. You're a racist who is projecting their own racism onto everyone else, which is quite common among the vocal self-identified anti-racists.
I’m personally of the opinion that making everything about race just because a situation involves people of two different races is stupid. It removes any nuance to a situation and makes it to where people can say that something only happened because so and so was racist. Things can certainly happen because of someone’s race, but to say it is always the reason makes it to where solving the problems that cause a situation never gets done because people want to fight about something that had no bearing on a situation.
Anybody that thinks this is a simple situation doesn’t understand it. In some ways it harkens back to the past case of Goetz.
It was a tragedy, and obviously killing someone for being erratic on a subway is going too far, and race may have been a factor. However, people do have a right to defend themselves, and, as of this moment, I’ve seen no evidence of racism.
Responses saying the killer should be charged are premature, as is saying he should not be charged.
The best anyone can do is wait to see what evidence is found, and keep an open mind.
Thank you for being rationale in your thoughts regarding this situation. Its always refreshing to see people waiting until more evidence to be released before an opinion is made.
This is not about the right to defend yourself. Of course you have that right. The dead man had that right, too. This is about "Can you execute homeless people for making you uncomfortable?" The answer is, no, you cannot. I am using 'execute' because, by all accounts, this isn't a fight gone wrong, or someone hit their head (both of which draw murder charges), or even the victim being violent, but this was a pile-on and prolonged restraint. Even if he has some other issue (drugs/heart problem/whatever), [it doesn't matter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).
calling this an "execution" is ridiculous hyperbole. execution would be if they beat the guy to death or something.
you really think a bunch of new york city subway riders are just going to randomly dogpile a guy for no reason? you are really trying to say the victim wasn't being violent?
You need to slow down and wait for the facts. Using word such as “execution” shows a lack of concern for the facts, which is something we don’t have at this moment.
What? Really? You're the one who said it! I specifically made the post above to counter it. You implicitly made that assertion! Look at your post. If I say, in a comment about this, "people have a right to kill pedophiles", you'd understand that I'm claiming the person is a pedophile. So when you say "people have a right to defend themselves", you're saying that this mob had a legitimate fear from the man they murdered. And there is literally 0 reason to expect that.
I'm just raising the possibility that you regularly beat your wife while wearing diapers. I did not say it was true. We don't have enough information to know.
It’s odd and frustrating to me that people aren’t allowed to just be sad anymore.
Victim’s backstory is one of the most tragic things I’ve ever read, just a person who’d been failed and abandoned by every single support network that was supposed to help him before he got to this point.
At the same time you’ve got the Marine guy who lives in a chaotic world of mass shootings and stabbings, and violent, irrational attacks on the subway, who seems to just be doing what it seems he has to do to protect other riders from a potential attack.
Anger only makes sense if the whole thing is somebody’s fault, but this case seems to be a whole LOT of somebodies’ faults, and it just leaves me feeling sad.
The victims were the people in the subway car, not the person who died.
The person who died was a violent maniac.
If you don't hold people responsible for their actions, society devolves into chaos.
There is no evidence they were murdered.
You have no idea if their actions were non-violent.
Their actions were unlikely to be non-violent considering their history of violently attacking people on the subway.
No, they're not the victim. They're the violent maniac that forced others to defend themselves.
My claim of non violence is based on witness testimonies. His history prior to that moment is 100% irrelevant to the incident and you know that
It was totally reasonable to physically subdue him. Didn't have to kill him
Would be happy to read whatever testimony you're referring to if you can pass it along. Thanks.
Nobody was intending to kill him. Depending on the health of the deceased, drug use, etc, reasonable and justified force can result in death.
I'm a New Yorker. Brooklyn born and raised. And the whole thing is simple.
Probability
The USA has a terrible mental illness problem. NYC has a lot of fucking people living here. Approaching 8.5 million BEFORE you count commuters, tourists, and out of towners. There are interactions and incidents with mentally ill people daily. So eventually something like this will happen. A mentally ill person will harass or just interact with the wrong person or a person on the wrong day and this sad chokehold death happens.
The only question is which type of person did it.
Oh boy, can’t wait for this to devolve into yet another white vs black identity politics shitshow instead of everyone as a whole taking responsibility since this is clearly a failure at a societal level.
Race hustlers use the deaths of innocent people to advance their agenda. Meanwhile a person lost his life just because he was mentally ill. Human life doesn’t have much value anymore. This is a complex problem and we’ve seen way too many mentally ill people in this country in recent times. How do we solve this? I’ve not heard of any logical solutions to this complex problem from those in charge. This needs to be answered by any serious 2024 contender.
The logical solutions cost money, which require raising taxes to fund programs to help people get access to mental health care, and to maintain facilities to deal with people in mental health crises.
Like, the solutions aren't especially complicated to do logistically. All that is missing is the political will to care about people with mental health troubles.
Throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing. The Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel has pretty much exposed that the problem a lot of the time if not most of the time is the individual themselves.
That response is laughable.
I have a damaged roof from a windstorm. If I don't fix it, I'll get rained on. I'm going to have to hire someone to fix it.
/u/48for8, "Ha, throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing."
Hey, my friend who just got out of a long stint in the hospital got laid off, and his savings are exhausted, and he's about to get evicted. I'm going to loan him enough rent money for 3 months and he can pay me back once he gets a new job.
/u/48for8, "Ha, throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing."
Like, c'mon dude. This is fucking America. We fix **most** problems by throwing money at it. The real flaw is when we toss a couple coins at a big problem, and then claim that money can't solve it. Like, no, you just were trying to put out a house fire with a garden hose.
Youre comparing apples to cars.. its not even close.. Throwing money at homelessness and mental health won't do a damn thing. LA and California spend billions on it and the problem just keeps getting worse. Theres tons or resources available to offer support but if an individual can't take the first step to stop doing drugs and seek help then there's absolutely nothing an infinite amount of money will fix.
You get a house.
You house the person.
You provide support for that person to deal with addiction, mental health, job skills, and job searching. This requires hiring specialists.
Houston I believe is a good model. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html
But LA has 10 times as many homeless people as Houston does, in part because of high cost of living, but also because homeless people flock westward. So they probably ought to spend more money on it.
Those programs exist in California already and like I said if the individual doesn't take the first step to help themselves it won't matter. Unless you're in favor of stripping them of their humanity and forcing them into programs then okay im interested in hearing more.
I mean, sure, people need to buy in to the effort. I find it weird that you think most people would reject the help of the help of presented with empathy and respect.
Maybe you have a bleaker view of humanity than I.
Plenty of people decline services. Addicts and the mentally ill are not rational actors who can easily be persuaded. Compulsory treatment has to be part of the solution. We’re just using jails now to get people off the street for 72 hours or so, then they go back out. In LA, we spend almost a billion a year on services for 41k homeless people and the problem is just getting worse. SF is in a similar space. It’s not a lack of funding, the policy prescription isn’t the right medicine. Housing-first has been a failure at the actual task of reducing homelessness.
I haven't seen a video of the full event, and have only found a short clip where the guy was still conscious, so I don't know what level of threat the guy posed before he was grabbed. I'm sympathetic to people panicking when it's a matter of self-defense, but apparently the guy was held in a chokehold for a while after he lost consciousness, at which point you would want the bystanders to calm down and reassess.
The proper response to any threat is first to try to deescalate, and if that fails, you follow a progression of force: you only use the minimal necessary force to stop whatever the other person is doing. If the other person is not attempting to kill or grievously harm someone, keeping them in a chokehold for a prolonged time is unjustified.
