New York City

[VOLS INC.]

Really depends on where you’re at.
I’ve seen random attacks first hand on those subways.
You think I’m a pussy for being smart enough to stay out of harm’s way, meh good for you. It’s not like anyone here would think you’re the guy to go to for sound advice
Edit: no i don’t believe they/them is black. Could be. But that changes nothing. It was your side that said people like Clarence Thomas was still using “white privilege”. So you don’t have to be white to use their privilege. Even we Jews are now guilty of being white if we don’t think like we’re told

Edit2: I also avoid skin heads. What a pussy

Wait. You aren’t white.

Ignore list in 3,2,1…..

 

[Orangeslice13]

Wait. You aren’t white.

Ignore list in 3,2,1…..

Depends on who you ask and what the political figures are saying that day. Fortunately I am close enough to hide in plain sight. My youngest son is an obvious Jew though.

I wonder if I was quick enough for him to see I responded

 

[615vols]

here’s the entire quote and not just your satanized version

Some witnesses reportedly told police that Neely was yelling threats and harassing passengers on the train, authorities said. Police sources told ABC News that Penny was not specifically being threatened by Neely when he intervened and that Neely had not become violent and had not been threatening anyone in particular.

Also this: From the ny post interview with a passenger on the subway train: “He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said of Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

After living in Memphis, NYC is Mayberry in comparison....

 

[NashVol11]

“I would kill a mfer, I don’t care, I’ll take a bullet” isn’t “I’ll kill all of you on this train” @Orangeslice13 nor is it contradictory to the police saying he didn’t threaten anyone in particular

 

[615vols]

“I would kill a mfer, I don’t care, I’ll take a bullet” isn’t “I’ll kill all of you on this train” @Orangeslice13 nor is it contradictory to the police saying he didn’t threaten anyone in particular

“Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders on the train that he wanted food, that he wasn’t taking no for an answer, and that he would hurt anyone on the train.”
So we have reports of him screaming he’ll hurt anyone on the train, kill a mother fu**** , go to prison for life, etc.
pretty clear he was threatening the passengers.

 

[NashVol11]

“Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders on the train that he wanted food, that he wasn’t taking no for an answer, and that he would hurt anyone on the train.”
So we have reports of him screaming he’ll hurt anyone on the train, kill a mother fu**** , go to prison for life, etc.
pretty clear he was threatening the passengers.

Bolded part is fair I guess, still kind of general and the broader context is below. If Vazquez’s account is accurate I’ve seen several calmer versions of the same speech and I think that’s a little different from threatening to kill the people on the train.

Witnesses and law enforcement sources said Neely got on the train and started acting very aggressively toward other riders, threatening to harm them. Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders on the train that he wanted food, that he wasn't taking no for an answer, and that he would hurt anyone on the train.

"The man got on the subway car and began to say a somewhat aggressive speech, saying he was hungry, he was thirsty, that he didn't care about anything, he didn't care about going to jail, he didn't care that he gets a big life sentence," said Juan Alberto Vazquez, who was in the subway car and recording part of what happened afterward. "That 'It doesn't even matter if I died.'"

Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well. It was then that a 24-year-old rider came up behind Neely and put him in a chokehold, holding him on the ground. Two other men stood over them and also helped subdue him, video showed.

 

[lawgator1]

“I would kill a mfer, I don’t care, I’ll take a bullet” isn’t “I’ll kill all of you on this train” @Orangeslice13 nor is it contradictory to the police saying he didn’t threaten anyone in particular

If it was on the street that might be slightly different but when you are in a confined space like a subway car a threat to kill anyone randomly is hard not to take as a threat to all in the immediate vicinity.

May there be an element of people generally being tired of this kind of demeanor and vague threats? Sure. And is it possible he didn't mean it literally? Of course. But if he was armed with a knife under his jacket he could kill or seriously injure someone in 3 seconds and I just don't think the burden is on the passengers to assume that he is not a threat because they've seen this type of behavior before.

As a court said in a recent case of mine with an officer firing into a car which confronted and then lunged at him, the officer was not obliged to wait and hope for the best before defending himself.

 

[NashVol11]

Do you think he killed him intentionally ?

I hope not, and I don’t think so. I do think it’s fair to say that people tend to be more careless with the lives of homeless people, but either way my read of second degree manslaughter is that it doesn’t require intent, only recklessness.

