New York City

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
Defending yourself from actual violence is a right.
 
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.
I'm not completely up to speed on this, but talking ish and throwing trash is not a death sentence. I've seen reports that there is video of a three minute choke-hold, and I've seen reports it went for fifteen minutes. I'd like to know what actually happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
Because empty threats occur all the time.
I hope you never find yourself facing an imaginary threat. I've ridden on the NYC subway many times when they were deemed "safe" and wasn't very comfortable then, I can only imagine what it's like now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
I hope you never find yourself facing an imaginary threat. I've ridden on the NYC subway many times when they were deemed "safe" and wasn't very comfortable then, I can only imagine what it's like now.
You seem like the kind of person who is very uncomfortable around anyone who isn't a Caucasian under the age of 62.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
I'm not completely up to speed on this, but talking ish and throwing trash is not a death sentence. I've seen reports that there is video of a three minute choke-hold, and I've seen reports it went for fifteen minutes. I'd like to know what actually happened.
Only three minutes of the choke hold were recorded, but it was applied some time before the video began.
 
None of this gives you the right to kill another.

Prove me wrong with something of substance. I’ve showed you past precedence, statements from a former nypd inspector, etc.
You’ve posted the equivalent of “nuh uh”…
 
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”?

That Bederow quote doesn’t say what you think it does lmao
 
That Bederow quote doesn’t say what you think it does lmao

“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.”
 
I hope you never find yourself facing an imaginary threat. I've ridden on the NYC subway many times when they were deemed "safe" and wasn't very comfortable then, I can only imagine what it's like now.
And I hope you never kill a person through reckless action. So I guess we're even.
 
A threat of violence can indeed rise to reasonably fearing bodily harm or death. I’m not sure why you find that so unbelievable.

You clearly find it unbelievable too given that you keep inserting “bodily harm” or “safety” when the statute references reasonable fear for one’s LIFE
 
Prove me wrong with something of substance. I’ve showed you past precedence, statements from a former nypd inspector, etc.
You’ve posted the equivalent of “nuh uh”…
Do I really need to prove that killing someone else isn't okay?
 
Only three minutes of the choke hold were recorded, but it was applied some time before the video began.
I tend to err on the side of "don't choke a guy to death," but I also wonder why a "free lance journalist" would wait twelve minutes to start recording a chokehold on a subway. Additionally, I think a marine would probably know that a chokehold is lethal and he needs to stop at some point.
 
You clearly find it unbelievable too given that you keep inserting “bodily harm” or “safety” when the statute references fear for one’s LIFE

Yes, they clearly did fear bodily harm of death from the guy shouting that he was going to KILL them.
 
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.

This should be pinned. 615 has written probably 5,000 words at this point and still can’t point to Neely physically harming anyone. Lot of words to say absolutely nothing
 
I'm not completely up to speed on this, but talking ish and throwing trash is not a death sentence. I've seen reports that there is video of a three minute choke-hold, and I've seen reports it went for fifteen minutes. I'd like to know what actually happened.

This should also be pinned
 
I hope you never find yourself facing an imaginary threat. I've ridden on the NYC subway many times when they were deemed "safe" and wasn't very comfortable then, I can only imagine what it's like now.

I ride them all the time, O Fragile One
 
This should be pinned. 615 has written probably 5,000 words at this point and still can’t point to Neely physically harming anyone. Lot of words to say absolutely nothing

You don’t have to wait until someone physically acts on a threat to intervene. If a person fears imminent bodily harm or death, they can intervene/defend themselves or others. Are you denying that?
 
I tend to err on the side of "don't choke a guy to death," but I also wonder why a "free lance journalist" would wait twelve minutes to start recording a chokehold on a subway. Additionally, I think a marine would probably know that a chokehold is lethal and he needs to stop at some point.
I haven't watched the actual video, so I don't know which part of the alleged 15 minutes he filmed. I know it wasn't the first three minutes, but it could have been any part of the alleged allotted time. And I would guess he was caught off guard by the whole thing.
 
Quit being obtuse. You keep claiming a person has no right to intervene if they fear imminent bodily harm or death, I’m saying prove it.
That's not what I claimed. If they reasonably fear for their life, they have every right to act. But a threat on the subway does not automatically constitute "reasonable", which is what you appear to be arguing. Neely never once acted on his threats. So how were they "reasonably" afraid for their lives?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11

VN Store



Back
Top