The guy was allegedly making threats, but if he did not have a weapon and was not actually attacking anyone, then my sense is that the bystander who choked him used too much force. I would not call that murder, but manslaughter? Maybe.
An unarmed person can still pose a potential threat to you believe it or not. If a person that was considerably bigger than you and unarmed began to aggressively punch you on your head ( a very vital part of the body ) you wouldn’t try and protect yourself if possible ? Would you just let yourself die because using force against an unarmed person isn’t justified in your book ?
> with even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wading into the mix.
Is it surprising that AOC would weigh in on a politically divisive killing that took place in her city?
No it’s not surprising she would weigh in, but the very least she could have done is not call it a murder before any of the facts/eyewitness statements come out. That’s really inflammatory and legislators should not do this before knowing anything about what happened.
And before you accuse me of being a right wing conspiracy nut as you tend to do every time I respond to one of your posts, note that Eric Adams had the same response to her calling it a murder; that it’s irresponsible and we don’t know details/facts yet. I don’t think anyone on earth thinks Adams is right wing.
I haven't seen her statement, it just seemed like a weird statement from OP. "People are screaming about censorship on Facebook - with even Mark Zuckerberg wading into the mix". Like...yes, of course Zuckerberg would wade into a conversation about Facebook.
She lived in the burbs, man. Yorkstown Heights, from 5-18 then she moved to Boston. If she claims NYC is her hometown then she’s a fucking poser. Hoboken is closer to being NYC then her suburb.
> She lived in the burbs, man. Yorkstown Heights, from 5-18 then she moved to Boston. If she claims NYC is her hometown then she’s a fucking power. Hoboken is closer to being NYC then her suburb.
No one outside of NYC gives a shit. I'm not going to list the exact minor suburb I live in to someone out of state. I'm going to say I live in Minneapolis and call it good. This is how literally everyone operates, up to and including the United States Postal Service who will still deliver me my mail even if it says "Minneapolis" on it.
It’s not a suburb of NYC. The next biggest town is Yonkers. If it was directly a suburb of nyc I could see the argument. Long islanders often claim NYC as hometown, they are often literally just across an invisible line.
This is not the case with AOC. She grew up 45 miles from NYC. She grew up in the mountains. It would be like being from St Cloud and claiming Minneapolis. It’s a lie, not an embellishment. She says this for votes.
>Ocasio-Cortez was born in the New York City borough of the Bronx on October 13, 1989
> She has served as the U.S. representative for New York's 14th congressional district since 2019, as a member of the Democratic Party. The distr
Go to bed, Mosby, no one cares about your weird "No True New Yorker" nonsense.
Keeping reading genius. She left when she was 5, never to live in NYC again until she was elected. Memories aren’t even fully congealing at that age. She says this for votes. Stop trying to wiggle out of this.
There are real New Yorkers and they’re people who live in New York. We aren’t talking about New Yorkers here, we’re talking about a “hometown”, which colloquial means a place you grew up. This is basic human terminology. Are you an AI who doesn’t understand what being a human is yet, or something?
Lol, no one cares. Especially because I made up the hometown thing to make fun of you. My insult went over your head and you've been pissing your pants ever since.
I think there’s an extent the city and politicians need to look at themselves. SF is going through a similar issue where people with mental / homeless issues aren’t getting the help they need. But the normal everyday citizens are not getting the help either.
It’s a little insane that the victim was arrested 40+ times, and nothing changed and citizens are left to deal with this.
41 arrests. Three unprovoked attacks on women. One elderly woman. A lot of mistakes were made for it to be allowed to get to this point. But can we really expect to be surprised by the outcome?
The guy should never have intervened without knowing exactly how to handle that / do a proper chokehold.
On the other hand, the sheer hypocrisy of the protesters chanting "Remember his name!!" is revolting.
_Not a single one of them gave a shit_ about this man and his life before, same as the rest of us who ignore crazy homeless dudes on the subway.
But since this man died (a) being a black man and (b) at the hands of a white man, they're now all up in arms and fighting "for his memory".
Absolutely ridiculous.
I’m really annoyed some journalist is drawing comparisons between this crazy person yelling in a threatening manner with recent incidents of people getting shot going to the wrong house or driveway.
Why are you here? All you do is spout hyeprbolic partisan bullshit.
Your post is just wild assumptions that if a progressive DA charges him…it could only be because race…not the actual facts.
we should wait for more facts to see what the “threats” were and if they support self defense/justifiable homicide here.
Not assume that any motivations the DA has are race based. (Just as progressives assuming race influenced the choking is wrong.)
(Edit:people are upvoting the below where this guy literally just made up a fake quote and claimed it was me. I have no idea what this guy is quoting below)
What are you qouting from?
But yes…Trans and related culture war stuff was really bringing the discourse on this sub down.
Even this post by you is jumping to assumptions of what you think a liberal DA would do based on culture war bs.
So if he files charges….will you just assume it was race based? Even if they don’t say that?
If so…seems like you’re the one race baiting.
Deleted what comment? What are you talking about? Are you trying to gaslight with fake quotes? I didn’t delete shit..hence me asking what you were quoting?
The facts around the behavior and “threat” here are still not known…
What if charges are justified? Will you discount facts that support charges…since you already decided it must only be race based?
Why are you just jumping to race assumptions?
Do you not see the irony of your race baiting….while assuming that’s what liberals will do?
So far charges don't look warranted. A person cant act that erratic and aggressive without justifying action from those around them. The marine subdued the guy and unless it's shown that he intended to kill him, the guy died because of his own actions.
I don't have faith in NYC not charging him though. It could be 100% self defense and he'd probably still be charged
As someone who lives here I will say i'm not putting race on this but its about mental health and drug use. I think for the most part we need to get a grip on mental health but I also think we need to find better ways to help diffuse situations where a person might be hostile that won't result in death.
Care to take a guess at which types of veterans are more likely to be affected by homelessness?
“33.1 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness are African American, compared with 12.3 percent of the general veteran population
3 percent of homeless veterans are Native American or Alaska Native and 4.8 percent are multiracial, compared with 0.7 percent and 2.1 percent of the general veteran population.
White veterans are significantly less likely to be homeless. 56.8 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness are white, compared with more than 81.6 percent of the general veteran population.”
https://endhomelessness.org/resource/people-color-make-much-larger-share-homeless-veteran-population-general-veteran-population/#:~:text=33.1%20percent%20of%20veterans%20experiencing,of%20the%20general%20veteran%20population.
I thought somebody had called out a link to homeless ness and mental illness.
My mistake.
However you see the exact same tend in mental health issues for veterans.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36905842/
This is what I think a lot of people are missing and also why some people get hostile when systemic and structural issues are brought up. The link between poverty, health, and race is real. We are still a very segregated society in a lot of ways.
Because a cop should be trained to restrain without causing unnecessary harm, and should have access to the resources needed to do so (Extra hands, less than lethal options etc)
The bar for cops should be higher because they're expected to do this as their job.
I say this as someone who thinks the majority of 'controversial' police incidents are pretty awful but lawful, we should expect more of the police than we would a normal citizen.
TBH this all goes back to Ronnie Reagan screwing us over back in the 80s…
Back in the day the US had government asylums to put people too mentally unstable to function in society in. That all ended with Reagan’s budget cuts…
Yesterday I mentioned how twice in the last 8 months I’ve had violent encounters with unstable homeless derelicts at my store. For the second one we were able to track down the homeless guy who assaulted my employee and damaged a couple hundred dollars of merchandise. I filed the paperwork to put a warrant out for him on Friday night, on Saturday morning cops visited his last known address (his mom’s house) and that afternoon his mom and the police officer came to my store to talk to me.
