New York City

[Weezer]

The article you posted says Neely was “acting in a very violent way, a very dramatic way”. Other witnesses said he threatened them with violence/bodily harm and they indeed feared for their safety. They began trying to move to the other side of the subway car. Keep in mind that violence on New York subways is constantly in the news right now, with people being randomly and without provocation stabbed, pushed onto the tracks, or just physically assaulted. People are understandably on edge more so, it really isn’t shocking that people felt scared or a need to intervene when you’re stuck on a subway car with a psycho shouting death threats and in your witnesses words “acting in a violent way”. Do you fault the marine and other guy who held him down for intervening? For all they knew he could be about to pull a knife and actually do the things he was saying he was about to do. I believe the marine should have stopped, dude was out and other passengers even warned him the guy was going to die. But let’s not sit around and pretend people were irrational to be scared or feel the need to intervene.

You guys are trying too hard to justify killing someone because you find them unsympathetic. Neely had done nothing to warrant the level of response. Citizens do not get to recklessly subdue another at the threat of violence.

 

[NashVol11]

1. Google the definition of assault. You clearly don’t know it.

Do you?

A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:

1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or

2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

Legislation

 

[615vols]

You guys are trying too hard to justify killing someone because you find them unsympathetic. Neely had done nothing to warrant the level of response. Citizens do not get to recklessly subdue another at the threat of violence.

Where did I justify killing him? I literally said the opposite, that the marine should have stopped. However, he and the other passengers do have the right to intervene if they fear someone is about to become violent and cause harm. And the article you provided literally said Neely was acting in a very violent/dramatic way. It’s undeniable that the passengers feared for their safety.

 

[Vol8188]

Advocating for choking someone out as a natural response to them “throwing trash”, which the primary witness account also did not mention at all, is wild

Did he assault people? Yes

Did he commit battery? Yes

While saying he doesn’t mind going to jail for life.

Yes, in totality he’s presenting a clear danger to the people around worthy of being restrained for the safety of others.

 

[Vol8188]

Do you?


Legislation

Threatening others that you will harm them is “assault”. If you’re going to argue about these things you should first try learning them

 

[Weezer]

Where did I justify killing him? I literally said the opposite, that the marine should have stopped. However, he and the other passengers do have the right to intervene if they fear someone is about to become violent and cause harm. And the article you provided literally said Neely was acting in a very violent/dramatic way. It’s undeniable that the passengers feared for their safety.

They actually don't have the right. It's vigilantism. But even if they did feel he needed to be subdued, they didn't have to do it with a choke hold. The marine could have taken him to the ground without applying such a deadly hold. I agree the passengers were scared, but it did not rise to "scared for their lives". At least not reasonably. He hadn't actually attacked anyone at that point. Moving away from him was reasonable, which is what the vast majority did.

 

[NashVol11]

Threatening others that you will harm them is “assault”. If you’re going to argue about these things you should first try learning them

Not in NY. You should learn how state law works

 

[NashVol11]

Did he assault people? Yes

Did he commit battery? Yes

While saying he doesn’t mind going to jail for life.

Yes, in totality he’s presenting a clear danger to the people around worthy of being restrained for the safety of others.

NY doesn’t have a separate “battery” crime either so you’re 0-for-2

 

[615vols]

They actually don't have the right. It's vigilantism. But even if they did feel he needed to be subdued, they didn't have to do it with a choke hold. The marine could have taken him to the ground without applying such a deadly hold. I agree the passengers were scared, but it did not rise to "scared for their lives". At least not reasonably. He hadn't actually attacked anyone at that point. Moving away from him was reasonable, which is what the vast majority did.

Actually, they do have the right. If someone is “acting very violently”, and making death threats would you say that is threatening behavior? Yes or no? And yes, they were reasonably fearful for their safety. Numerous passengers on the subway car have said so. If a person fears bodily harm from a psycho shouting death threats or threats of assault, they 100% have the right to intervene. The problem here isn’t the intervention, it’s that the marine went too far.

 

[Vol8188]

Not in NY. You should learn how state law works

Fair. So he committed aggravated harassment and assault.