 

[Orangeslice13]

“I would kill a mfer, I don’t care, I’ll take a bullet” isn’t “I’ll kill all of you on this train” @Orangeslice13 nor is it contradictory to the police saying he didn’t threaten anyone in particular

So we agree he was threatening people.
That must have been hard for you

 

[Orangeslice13]

If it was on the street that might be slightly different but when you are in a confined space like a subway car a threat to kill anyone randomly is hard not to take as a threat to all in the immediate vicinity.

May there be an element of people generally being tired of this kind of demeanor and vague threats? Sure. And is it possible he didn't mean it literally? Of course. But if he was armed with a knife under his jacket he could kill or seriously injure someone in 3 seconds and I just don't think the burden is on the passengers to assume that he is not a threat because they've seen this type of behavior before.

As a court said in a recent case of mine with an officer firing into a car which confronted and then lunged at him, the officer was not obliged to wait and hope for the best before defending himself.

I’ve seen some pretty aggressive stuff on those subways. The thing I find interesting is that there were several people holding down the man who died. Not just the marine. That seems to imply that everyone there thought the threat was real.

We will see…I guess

 

[lawgator1]

I’ve seen some pretty aggressive stuff on those subways. The thing I find interesting is that there were several people holding down the man who died. Not just the marine. That seems to imply that everyone there thought the threat was real.

We will see…I guess

It does. The prosecutor will have to try to angle that they did not personally think so but that they each assumed that Penny did and acted in that belief. I personally doubt that those persons will say that when oush comes to shove. I suspect they will back Penny.

 

[VolStrom]

It does. The prosecutor will have to try to angle that they did not personally think so but that they each assumed that Penny did and acted in that belief. I personally doubt that those persons will say that when oush comes to shove. I suspect they will back Penny.

Penny will get off on the manslaughter charge and then will get sued in civil court. He will lose in civil court, and the worthless family will collect what is left of Penny's legal defense fund. Hide and watch if this isn't what happens.

 

[hndog609]

I think there has been more than sufficient justification presented for Penny to have initially subdued Neely. It's my understanding Penny was not the only person that felt justified in helping subdue Neely either. I don't think people that start their condemnation right at the point of Penny taking action have an especially strong argument.

I think there needs to be a bright line between the above and what became the end result. First I would like to make clear that a rear head lock does NOT need to be either a choke or a carotid compression hold. Most everyone reading this (and certainly if they had near age siblings) has put someone in a simple rear head lock at some point. It is my understanding that Neely was conscious and in fact physically struggling for some time which means, at the very least, even an intentional choke/carotid compression hold wasn't being effectively applied or even the intent at all. Even still we were left with someone unconscious and later pronounced dead.

So the balancing act here is where on the fault line does Penny stand if the original action might be deemed justified (putting Neely in a headlock in the first place) when the end result is still a death? Lack of lethal intent isn't some magic macguffin that absolves all culpability. It should come as no surprise that actions that result in death fall under scrutiny. If in fact it is accepted in court that subduing Neely was originally justifiable it will likely matter in down stream sentencing.

 

[VolStrom]

I think there has been more than sufficient justification presented for Penny to have initially subdued Neely. It's my understanding Penny was not the only person that felt justified in helping subdue Neely either. I don't think people that start their condemnation right at the point of Penny taking action have an especially strong argument.

I think there needs to be a bright line between the above and what became the end result. First I would like to make clear that a rear head lock does NOT need to be either a choke or a carotid compression hold. Most everyone reading this (and certainly if they had near age siblings) has put someone in a simple rear head lock at some point. It is my understanding that Neely was conscious and in fact physically struggling for some time which means, at the very least, even an intentional choke/carotid compression hold wasn't being effectively applied or even the intent at all. Even still we were left with someone unconscious and later pronounced dead.

So the balancing act here is where on the fault line does Penny stand if the original action might be deemed justified (putting Neely in a headlock in the first place) when the end result is still a death? Lack of lethal intent isn't some magic macguffin that absolves all culpability. It should come as no surprise that actions that result in death fall under scrutiny. If in fact it is accepted in court that subduing Neely was originally justifiable it will likely matter in down stream sentencing.

Just fess up, this is a racial war with a black man being killed by a white man. It doesn't matter that the black man had mental issues or had been arrested over 40 times, the status quo in NYC is going to blame the white man. Another wedge driven between the races.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Just fess up, this is a racial war with a black man being killed by a white man. It doesn't matter that the black man had mental issues or had been arrested over 40 times, the status quo in NYC is going to blame the white man. Another wedge driven between the races.