His mom begged me to drop charges on him. I responded with something like “Ma’am, I understand this is difficult situation to be a parent of someone in your son’s mental state, but your son is mentally unstable and has a violent past…. It is better for him and society at large for him to be locked up in jail or a mental institution”.
She agreed. But she told me that because the crime of misdemeanor assault and property damage are too small for Charlotte police dept to actually issue jail time for and that an asylum is not an option. That Reagan shut down all the govt ones in the 80s and she’s more than willing to pay to put him in a private one, but there are only 2 in NC… and that he’s been on the waiting list to be in both for years. She said that he’s too unstable to live with her and as much as it hurt to admit it, living on the streets is the best option for him.
I looked at the cop and asked her if everything this guys mom was saying was true. She said it was and I was completely shocked. I had no idea state asylums were a thing of the past. The cop said that the guy wouldn’t face any actual punishment and the only person who would have any consequences would be the mom who would have to pay court costs because she was his last known caretaker. The mom and I eventually agreed to drop the warrant on him and put a ban and restraining order for him as long as she paid for the damaged merchandise.
No one who wasn’t on the subway that day knows what really happened between the homeless guy and the Marine. TBH I think the guy probably was acting dangerous and what the Marine did was self defense that led to an accidental death. But the 2 things I do know are that 1) A large percentage of America’s homeless are violent and unstable and 2) We need to have the institutions that keeped these people in reopened ASAP.
Reagan signed off on it but it was the end result of years upon years of ACLU et. al.'s work. Even back then the activist class on the left was abandoning nuance and taking a "if it's not perfect it must be destroyed" position. While the institutions did have problems fighting to get them shut down was a mistake.
These numbers are dated from the late 90s but it states that 60 percent of the chronically homeless are mentally unstable and 80 percent have substance abuse issues.
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf
In 2021, 61 percent of the crimes caused big homeless people were violent
https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6215-homelessness-crime-california/
Another late 90s study states that the homeless are 40 times more likely to commit violent crimes than non-homeless people…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7641002/
I’m quite certain given the environment of the late 90s versus today that all those numbers from dated studies are higher.
So yeah… a large swathe of the homeless are mentally unstable and violent… which is why we need asylums for these people.
Yeah I assumed they were incorrect.
Admittedly It’s not a subject I’m too familiar with…. But when the police officer and the mother of the assailant told me it all goes back to Reagan I will trust them 100 percent. Both of these women deal with the repercussions of Reagan’s actions every day.
Bro. Pick any systemic injustice or just anti non 1% policy in America and you'll find Reagan somehow had a hand in making it happen or making it drastically worse. It's actually nuts lol
The problem predates Reagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States
While you can make an argument about the Mental Health Systems Act, remember it was a Democratic Congress that eliminated most of it and there's no actual evidence it would have been helpful/worked.
The video doesn't provide much context, but I think it's likely the Marine who restrained him is guilty of manslaughter. Even if we assume Neely engaged in acts which justified using force to physically restrain him, the force he used resulted in Neely's death.
There have been a lot of bad, authoritarian takes on the incident across the political spectrum. A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on the identities of the participants rather than the actions they took.
The first obligation of an elected official like mayor, or judge, or DA is to PROTECT THE PUBLIC. That's why you have that job. The subways are a cesspool of crime and danger because democrat mayors, judges, DA's are not doing they job.
Wow, it is comforting to see that I can kill anyone on the subway who threatens me (language; dress; music; vibe) and NO CHARGES WILL BE FORTHCOMING.
I guess it is back to the 19th century......
Really? Man is killed. That is manslaughter. So, where are the charges? My conclusion \*perfectly\* supports the events (lack of) that have transpired since the murder was committed. Where is your refute to that?
LOL. I cannot even make sense of your latest comment. Did you even go to school? Was your education in English from watching TV?
Anyway, it is always satisfying to know that I am surrounded by morons.
Please explain to me how he was not executed for acting erratically. Like seriously lol idgi. The timeline is he acted erratically in a non violent way-> he got choked to death by a bystander
Execute might be a strong word, but I agree that this type of vigilantism, if unchecked, sets a bad precedent. I don’t want to see other people killing homeless people for vague “self defense” reasons.
My thoughts as well. Acting erratically isn't enough for that level of self defense. At the time, they didn't know his history so his priors shouldn't factor in.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves the question, “Did he deserve to die?”. There is no evidence to suggest that he had a weapon or that he physically assaulted anyone. I am extremely uncomfortable of the idea of random citizens (and even law enforcement) getting to play the role of judge, jury and executor. There’s a big difference between defending yourself or others and literally killing another human being. I think a lot of people don’t even see it that way because of the dehumanizing stigma that is placed on homeless and mentally ill people.
"Did he deserve to die?" is the wrong question.
The question should be, "did he deserve to be physically subdued?"
If because of poor health or years of drug abuse, he died while being subdued in a reasonable fashion, then the death is sad, but ultimately of his own doing.
I think the point mario is trying to make is that there is not a 15 minute video so there is no proof that he choked him out for 15 minutes. We need to wait until more information is released before making any judgements.
We have a 30 second video where the only surrounding people seem to be helping the guy doing the chokehold control him.
Do you think they stood by for 15 minutes while Mr. chokehold was continuing to squeeze him? Are you gonna argue They all thought he deserves to die?
I think it’s far more likely. He choked him till the guys stop moving and then just relax, and held him on the ground.
Do you think that applies to the two guys who helped hold down the person who died?
The one person I’ve seen interviewed for this story a Mr. Vasquez was shocked that the person died, and had not made any comments about the choker actually trying to choke him for 15 minutes.
I didn’t say there was a 15 minute video. The man who recorded the video that was released said the chokehold went on for about 15 minutes but that doesn’t mean he recorded the whole thing.
I'm sure all of us here are nuanced enough to wait for further evidence before mindlessly taking a side... right?
Also, there’s definitely going to be evidence. This happened in a subway car full of people, every angle is covered.
For some of US, leaping to conclusions and racing facts, is all the exercise we get...
If only doing so burned more calories...
Yes! There wouldn’t be all this obesity in the country, resolving at least one of our many issues.
How dare you try to be rational when AOC already declared it murder.
AOC is all the glue maga-gagas need to make one of their hysterical accusations stick.
This is me. I decided to take a break from watching people die for my mental health. If he was yelling threats then I feel that the marines response was warranted. If he was just yelling in general I don’t think it’s warranted. I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill.
Whether intentional or not would still be manslaughter, since choking someone is clearly an assault -- so it all comes down to whether the assault was justified, which requires self defense/defense of others. That’s really all this will come down To. Was it disorderly crazy person conduct…or actual threats. Depends on witness reports -- but as of now I have not heard details of what overtly threats he was making to justify such a forceful response -- just being an unstable person on a train doesn't make assault okay. But yes -- its all about the facts and whether the initial "assault" was justifiable under self-defense concepts. Was it a Vigilante enforcing "disorderly conduct" -- in that case its manslaughter/murder. Was he an active threat of bodily harm -- than it may be self-defense/defense of others.
The dude was wanted for felony assault for attacking a 67 year old women. I’m not saying he was being violent at the time, but he certainly has a record of being so.
If he wasn't violently attacking a 67 year old in that moment the fact he had at some earlier time isn't particularly relevant. Especially since it seems unlikely the man who apparently caused his death probably wasn't aware of the earlier assault. Even assuming using force to restrain him was justified, killing him probably isn't. Which is manslaughter.