Better?

 

[Vol8188]

NY doesn’t have a separate “battery” crime either so you’re 0-for-2

So assault and aggravated harassment. Doesn’t change anything

 

[Weezer]

Actually, they do have the right. If someone is “acting very violently”, and making death threats would you say that is threatening behavior? Yes or no? And yes, they were reasonably fearful for their safety. Numerous passengers on the subway car have said so. If a person fears bodily harm from a psycho shouting death threats or threats of assault, they 100% have the right to intervene. The problem here isn’t the intervention, it’s that the marine went too far.

"Acting very violently" yet he never actually attacked anyone from all eyewitness reports. And no, they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands. If that were true, there would be a lot more murders where the killer said, "I felt threatened". Unless or until Neely actually attacked someone, they did not have this imaginary right to subdue him. You call the police, and you move away from him. Which is what most passengers did. The marine acted recklessly. You seem to agree with that by saying he went too far. So do you agree that he should face charges?

 

[NashVol11]

Fair. So he committed aggravated harassment and assault.

Better?

Assault, the crime requiring him to cause physical injury? You’re saying he threw trash to the level of “injuring” people even though the journalist who was there beginning to end didn’t mention it at all? Lol ok

 

[VolStrom]

"Acting very violently" yet he never actually attacked anyone from all eyewitness reports. And no, they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands. If that were true, there would be a lot more murders where the killer said, "I felt threatened". Unless or until Neely actually attacked someone, they did not have this imaginary right to subdue him. You call the police, and you move away from him. Which is what most passengers did. The marine acted recklessly. You seem to agree with that by saying he went too far. So do you agree that he should face charges?

Here's a hypothetical for you. What if nobody said or did a thing to the crazy guy, and he pulls a knife out and stabs 3 or 4 people to death? I'm sure you'd be singing the blues about how NYC failed and allowed others to die.

 

[Weezer]

Here's a hypothetical for you. What if nobody said or did a thing to the crazy guy, and he pulls a knife out and stabs 3 or 4 people to death? I'm sure you'd be singing the blues about how NYC failed and allowed others to die.

Got it. So killing someone because they might do something is okay.

 

[VolStrom]

Got it. So killing someone because they might do something is okay.

In my book it is. He was arrested over 40 times, he should have been in prison.

 

[615vols]

"Acting very violently" yet he never actually attacked anyone from all eyewitness reports. And no, they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands. If that were true, there would be a lot more murders where the killer said, "I felt threatened". Unless or until Neely actually attacked someone, they did not have this imaginary right to subdue him. You call the police, and you move away from him. Which is what most passengers did. The marine acted recklessly. You seem to agree with that by saying he went too far. So do you agree that he should face charges?

"Acting very violently" yet he never actually attacked anyone from all eyewitness reports. And no, they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands. If that were true, there would be a lot more murders where the killer said, "I felt threatened". Unless or until Neely actually attacked someone, they did not have this imaginary right to subdue him. You call the police, and you move away from him. Which is what most passengers did. The marine acted recklessly. You seem to agree with that by saying he went too far. So do you agree that he should face charges?

You are wrong. If there is a reasonable fear for life/safety from bodily harm, a person can indeed intervene. Hell, here’s a quick excerpt from USA Today on the subject: “The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is investigating the incident and no charges have been announced.If a case does go forward, an argument of self-defense would likely brush up against a "tricky" legal requirement, according to Mark Bederow, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan.Under New York's penal code, a person who uses deadly force must not only prove that they feared for their own life or someone else's, but that any reasonable person would have felt the same way.” And that’s just referencing deadly force. Had the marine just restrained him and not ultimately killed him, 100% the marine faces zero charges. But yeah, I believe the marine went too far. The guy went unconscious, other passengers were warning him that he was going to kill the guy, but he still kept the chokehold for 15 minutes or whatever it was. Should’ve let go once Neely went unconscious, he went too far after that point in my opinion. Where are you getting the idea that intervening when someone is threatening to kill you is an “imaginary right”?

 

[Weezer]

In my book it is. He was arrested over 40 times, he should have been in prison.

