New York City

[615vols]

Which you made up lmao

Nope. That was your guy jussie

 

[Weezer]

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 guess the defining line is what one finds to be "reasonable". But if that's the case, everyone who commits a murder needs to start claiming they were threatened.

 

[NashVol11]

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?

Because reasonably, if someone yells loud enough, 615 thinks he’s going to die lol

 

[615vols]

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?

You literally said it was an “imaginary right”. And once again, a person doesn’t have to wait for the threatening individual to act in order to intervene. If they fear imminent bodily harm or death, they have the right.

 

[NashVol11]

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?

Yes, I am. Both the fear and the response have to be reasonable and we’ve been through the self defense argument already. See post 1329

 

[NashVol11]

You literally said it was an “imaginary right”. And once again, a person doesn’t have to wait for the threatening individual to act in order to intervene. If they fear imminent bodily harm or death, they have the right.

No matter how many times you repeat this it’s still wrong lol

 

[615vols]

Yes, I am. Both the fear and the response have to be reasonable and we’ve been through the self defense argument already. See post 1329

Exactly what I’ve been saying. The marine would’ve been fine had he let go of the choke when the guy went unconscious. At that point, there was no more reasonable threat of harm or death. Instead he held on until the guy died, so now I believe he likely should/will face charges.

 

[clarksvol00]

According to at least one passenger. Most reference him acting violently, aggressively and making threats of harm.

What exactly were those threats that warranted the use of lethal force?

 

[615vols]

No matter how many times you repeat this it’s still wrong lol

Prove me wrong

 

[NashVol11]

Nope. That was your guy jussie

Looking forward to the source then

 

[Weezer]

You literally said it was an “imaginary right”. And once again, a person doesn’t have to wait for the threatening individual to act in order to intervene. If they fear imminent bodily harm or death, they have the right.

I was not referring to actual self-defense, which is an actual right. But that involves reasonable fear for one's life or the life of another. I don't find that to be the case here. This was just vigilantism, which isn't a right. The marine certainly didn't have the right to choke Neely to death.

 

[NashVol11]

Prove me wrong

Literally already done in post 1329 which is why you embarrassing yourself like this is so enjoyable for me

 

[615vols]

What exactly were those threats thar warranted the use of lethal force?

Read my actual stance. He threatened the passengers with death or whatever violence he was shouting. The marine and others who intervened were reasonably defending themselves, until the guy went unconscious. At that point, the fear of bodily harm or death was over. Should’ve let go. Instead he held on for 15 minutes and killed the guy, now in my opinion he should and likely will face charges.

 

[NashVol11]

I was not referring to actual self-defense, which is an actual right. But that involves reasonable fear for one's life or the life of another. I don't find that to be the case here. This was just vigilantism, which isn't a right. The marine certainly didn't have the right to choke Neely to death.

That reasonable fear is also only one of FOUR elements required to claim self-defense; 615 is hopelessly lost right now

 

[615vols]

Literally already done in post 1329 which is why you embarrassing yourself like this is so enjoyable for me

So, the case from the 80’s where the guy shot 4 people dead on the subway and got zero charges on that front due to him fearing bodily harm. What’s your answer to that?

 

[Weezer]

Exactly what I’ve been saying. The marine would’ve been fine had he let go of the choke when the guy went unconscious. At that point, there was no more reasonable threat of harm or death. Instead he held on until the guy died, so now I believe he likely should/will face charges.

Even then he could have faced assault charges had Neely pursued them, though given the unsympathetic nature of Neely, I doubt he would have been successful.

As is, the marine killed Neely, which should be a crime.

 

[615vols]

No matter how many times you repeat this it’s still wrong lol

Nope, that’s you jussie

 

[NashVol11]

Read my actual stance. He threatened the passengers with death or whatever violence he was shouting. The marine and others who intervened were reasonably defending themselves, until the guy went unconscious. At that point, the fear of bodily harm or death was over. Should’ve let go. Instead he held on for 15 minutes and killed the guy, now in my opinion he should and likely will face charges.

Self-defense requires an “unprovoked attack” which is…words? Lmao

 

[615vols]

I was not referring to actual self-defense, which is an actual right. But that involves reasonable fear for one's life or the life of another. I don't find that to be the case here. This was just vigilantism, which isn't a right. The marine certainly didn't have the right to choke Neely to death.

I would disagree. I believe it reasonable that they feared this psycho was indeed about to act on his threats. I just think he should’ve stopped when he went unconscious, there was no threat at that point. So I agree he had no right to choke him to death.

 

[615vols]

Self-defense requires an “unprovoked attack” which is…words? Lmao

You’re as wrong on this as you are on everything else on this forum

 

[Weezer]

You’re as wrong on this as you are on everything else on this forum

Are there any substantiated reports of Neely brandishing any kind of weapon whatsoever? I've not seen that. IF he was brandishing a weapon, maybe you have a point. Maybe. But if not, do you honestly believe this guy was going to kill all those people with his bare hands?

That's not "reasonable".

 

[615vols]

Self-defense requires an “unprovoked attack” which is…words? Lmao

Here genius, read this slowly:
“New York Penal Law §35.15, authorizes the use of physical force when and to the extent the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to defend either herself, himself or another person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of physical force or the actual use of physical force.”

Did you understand that phrase? “Imminent use of physical force OR the actual use of physical force”.
You don’t legally have to wait until the psycho acts on it. Thanks jussie, class dismissed

 

[NashVol11]

You’re as wrong on this as you are on everything else on this forum

Talking to yourself like you’ve been doing for this entire thread lmao. I would dodge the question too

 

[615vols]

Are there any substantiated reports of Neely brandishing any kind of weapon whatsoever? I've not seen that. IF he was brandishing a weapon, maybe you have a point. Maybe. But if not, do you honestly believe this guy was going to kill all those people with his bare hands?

That's not "reasonable".

First, you’re assuming that the passengers knew he didn’t have a knife or other weapon. Second, it doesn’t have to be fear of solely death. It also covers bodily harm, which yes I believe he was capable of.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

He went from incapacitating him to killing him. How did it not go past self-defense? I don't believe the marine intentionally killed the guy, but he DID kill the guy. He should face the consequences of his actions. FFS. I don't think the marine is an evil killer. But that doesn't matter. This went beyond the scope of self-defense. Every one of those people had the option to walk away. The marine made a decision to take action, and that action led to a death.

How many times has the now deceased Thug been arrested? What crimes was he guilty of in his past?

Prior to his killing, Neely had a lengthy arrest record with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN's John Miller, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.