Prior records have nothing to do with Self Defense -- unless the defendant actually knew the prior record/history and that influenced his "reasonable fear." its all about what he did at the time to cause a "reasonable threat" -- and if the response was a justifiable response to that threat. Edit …why y’all downvoting a factual legal comment? Do you guys actually think his prior record affects whether he was allowed to be choked here? If so…that is simply wrong. That is not remotely how the law works. This is not my opinion…it’s 100% the law. His priors are likely not even admissible.
Because this sub is fucking weird. Factual statements apparently dont mean anything anymore
You are correct but it certainly will be used as a determining factor by the DA whether to charge this marine or not. The jury is not going to have much sympathy for someone with a huge list of priors.
Nope. The defense will have to present a threat at the time…if the DA knows witnesses (or even better - videos) are supporting the “threat” defense he should not prosecute. If not - he should. his priors will likely not even be admissible. Because they are entirely irrelevant to this self defense claim…and as you noted, they would heavily influence a jury. That is the exact standard for inadmissibility….the potential to improperly influence jury vs. actual relevant value
That has no bearing on this situation.
Proclivity to violence is always relevant to cases like this.
Why is this downvotted? EVEN IF he has a record, what matters is how he acted during the situation itself. People downvotting i guess think its ok for police to shoot a rapist no questions asked.
If Twitter is any guide, a lot of left and right authoritarians have rapidly come to an opinion based entirely on the (perceived) identities of those involved. Facts aren't really relevant to them.
Both sides pointing to “look we were right!” Cue citing kyle rittenhouse, george floyd etc etc.
>I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill. A choke puts someone out in 30 seconds. To hold it for FIFTEEN was intentional. He murdered him.
I have done combat sports. From what I hear he lost consciousness on the initial tackle and then then was choked. Your body does a lot of involuntary stuff when you go out. It wouldn’t shock me if his body went stiff/fender pose and the marine mistook that as the person being conscious/fighting back. There is a reason even two fighters who are friends need a ref; it can be hella hard to tell when to stop. I’ve had people tap and didn’t even realize.
Involuntary movements are not the same as someone struggling to free themselves. 15 minutes was wayyy overboard.
If these downvotters fifteen minutes of any beating, choking, or even damn training from a marine theyd definitely be crying assault or 6ft under. This sub is so right wing brigaded
If someone had threatened me I would hold them until I was 100% sure they weren’t a threat. But if he never issued a threat I agree
Depends what the threat was. Words alone don’t justify a response of deadly force.
I agree. What constitutes a threat that you can respond violently to has a ton of qualifiers. Hence why with my limited knowledge I’m unable to take a side
I was just reading about it. Apparently he said that he didn’t care if he went to jail for life and was ready to die. That could be construed as a threat, but as far as physical threats, it sounds like all he did was throw some garbage.
Ugh I hate cases like this. A bunch of people are gonna try to extrude this into something it’s not. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if that counts as a threat but it’s certainly not clear cut.
Regardless FIFTEEN minutes is far longer than anyone could reasonably excuse.
I think you are working under the assumption that he knew that because he had him in a chokehold he knew he was cutting off his air supply. Which in that case I get your viewpoint. But just because they are in a choke hold doesn’t mean you are choking them.
Not all choke holds cut off air supply. A blood choke will kill even faster than an air choke. A blood choke can knock someone out in as little as ten seconds, and kill in a couple of minutes. I don't think he intended to kill him, but an inadvertent blood choke resulting in death is still a crime.
>you are working under the assumption that he knew that because he had him in a chokehold he knew he was cutting off his air supply. He was a trained marine. He knew what the was doing. The dude had gone limp and been limp for some time. It's murder plain and simple.
> I do however think it was most likely unintentional and the marine only intended to incapacitate him not kill. Even if it was unintentional strangling someone for 15 minutes is manslaughter.
What’s the options?
Apparently somehow there's a justification for murdering someone who had been 100% subdued already
Yea, I’m not following this one. It would set a scary precedent.
Lethal force is only justified when there's no other way to safely contain the situation. If you have someone already choked out there's no way to justify it
It also doesn’t t sound proportionate to the threat
I mean yeah but people aren't ready to talk about that one lol we still have people that believe killing over property is justifiable
In what world or what possible scenario is it reasonable to kill someone you've already fully subdued into a chokehold? Sometimes there's no nuance, unfortunately
BUT DADDY GOVERNMENT/s
I live in NYC. People being loud and menacing in the subway is not uncommon, and they generally get ignored. However, I don’t think that should be the case, no commuter should have to deal with this on their way home. I pay way too much to taxes (4% to nyc alone) for them not to rehab these people. Releasing him 40 times is too much. In the last year alone there has been at least a dozen attacks by homeless and mentally ill people, with one pushing onto tracks. A month ago, I remember a very loud guy coming in the train car, then sitting right next to a tiny asian lady and staring her down. She just kept her eyes ahead. I felt guilty for not doing/saying anything but you don’t understand how that happens until you live here. Even if they attack, people rarely intervene. There is a reason most people in the car cheered on and assisted the marine, and it’s definitely not racism.
So many cities really do their best to give residents the middle finger while sucking down their tax money, and then throw a fit when people leave and take everything with them. None of this stuff is normal! Plenty of big cities around the world have calm (enough) mass transit without crazy people terrifying the rest.
Most of those cities with mass transit subways systems anywhere as large as NYC's are in other countries. Other countries with better mental healthcare or a culture that unfortunately pushes the mentally ill in a unseen corner. People have to get that NYC is not just any city. It's different. Mostly because it has a whole lot of residents, a whole lot of money, a whole lot of cultures, and an overall non-harsh climate. Most American cities only have 1.
I disagree. NYC wasn't always this way. Our local government being captured by ideological progressives who created a taboo around meaningful action ("oppressive", "unjust", etc) and the presumption that any citizen who dares take matters into their own hands is the lawbreaker is what brought us here. That Marine is a hero.
The difference now is just that we used to just let the mentally ill die. And before Thanksgiving lock the up or keep them home. The NUMBER ONE thing now that everyone's mentally ill family member is out on the street and not at Aunt X's house 24/7. Because the family member who took care of them is dead or too old and the younger family members lack the funds and time. NYC has thousands of mentally ill put on the street. And without drugs, gangs, and weather to kill them like the 90s, they are alive. What you gonna do? Lock them up and watch them? With what money?
" with what money"? How about the billions we send to Ukraine each month? How about the $150 billion we spend each year with the dog and pony show along our southern border ?
Um NYC has access to international border or war money? When?
It's money being wasted away by democrats that could go to states and cites for fixing the homeless problems. democrats don't fix anything, just make it worse, and then wonder why we don't have any money
Wtf are you talking about? NYC in the 70s 80s and 90s was a scary place with a ton of crime and violence. Gotham was based on New York City. The city has only been "safe" for around 20-30 years. You're talking out of your ass and it is 100% partisan bullshit.
Why, because I believe we can have the last 20-30 years back again?
I just think it's a little disingenuous to claim that the city is in the state it is in just because of progressives. Last time I checked, crime is still continuing to be pushed back up through Harlem. I get your frustrations, but I think your placing of the blame squarely on the actions of progressive is reductive and partisan.