No one on that subway knew his past. It isn't relevant in this situation. And there are no reports of anyone other than Neely suffering injury.

 

[615vols]

"Acting very violently" yet he never actually attacked anyone from all eyewitness reports. And no, they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands. If that were true, there would be a lot more murders where the killer said, "I felt threatened". Unless or until Neely actually attacked someone, they did not have this imaginary right to subdue him. You call the police, and you move away from him. Which is what most passengers did. The marine acted recklessly. You seem to agree with that by saying he went too far. So do you agree that he should face charges?

Further, from USA Today in reference to past precedent : “The interpretation of that statute was last clarified by the state's highest court in 1986, in response to Bernhard Goetz's shooting of four teenagers aboard a subway, an infamous case that has drawn comparisons to Neely's death.In 1984, Geotz, who was white, shot four young Black men after one of them asked him for $5. Goetz said he thought he was being robbed. A jury ultimately acquitted Goetz of attempted murder but convicted him of carrying an unlicensed handgun”
Walter Signorelli, a former NYPD inspector and professor at John Jay College, said he was uncertain charges would be filed, given the apparent fear among riders in response to Neely's behavior.”

 

[Weezer]

You are wrong. If there is a reasonable fear for life/safety from bodily harm, a person can indeed intervene. Hell, here’s a quick excerpt from USA Today on the subject: “The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is investigating the incident and no charges have been announced.If a case does go forward, an argument of self-defense would likely brush up against a "tricky" legal requirement, according to Mark Bederow, a former assistant district attorney in Manhattan.Under New York's penal code, a person who uses deadly force must not only prove that they feared for their own life or someone else's, but that any reasonable person would have felt the same way.” And that’s just referencing deadly force. Had the marine just restrained him and not ultimately killed him, 100% the marine faces zero charges. But yeah, I believe the marine went too far. The guy went unconscious, other passengers were warning him that he was going to kill the guy, but he still kept the chokehold for 15 minutes or whatever it was. Should’ve let go once Neely went unconscious, he went too far after that point in my opinion. Where are you getting the idea that intervening when someone is threatening to kill you is an “imaginary right”?

He had in no way acted upon any kind of threat. He didn't hamper the people from moving away from him. He was putting on a show. The justification for self-defense is reasonably fearing for your life or the life of another. Simply threatening does not create reason. There was no action brought forth. Reasonable was distancing yourself and alerting authorities, which most people did.

 

[Weezer]

Further, from USA Today in reference to past precedent : “The interpretation of that statute was last clarified by the state's highest court in 1986, in response to Bernhard Goetz's shooting of four teenagers aboard a subway, an infamous case that has drawn comparisons to Neely's death.In 1984, Geotz, who was white, shot four young Black men after one of them asked him for $5. Goetz said he thought he was being robbed. A jury ultimately acquitted Goetz of attempted murder but convicted him of carrying an unlicensed handgun”
Walter Signorelli, a former NYPD inspector and professor at John Jay College, said he was uncertain charges would be filed, given the apparent fear among riders in response to Neely's behavior.”

So the jury in 1984 got it completely wrong? That's the problem with juries.

 

[615vols]

He had in no way acted upon any kind of threat. He didn't hamper the people from moving away from him. He was putting on a show. The justification for self-defense is reasonably fearing for your life or the life of another. Simply threatening does not create reason. There was no action brought forth. Reasonable was distancing yourself and alerting authorities, which most people did.

A threat of violence can indeed rise to reasonably fearing bodily harm or death. I’m not sure why you find that so unbelievable.

 

[Weezer]

A threat of violence can indeed rise to reasonably fearing bodily harm or death. I’m not sure why you find that so unbelievable.

Because empty threats occur all the time.

 

[615vols]

So the jury in 1984 got it completely wrong? That's the problem with juries.

You keep calling defending yourself from threats of violence an “imaginary right”, I’m pointing out to you that it’s not. You are 100% wrong on this

 

[615vols]

Because empty threats occur all the time.

So did real ones, which is why if a person truly fears for their safety they have the right to intervene.