New York City

#1,426
#1,426
Weezer said:
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?

th


That's not "reasonable".
Click to expand...

I’d like to head your response to this as well:
“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.”
It’s not limited to the actions use of force, but reasonably believing imminent use of physical force.
 
#1,427
#1,427
615vols said:
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 👍
Click to expand...

Maybe read the law you’re talking about instead of articles ABOUT the law lmaooooooo

A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Click to expand...
 
#1,428
#1,428
NashVol11 said:
Talking to yourself like you’ve been doing for this entire thread lmao. I would dodge the question too
Click to expand...

Quit dodging.
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 👍
 
#1,429
#1,429
615vols said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was he BRANDISHING a weapon? If he was, then I can see reasonable cause. If he wasn't, then how does one man versus a crowd equal reasonable?
 
#1,430
#1,430
Weezer said:
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?

th


That's not "reasonable".
Click to expand...

“Reasonable” is also defined by courts through case law and is an objective standard, it’s not just 615 saying “I believe it’s reasonable” lol
 
#1,431
#1,431
615vols said:
Quit dodging.
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 👍
Click to expand...

Man, posted it 3 times after getting embarrassed lmao maybe take a break
 
#1,432
#1,432
Franklin Pierce said:
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.
Click to expand...
Once again, the marine was not aware of Neely's past. It is irrelevant in this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#1,435
#1,435
Weezer said:
Was he BRANDISHING a weapon? If he was, then I can see reasonable cause. If he wasn't, then how does one man versus a crowd equal reasonable?
Click to expand...

Because one could reasonably believe he had a weapon without him brandishing it.
 
#1,436
#1,436
615vols said:
I’d like to head your response to this as well:
“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.”
It’s not limited to the actions use of force, but reasonably believing imminent use of physical force.
Click to expand...
This actually works against you since the Marine actually killed Neely. How do you argue that he had to go to that extent?
 
#1,437
#1,437
615vols said:
It’s literally says exactly what I’m saying lmao. How are you this dumb?😂
Click to expand...

“Reasonable belief of imminent deadly physical force with no ability to retreat (which they literally did)” is “what you were saying” now lmaoooooo
 
#1,438
#1,438
615vols said:
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.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen a post from you about the length of the chokehold prior to my comment.
If there was one before my post, I apologize. I'd still like to know what the guy did prior to the chokehold that would justify lethal force. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I err on the side of not killing somebody.
 
#1,439
#1,439
615vols said:
I’d like to head your response to this as well:
“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.”
It’s not limited to the actions use of force, but reasonably believing imminent use of physical force.
Click to expand...
I guess "reasonably" is the crux of the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 615vols
#1,440
#1,440
615vols said:
Because one could reasonably believe he had a weapon without him brandishing it.
Click to expand...

Not unless he indicated he had one. Thinking he may have a weapon because he’s yelling about going to jail isn’t objectively reasonable in any way
 
#1,441
#1,441
Weezer said:
This actually works against you since the Marine actually killed Neely. How do you argue that he had to go to that extent?
Click to expand...

I’ve said repeatedly that he didn’t have to, and shouldn’t have. I’m pointing out that he had the right to defend himself reasonably. That’s all I’m saying.
 
#1,444
#1,444
NashVol11 said:
Not unless he indicated he had one. Thinking he may have a weapon because he’s yelling about going to jail isn’t objectively reasonable in any way
Click to expand...

Thinking he may have a weapon after threatening physical harm is perfectly reasonable. And even then, a weapon isn’t required to physically harm.
 
#1,445
#1,445
Weezer said:
I disagree. You can't just claim "I thought he was armed" to justify killing someone.
Click to expand...

You keep going to killing. I’ve repeatedly said killing was too far. I’m saying he had the right to Reasonably intervene and defend himself/others.
 
#1,446
#1,446
615vols said:
I’ve said repeatedly that he didn’t have to, and shouldn’t have. I’m pointing out that he had the right to defend himself reasonably. That’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
You're trying to straddle a fine line.

I'm going to bow out. I've made my opinion clear. The back and forth between you and Nash seems to be personal, and I don't want to be drawn into that.
 
#1,448
#1,448
615vols said:
Thinking he may have a weapon after threatening physical harm is perfectly reasonable. And even then, a weapon isn’t required to physically harm.
Click to expand...

That’s not how the law works lmao. You can’t just say you reasonably believed someone was about to kill you with a weapon because they were yelling on a train. Where’s that source for “death threats”?
 
#1,449
#1,449
clarksvol00 said:
I haven't seen a post from you about the length of the chokehold prior to my comment.
If there was one before my post, I apologize. I'd still like to know what the guy did prior to the chokehold that would justify lethal force. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I err on the side of not killing somebody.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’ve seen 15 minutes repeatedly. I think it was reasonable to intervene and restrain the guy shouting he’s about to start causing harm to people trapped in a subway car with him. It stopped being reasonable when after 2 minutes he went unconscious and other passengers were saying “you’re gonna kill him”. Now he should face the consequences.
 
#1,450
#1,450
Weezer said:
You're trying to straddle a fine line.

I'm going to bow out. I've made my opinion clear. The back and forth between you and Nash seems to be personal, and I don't want to be drawn into that.
Click to expand...

He made it personal by essentially calling me a liar for saying Neely wasn’t inflicting violence on anyone when he was killed, and 20 pages later Neely still wasn’t lol. Lots of anger and zero substance
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top