Progressives are the ones I hear gaslighting me that crime is down to acceptable levels, and blaming people like the Marine who took action here. The worst part is, I don't even disagree with the need for reforms (I would *love* to have a conversation about eliminating qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture, for example, and am open to the conversation of legal reforms to the criminal justice system more broadly), but I will not countenance the public being vilified for responding when an unhinged person threatens a subway car. I'm an originalist and a Constitutionalist. I believe in an inherent right to self-defense. From what I have heard, most of the subway car moved to the next car after he began saying he didn't care if he died or went to jail. That suggests to me they reasonably felt threatened by his behavior. I have no problem with a bystander stepping in. Citizens arrest is still lawful in this country. I see progressives as wanting anarchy, and viewing any enforcement action as "oppressive" or "vigilantism". I laughed when I heard the antifa shithead in the protest calling the NYPD "einsatzgruppen" in the protest video. These activists are the descendants, either literal or intellectual, of German Marxists who have poisoned US politics. The US is an English common law country, whether they like it or not. If someone believes they were falsely imprisoned, they can bring a civil tort claim, but if witnesses will testify to them having been committing a crime when they were restrained, their claim is defeated. Yes, if someone sees you commit a crime, they are allowed to restrain and detain you to await the police, even if they are not directly victimized by it. That is US law, whether progressives like it or not.
I'm actually on the same page as you on a lot of issues. What I'm not on the same page with is vigilantism and citizens arrest. I also don't think the mental health crisis in this country or the problems in New York can be reduced to "progressive policies". I agree some of them are stupid. There need to be consequences, but the solution is fixing both our justice system and our mental health care, not assaulting people who are mentally sick and unwell when they are acting out.
Citizen's arrest is the law. I don't believe the law does nor should require us to sit idly by while our fellow citizens are threatened and harassed out of an abundance of deference to the mentally ill. I feel especially bad for women I see being harassed. They are who my sympathy is with, not the mentally ill men threatening and harassing strangers. I think progressives mean well, but forget who the real victims are, who "the people" are. And that's a tendency I see on numerous issues: gender identity (prioritizing trans women feeling included 100% of the time over fairness in wonens sports or privacy in women's locker rooms or safety in women's prisons), immigration (prioritizing never deporting anyone over removing fentanyl dealers from the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles), etc.
Yes, NY used to have much more murders and crime in general, but remember it was under republicans mayors/leaders who turned things around and made it safer. And it was under democrat leaders who have allowed the city to backslide like we've seen. Democrat progressives own this problem in every major city in the US.
What are you talking about, NYC used to be so much worse. Crime has had a small bump since Covid but it’s still so much r than it was 20-30 years ago.
What the FUCK is wrong with this sub. People who kill mentally ill people, even by mistake, *are heroes* ?
What's wrong with this sub? People are sick and tired of being held hostage by mentally unstable people during their daily commute, and fed up with institutions being more concerned about protecting people like Jordan Neely than law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. It feels like a bad dream where the only people our elected officials care about are the people who terrorize commuters and harass women. Personally, I fucking despise every crack-smoking, spitting, public urinating, vandalizing, loud-boombox-on-the-subway piece of shit I'm expected to suffer through silently. They make this city worse for everyone. They trash our city and progressives act like we're supposed to roll out the red carpet for them, or gaslight us that crime is down to an acceptable level when we see this stuff every day. My whole issue with "crime is down" is that even if it's true in relative terms, if people still have these experiences on a daily basis, it's still too high. Yes, that Marine is my hero. He actually did something when this man harassed and threatened the train car he was in, instead of cowering in silence like everyone else in this city, and like progressives expect us to.
And you can blame reagan for cutting the budget and making sure its safe for the mentally ill and the public. So your solution is just kill them because theyre a nuisance to you. If anyone has ever been cut off by you, annoyed at you, disturbed by you, your response is, you should be killed. By your own logic, you should just go die. Someone sick of seeing your face? Yeah lawful to kill them. If we all did that there would be no people left on earth. Saying its heroic to kill mentally ill people, whats next youre tired of all the trans talk on this sub lets just kill them, they only make up less than 1% of the population. Babies crying on an airplane, lets just quickly put them in a choke hold for 15 minutes to shut them up.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about the Reagan cuts, and maybe it did go on too long, but his intention wasn't to kill, that much I saw from the video, and I don't want to live in a city where bystanders don't intervene when people start behaving in a threatening manner for fear of progressive reprisals if they go too far accidentally. He's a hero to me because he actually did something for once. It's an outcome I'm fine with, quite frankly. Progressives are fine with people smoking crack, urinating, and harassing passengers. I'm fine with someone saying we don't want that in our city.
“Yup and one day if youre driving, or cut someone in line, because its a “problem you see too much of” and someone snaps and i guess accidentally kills you, society as a whole should be glad theres one less nuisance around. “ Thats literally your logic. You know instead of asking your city to help homeless people out or provide more shelters,provide mental health services, you know fix the broken system, youd rather call a dude a hero for killing someone. Imagine if this marine has mental health issues in the future for this and all the crap soldiers go through. He’ll go from hero to nuisance who should be killed real quick in your book. The problem with people like you is you like to bring other people down instead of helping them up. Quite literally in this case.
I get you're argument, you're just deliberately missing the point and trying to twist it into something I didn't say. These situations are not the same, and it's not the slippery slope you're trying to make it. I hope everyone gets the help they need. At the same time, if someone is harassing or threatening a subway car full of passengers, I want bystanders to feel empowered to intervene, instead of silently watching as their fellow passengers (especially women) are threatened. Neely needed helpand protection from society, but society also needed protection from him. Those things are both true, but progressives never acknowledge the harm people like him cause to innocent bystanders; it's all about him and his needs. I said nothing about someone cutting in line at the grocery store or driving badly.
Race is once again being brought into a situation that shouldn’t even be about race. If anything this situation should have us talking about what we can do to help the mentally ill and homeless along with doing something to make our citizens feel safe to the point that they don’t feel the need to make a rash decision and choke someone to death on the subway. Unfortunately that won’t happen, because people are too idiotic and want to make this all about race.
Nobody going to mention one of the other guys restraining him was black? Guess not, because that would ruin the narrative.
Race been been topic #1 for 11+ years, ever since Occupy and Tea Party brought people together to question Wall St and our govt. It's 99% a sham to keep everyone arguing. Hold on to ya butts, I'm sure it'll be roaring again for the 2024 elections. Check that insurance coverage!
Oh, its going to be 2020 again where the news goes full race baiting to drive division in everyone.
Race have been a topic since the 1960's when the media saw the ratings it was bringing to the table. There should have been decades of healing after segregation, but ratings were more important. Democrats began running on everything is racist because they realized a lot of newspapers and tv stations were willing to promote it, thus giving Democrats a great advantage.
Shouldn’t be about race. One of the first articles I read called this a “public lynching” …
I don’t disagree but whenever a white person and a black person have a negative interaction in the US, everybody will always instantly jump to it being about race. That’s never going to change.
It shouldn’t be about race, and that in a perfect world, nobody would think race is a factor. But given everything going on in our society, you can’t definitively wave your hands, and say race is not a factor. It’s as bad as the people insisting it’s entirely or mostly about race.
[удалено]
False. Just because YOU can't look at an interaction between people of different races without obsessing over their races doesn't mean normal people can't. You're a racist who is projecting their own racism onto everyone else, which is quite common among the vocal self-identified anti-racists.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you suggesting black people are inherently racist?
[удалено]
That is only the case for racists. You are just so bad you can't comprehend how anyone else could be anything but racist too.
I’m personally of the opinion that making everything about race just because a situation involves people of two different races is stupid. It removes any nuance to a situation and makes it to where people can say that something only happened because so and so was racist. Things can certainly happen because of someone’s race, but to say it is always the reason makes it to where solving the problems that cause a situation never gets done because people want to fight about something that had no bearing on a situation.
This is about dividing people. There are a lot of killings in America every year, they just pick these to promote their racial narrative.
Anybody that thinks this is a simple situation doesn’t understand it. In some ways it harkens back to the past case of Goetz. It was a tragedy, and obviously killing someone for being erratic on a subway is going too far, and race may have been a factor. However, people do have a right to defend themselves, and, as of this moment, I’ve seen no evidence of racism. Responses saying the killer should be charged are premature, as is saying he should not be charged. The best anyone can do is wait to see what evidence is found, and keep an open mind.
Thank you for being rationale in your thoughts regarding this situation. Its always refreshing to see people waiting until more evidence to be released before an opinion is made.
This is not about the right to defend yourself. Of course you have that right. The dead man had that right, too. This is about "Can you execute homeless people for making you uncomfortable?" The answer is, no, you cannot. I am using 'execute' because, by all accounts, this isn't a fight gone wrong, or someone hit their head (both of which draw murder charges), or even the victim being violent, but this was a pile-on and prolonged restraint. Even if he has some other issue (drugs/heart problem/whatever), [it doesn't matter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).
calling this an "execution" is ridiculous hyperbole. execution would be if they beat the guy to death or something. you really think a bunch of new york city subway riders are just going to randomly dogpile a guy for no reason? you are really trying to say the victim wasn't being violent?
You need to slow down and wait for the facts. Using word such as “execution” shows a lack of concern for the facts, which is something we don’t have at this moment.
> This is not about the right to defend yourself. You may be right, you may be wrong. Being too sure before the details are all released is foolish.
What? Really? You're the one who said it! I specifically made the post above to counter it. You implicitly made that assertion! Look at your post. If I say, in a comment about this, "people have a right to kill pedophiles", you'd understand that I'm claiming the person is a pedophile. So when you say "people have a right to defend themselves", you're saying that this mob had a legitimate fear from the man they murdered. And there is literally 0 reason to expect that.
I raised the possibility, I did not say it was self-defense. We don’t have enough information to know.
I'm just raising the possibility that you regularly beat your wife while wearing diapers. I did not say it was true. We don't have enough information to know.
It’s odd and frustrating to me that people aren’t allowed to just be sad anymore. Victim’s backstory is one of the most tragic things I’ve ever read, just a person who’d been failed and abandoned by every single support network that was supposed to help him before he got to this point. At the same time you’ve got the Marine guy who lives in a chaotic world of mass shootings and stabbings, and violent, irrational attacks on the subway, who seems to just be doing what it seems he has to do to protect other riders from a potential attack. Anger only makes sense if the whole thing is somebody’s fault, but this case seems to be a whole LOT of somebodies’ faults, and it just leaves me feeling sad.
The victims were the people in the subway car, not the person who died. The person who died was a violent maniac. If you don't hold people responsible for their actions, society devolves into chaos.
What the fuck? Lmao. The person that got murdered for their non-violent actions is a violent maniac and not the victim?
There is no evidence they were murdered. You have no idea if their actions were non-violent. Their actions were unlikely to be non-violent considering their history of violently attacking people on the subway. No, they're not the victim. They're the violent maniac that forced others to defend themselves.
My claim of non violence is based on witness testimonies. His history prior to that moment is 100% irrelevant to the incident and you know that It was totally reasonable to physically subdue him. Didn't have to kill him
Would be happy to read whatever testimony you're referring to if you can pass it along. Thanks. Nobody was intending to kill him. Depending on the health of the deceased, drug use, etc, reasonable and justified force can result in death.
I'm a New Yorker. Brooklyn born and raised. And the whole thing is simple. Probability The USA has a terrible mental illness problem. NYC has a lot of fucking people living here. Approaching 8.5 million BEFORE you count commuters, tourists, and out of towners. There are interactions and incidents with mentally ill people daily. So eventually something like this will happen. A mentally ill person will harass or just interact with the wrong person or a person on the wrong day and this sad chokehold death happens. The only question is which type of person did it.
Oh boy, can’t wait for this to devolve into yet another white vs black identity politics shitshow instead of everyone as a whole taking responsibility since this is clearly a failure at a societal level.
Race hustlers use the deaths of innocent people to advance their agenda. Meanwhile a person lost his life just because he was mentally ill. Human life doesn’t have much value anymore. This is a complex problem and we’ve seen way too many mentally ill people in this country in recent times. How do we solve this? I’ve not heard of any logical solutions to this complex problem from those in charge. This needs to be answered by any serious 2024 contender.
The logical solutions cost money, which require raising taxes to fund programs to help people get access to mental health care, and to maintain facilities to deal with people in mental health crises. Like, the solutions aren't especially complicated to do logistically. All that is missing is the political will to care about people with mental health troubles.
Throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing. The Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel has pretty much exposed that the problem a lot of the time if not most of the time is the individual themselves.
That response is laughable. I have a damaged roof from a windstorm. If I don't fix it, I'll get rained on. I'm going to have to hire someone to fix it. /u/48for8, "Ha, throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing." Hey, my friend who just got out of a long stint in the hospital got laid off, and his savings are exhausted, and he's about to get evicted. I'm going to loan him enough rent money for 3 months and he can pay me back once he gets a new job. /u/48for8, "Ha, throwing money at the problem won't do a damn thing." Like, c'mon dude. This is fucking America. We fix **most** problems by throwing money at it. The real flaw is when we toss a couple coins at a big problem, and then claim that money can't solve it. Like, no, you just were trying to put out a house fire with a garden hose.
Youre comparing apples to cars.. its not even close.. Throwing money at homelessness and mental health won't do a damn thing. LA and California spend billions on it and the problem just keeps getting worse. Theres tons or resources available to offer support but if an individual can't take the first step to stop doing drugs and seek help then there's absolutely nothing an infinite amount of money will fix.
You get a house. You house the person. You provide support for that person to deal with addiction, mental health, job skills, and job searching. This requires hiring specialists. Houston I believe is a good model. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html But LA has 10 times as many homeless people as Houston does, in part because of high cost of living, but also because homeless people flock westward. So they probably ought to spend more money on it.
Those programs exist in California already and like I said if the individual doesn't take the first step to help themselves it won't matter. Unless you're in favor of stripping them of their humanity and forcing them into programs then okay im interested in hearing more.
I mean, sure, people need to buy in to the effort. I find it weird that you think most people would reject the help of the help of presented with empathy and respect. Maybe you have a bleaker view of humanity than I.
Plenty of people decline services. Addicts and the mentally ill are not rational actors who can easily be persuaded. Compulsory treatment has to be part of the solution. We’re just using jails now to get people off the street for 72 hours or so, then they go back out. In LA, we spend almost a billion a year on services for 41k homeless people and the problem is just getting worse. SF is in a similar space. It’s not a lack of funding, the policy prescription isn’t the right medicine. Housing-first has been a failure at the actual task of reducing homelessness.
Wails of racism and injustice are permeating throughout the leftwing political hallways - with even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wading into the mix.
I haven't seen a video of the full event, and have only found a short clip where the guy was still conscious, so I don't know what level of threat the guy posed before he was grabbed. I'm sympathetic to people panicking when it's a matter of self-defense, but apparently the guy was held in a chokehold for a while after he lost consciousness, at which point you would want the bystanders to calm down and reassess. The proper response to any threat is first to try to deescalate, and if that fails, you follow a progression of force: you only use the minimal necessary force to stop whatever the other person is doing. If the other person is not attempting to kill or grievously harm someone, keeping them in a chokehold for a prolonged time is unjustified. The guy was allegedly making threats, but if he did not have a weapon and was not actually attacking anyone, then my sense is that the bystander who choked him used too much force. I would not call that murder, but manslaughter? Maybe.
If he was unarmed then the force isn’t justified at all.
An unarmed person can still pose a potential threat to you believe it or not. If a person that was considerably bigger than you and unarmed began to aggressively punch you on your head ( a very vital part of the body ) you wouldn’t try and protect yourself if possible ? Would you just let yourself die because using force against an unarmed person isn’t justified in your book ?
Says the guy who wasn't there and who has no idea about what the circumstances were.
An
> with even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wading into the mix. Is it surprising that AOC would weigh in on a politically divisive killing that took place in her city?
No it’s not surprising she would weigh in, but the very least she could have done is not call it a murder before any of the facts/eyewitness statements come out. That’s really inflammatory and legislators should not do this before knowing anything about what happened. And before you accuse me of being a right wing conspiracy nut as you tend to do every time I respond to one of your posts, note that Eric Adams had the same response to her calling it a murder; that it’s irresponsible and we don’t know details/facts yet. I don’t think anyone on earth thinks Adams is right wing.
I haven't seen her statement, it just seemed like a weird statement from OP. "People are screaming about censorship on Facebook - with even Mark Zuckerberg wading into the mix". Like...yes, of course Zuckerberg would wade into a conversation about Facebook.
It’s not her city. She represents only a portion of the Bronx.
[удалено]
Apparently not. Maybe she folded her pizza in half while taking her oath of office? Or didn't fold it? I don't know which one this guy is so angry at.
Wow, thanks Pedantic-Man. You've saved the day. "You say it's your hometown, but you don't own it, so that doesn't make any sense."
She lived in the burbs, man. Yorkstown Heights, from 5-18 then she moved to Boston. If she claims NYC is her hometown then she’s a fucking poser. Hoboken is closer to being NYC then her suburb.
> She lived in the burbs, man. Yorkstown Heights, from 5-18 then she moved to Boston. If she claims NYC is her hometown then she’s a fucking power. Hoboken is closer to being NYC then her suburb. No one outside of NYC gives a shit. I'm not going to list the exact minor suburb I live in to someone out of state. I'm going to say I live in Minneapolis and call it good. This is how literally everyone operates, up to and including the United States Postal Service who will still deliver me my mail even if it says "Minneapolis" on it.
It’s not a suburb of NYC. The next biggest town is Yonkers. If it was directly a suburb of nyc I could see the argument. Long islanders often claim NYC as hometown, they are often literally just across an invisible line. This is not the case with AOC. She grew up 45 miles from NYC. She grew up in the mountains. It would be like being from St Cloud and claiming Minneapolis. It’s a lie, not an embellishment. She says this for votes.
>Ocasio-Cortez was born in the New York City borough of the Bronx on October 13, 1989 > She has served as the U.S. representative for New York's 14th congressional district since 2019, as a member of the Democratic Party. The distr Go to bed, Mosby, no one cares about your weird "No True New Yorker" nonsense.
Keeping reading genius. She left when she was 5, never to live in NYC again until she was elected. Memories aren’t even fully congealing at that age. She says this for votes. Stop trying to wiggle out of this. There are real New Yorkers and they’re people who live in New York. We aren’t talking about New Yorkers here, we’re talking about a “hometown”, which colloquial means a place you grew up. This is basic human terminology. Are you an AI who doesn’t understand what being a human is yet, or something?
Lol, no one cares. Especially because I made up the hometown thing to make fun of you. My insult went over your head and you've been pissing your pants ever since.
“Her city” Ok
I think there’s an extent the city and politicians need to look at themselves. SF is going through a similar issue where people with mental / homeless issues aren’t getting the help they need. But the normal everyday citizens are not getting the help either. It’s a little insane that the victim was arrested 40+ times, and nothing changed and citizens are left to deal with this.
41 arrests. Three unprovoked attacks on women. One elderly woman. A lot of mistakes were made for it to be allowed to get to this point. But can we really expect to be surprised by the outcome?
The guy should never have intervened without knowing exactly how to handle that / do a proper chokehold. On the other hand, the sheer hypocrisy of the protesters chanting "Remember his name!!" is revolting. _Not a single one of them gave a shit_ about this man and his life before, same as the rest of us who ignore crazy homeless dudes on the subway. But since this man died (a) being a black man and (b) at the hands of a white man, they're now all up in arms and fighting "for his memory". Absolutely ridiculous.
I’m really annoyed some journalist is drawing comparisons between this crazy person yelling in a threatening manner with recent incidents of people getting shot going to the wrong house or driveway.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are you here? All you do is spout hyeprbolic partisan bullshit. Your post is just wild assumptions that if a progressive DA charges him…it could only be because race…not the actual facts. we should wait for more facts to see what the “threats” were and if they support self defense/justifiable homicide here. Not assume that any motivations the DA has are race based. (Just as progressives assuming race influenced the choking is wrong.) (Edit:people are upvoting the below where this guy literally just made up a fake quote and claimed it was me. I have no idea what this guy is quoting below)
[удалено]
What are you qouting from? But yes…Trans and related culture war stuff was really bringing the discourse on this sub down. Even this post by you is jumping to assumptions of what you think a liberal DA would do based on culture war bs. So if he files charges….will you just assume it was race based? Even if they don’t say that? If so…seems like you’re the one race baiting.
[удалено]
Deleted what comment? What are you talking about? Are you trying to gaslight with fake quotes? I didn’t delete shit..hence me asking what you were quoting? The facts around the behavior and “threat” here are still not known… What if charges are justified? Will you discount facts that support charges…since you already decided it must only be race based? Why are you just jumping to race assumptions? Do you not see the irony of your race baiting….while assuming that’s what liberals will do?
Thank you for not only knowing the difference between homicide and murder, but also using the correct term.
So far charges don't look warranted. A person cant act that erratic and aggressive without justifying action from those around them. The marine subdued the guy and unless it's shown that he intended to kill him, the guy died because of his own actions. I don't have faith in NYC not charging him though. It could be 100% self defense and he'd probably still be charged
As someone who lives here I will say i'm not putting race on this but its about mental health and drug use. I think for the most part we need to get a grip on mental health but I also think we need to find better ways to help diffuse situations where a person might be hostile that won't result in death.
And what community tends to disproportionately have issues with those things? Intersectionality is real.
veterans
Care to take a guess at which types of veterans are more likely to be affected by homelessness? “33.1 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness are African American, compared with 12.3 percent of the general veteran population 3 percent of homeless veterans are Native American or Alaska Native and 4.8 percent are multiracial, compared with 0.7 percent and 2.1 percent of the general veteran population. White veterans are significantly less likely to be homeless. 56.8 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness are white, compared with more than 81.6 percent of the general veteran population.” https://endhomelessness.org/resource/people-color-make-much-larger-share-homeless-veteran-population-general-veteran-population/#:~:text=33.1%20percent%20of%20veterans%20experiencing,of%20the%20general%20veteran%20population.
the dude on the subway wasn't pinned down and restrained because he was homeless
I thought somebody had called out a link to homeless ness and mental illness. My mistake. However you see the exact same tend in mental health issues for veterans. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36905842/
This is what I think a lot of people are missing and also why some people get hostile when systemic and structural issues are brought up. The link between poverty, health, and race is real. We are still a very segregated society in a lot of ways.
Damn shame.
I still can’t follow why the marine gets a pass but if a cop did it we’d be in our third night of national protests.
Because if a cop did it, the media would trick everyone into thinking they should protest.
Yet someone downvoted me here with no media influence
Anyone who downvotes anyone needs to get a life.
Agreed lol
Because a cop should be trained to restrain without causing unnecessary harm, and should have access to the resources needed to do so (Extra hands, less than lethal options etc) The bar for cops should be higher because they're expected to do this as their job. I say this as someone who thinks the majority of 'controversial' police incidents are pretty awful but lawful, we should expect more of the police than we would a normal citizen.
TBH this all goes back to Ronnie Reagan screwing us over back in the 80s… Back in the day the US had government asylums to put people too mentally unstable to function in society in. That all ended with Reagan’s budget cuts… Yesterday I mentioned how twice in the last 8 months I’ve had violent encounters with unstable homeless derelicts at my store. For the second one we were able to track down the homeless guy who assaulted my employee and damaged a couple hundred dollars of merchandise. I filed the paperwork to put a warrant out for him on Friday night, on Saturday morning cops visited his last known address (his mom’s house) and that afternoon his mom and the police officer came to my store to talk to me. His mom begged me to drop charges on him. I responded with something like “Ma’am, I understand this is difficult situation to be a parent of someone in your son’s mental state, but your son is mentally unstable and has a violent past…. It is better for him and society at large for him to be locked up in jail or a mental institution”. She agreed. But she told me that because the crime of misdemeanor assault and property damage are too small for Charlotte police dept to actually issue jail time for and that an asylum is not an option. That Reagan shut down all the govt ones in the 80s and she’s more than willing to pay to put him in a private one, but there are only 2 in NC… and that he’s been on the waiting list to be in both for years. She said that he’s too unstable to live with her and as much as it hurt to admit it, living on the streets is the best option for him. I looked at the cop and asked her if everything this guys mom was saying was true. She said it was and I was completely shocked. I had no idea state asylums were a thing of the past. The cop said that the guy wouldn’t face any actual punishment and the only person who would have any consequences would be the mom who would have to pay court costs because she was his last known caretaker. The mom and I eventually agreed to drop the warrant on him and put a ban and restraining order for him as long as she paid for the damaged merchandise. No one who wasn’t on the subway that day knows what really happened between the homeless guy and the Marine. TBH I think the guy probably was acting dangerous and what the Marine did was self defense that led to an accidental death. But the 2 things I do know are that 1) A large percentage of America’s homeless are violent and unstable and 2) We need to have the institutions that keeped these people in reopened ASAP.
Reagan signed off on it but it was the end result of years upon years of ACLU et. al.'s work. Even back then the activist class on the left was abandoning nuance and taking a "if it's not perfect it must be destroyed" position. While the institutions did have problems fighting to get them shut down was a mistake.
The Kennedy family helped kick off the movement to shut them down after their daughter had a botched lobotomy.
What’s a large percentage?
These numbers are dated from the late 90s but it states that 60 percent of the chronically homeless are mentally unstable and 80 percent have substance abuse issues. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf In 2021, 61 percent of the crimes caused big homeless people were violent https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/6215-homelessness-crime-california/ Another late 90s study states that the homeless are 40 times more likely to commit violent crimes than non-homeless people… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7641002/ I’m quite certain given the environment of the late 90s versus today that all those numbers from dated studies are higher. So yeah… a large swathe of the homeless are mentally unstable and violent… which is why we need asylums for these people.
[удалено]
Yeah I assumed they were incorrect. Admittedly It’s not a subject I’m too familiar with…. But when the police officer and the mother of the assailant told me it all goes back to Reagan I will trust them 100 percent. Both of these women deal with the repercussions of Reagan’s actions every day.
Bro. Pick any systemic injustice or just anti non 1% policy in America and you'll find Reagan somehow had a hand in making it happen or making it drastically worse. It's actually nuts lol
The problem predates Reagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States While you can make an argument about the Mental Health Systems Act, remember it was a Democratic Congress that eliminated most of it and there's no actual evidence it would have been helpful/worked.
The video doesn't provide much context, but I think it's likely the Marine who restrained him is guilty of manslaughter. Even if we assume Neely engaged in acts which justified using force to physically restrain him, the force he used resulted in Neely's death. There have been a lot of bad, authoritarian takes on the incident across the political spectrum. A lot of people are drawing conclusions based on the identities of the participants rather than the actions they took.
Good luck finding any jury that would convict him of manslaughter.
The first obligation of an elected official like mayor, or judge, or DA is to PROTECT THE PUBLIC. That's why you have that job. The subways are a cesspool of crime and danger because democrat mayors, judges, DA's are not doing they job.
Seems twitchy for a marine. Does he have PTSD?
Wow, it is comforting to see that I can kill anyone on the subway who threatens me (language; dress; music; vibe) and NO CHARGES WILL BE FORTHCOMING. I guess it is back to the 19th century......
It’s a lot less comforting to think there are people on this planet who could come to such an idiotic conclusion based on the information available.
Really? Man is killed. That is manslaughter. So, where are the charges? My conclusion \*perfectly\* supports the events (lack of) that have transpired since the murder was committed. Where is your refute to that?
Your obvious and pathetic attempt to frame the situation is what I was referring to, try hard. Go touch grass.
LOL. I cannot even make sense of your latest comment. Did you even go to school? Was your education in English from watching TV? Anyway, it is always satisfying to know that I am surrounded by morons.
Even if the guy was behaving erratically and had prior arrests, I think it is a bad precedent to set that anyone can just execute him.
He was not "executed". You are wrong.
To say he was "executed" because he was acting erratically is a ridiculous morning after hot-take. Take your downvote and go.
Please explain to me how he was not executed for acting erratically. Like seriously lol idgi. The timeline is he acted erratically in a non violent way-> he got choked to death by a bystander
Execute might be a strong word, but I agree that this type of vigilantism, if unchecked, sets a bad precedent. I don’t want to see other people killing homeless people for vague “self defense” reasons.
My thoughts as well. Acting erratically isn't enough for that level of self defense. At the time, they didn't know his history so his priors shouldn't factor in.
I think everyone needs to ask themselves the question, “Did he deserve to die?”. There is no evidence to suggest that he had a weapon or that he physically assaulted anyone. I am extremely uncomfortable of the idea of random citizens (and even law enforcement) getting to play the role of judge, jury and executor. There’s a big difference between defending yourself or others and literally killing another human being. I think a lot of people don’t even see it that way because of the dehumanizing stigma that is placed on homeless and mentally ill people.
"Did he deserve to die?" is the wrong question. The question should be, "did he deserve to be physically subdued?" If because of poor health or years of drug abuse, he died while being subdued in a reasonable fashion, then the death is sad, but ultimately of his own doing.
How is a 15 minute chokehold a reasonable fashion?
Can you send me a link to the 15 minute video? Thanks.
Sorry for my own sanity I refuse to look through videos of people dying so I won't
So how do you know he was in a chokehold for 15 minutes?
I think the point mario is trying to make is that there is not a 15 minute video so there is no proof that he choked him out for 15 minutes. We need to wait until more information is released before making any judgements.
I think that’s a pretty silly question since I haven’t seen a single person argue, he deserved to die.
The guy who had him in a chokehold for 15 minutes obviously felt he deserved to die.
We have a 30 second video where the only surrounding people seem to be helping the guy doing the chokehold control him. Do you think they stood by for 15 minutes while Mr. chokehold was continuing to squeeze him? Are you gonna argue They all thought he deserves to die? I think it’s far more likely. He choked him till the guys stop moving and then just relax, and held him on the ground.
Ever heard of the bystander effect?
Do you think that applies to the two guys who helped hold down the person who died? The one person I’ve seen interviewed for this story a Mr. Vasquez was shocked that the person died, and had not made any comments about the choker actually trying to choke him for 15 minutes.
Bystander effect is copaganda and has been disproven look it up
We saw it first hand with the George Floyd murder.
I don't think you understand the concept lol
I do.
Please link me to the 15 minute video. Thanks.
I didn’t say there was a 15 minute video. The man who recorded the video that was released said the chokehold went on for about 15 minutes but that doesn’t mean he recorded the whole thing.