Medical evidence and experts will be very interesting in this trial.
The world will lose its mind if something like a stroke or a heart attack unrelated to the headlock caused his death.

 

[Weezer]

Just fess up, this is a racial war with a black man being killed by a white man. It doesn't matter that the black man had mental issues or had been arrested over 40 times, the status quo in NYC is going to blame the white man. Another wedge driven between the races.

And if it comes out he held the man in a chokehold for 15 minutes? Would you consider that excessive?

 

[Weezer]

Medical evidence and experts will be very interesting in this trial.
The world will lose its mind if something like a stroke or a heart attack unrelated to the headlock caused his death.

Let's just get the truth. If something else caused his death, that certainly mitigates the marine's actions. But if the chokehold killed the man, especially if the chokehold was held for an extended period, we have a different story.

This shouldn't be about race. One man took an action that resulted in the death of another man. The full truth is what needs to be found.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Let's just get the truth. If something else caused his death, that certainly mitigates the marine's actions. But if the chokehold killed the man, especially if the chokehold was held for an extended period, we have a different story.

This shouldn't be about race. One man took an action that resulted in the death of another man. The full truth is what needs to be found.

Again, here’s my problem with the whole “choke hold” debate.
It’s possible that he applied a choke at the end that caused the death but there’s absolutely no way he had it on for 15 minutes.
I’m a BJJ black belt. I can teach you the RNC in 20 seconds. The RNC will put anyone it’s applied to out in less than 8 seconds. It can be fatal in 30 seconds. Usually longer but 30 starts the window. There just no way a marine didn’t know how to properly apply the choke……

now if you tell me that after 15 minutes of struggling the marine got tired and began to fear losing control and not being able to fight anymore he panicked put the choke on and held it too long….that would add up in my mind but the just wasn’t a 15 minute choke hold.

 

[Weezer]

Again, here’s my problem with the whole “choke hold” debate.
It’s possible that he applied a choke at the end that caused the death but there’s absolutely no way he had it on for 15 minutes.
I’m a BJJ black belt. I can teach you the RNC in 20 seconds. The RNC will put anyone it’s applied to out in less than 8 seconds. It can be fatal in 30 seconds. Usually longer but 30 starts the window. There just no way a marine didn’t know how to properly apply the choke……

now if you tell me that after 15 minutes of struggling the marine got tired and began to fear losing control and not being able to fight anymore he panicked put the choke on and held it too long….that would add up in my mind but the just wasn’t a 15 minute choke hold.

I think the marine killed a man. I don't know if it was intentional or unintentional. I don't care what the dead man's past was because the marine didn't know it. The dead man's actions that day didn't warrant being killed. So unless some other medical condition killed him, the marine, IMO, is at least guilty of manslaughter. I doubt he intended to kill the man, but he did. Now, if the dead man had a stroke or a heart attack, then the story changes IMO. But if he died from the hold, it's at least manslaughter.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Hundreds of Border Crossers to Soon Enjoy Living in Manhattan’s Iconic Roosevelt Hotel, Paid for by Taxpayers

Hundreds of border crossers and illegal aliens will soon enjoy living in New York City’s iconic Roosevelt Hotel — paid for by the city’s taxpayers.

Since the spring of 2022, more than 60,000 border crossers and illegal aliens have arrived in the sanctuary city of New York City, with most being bused directly from Texas by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in an effort to save his state the financial burden of illegal immigration.

As New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) has scrambled to handle the influx, his office has turned the city’s coffers into a slush fund for the powerful hotel and real estate industry, which also serves as some of his biggest political donors.

Eventually, the hotel is set to house close to 1,000 border crossers and illegal aliens. The cost will fall exclusively on New Yorkers, who will foot an annual $75 million bill to convert the Roosevelt Hotel into a migrant shelter.

Border Crossers Soon to Enjoy Living in Manhattan's Iconic Roosevelt Hotel, Paid for by Taxpayers

 

[Orangeburst]

Here we go. How can a Mayor have such power?

New York to Track Residents’ Food Purchases and Place ‘Caps on Meat’ Served by Public Institutions

 

[Orangeburst]

.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

They do this in a lot of places and they want be coming back out.

 

[VolStrom]

They do this in a lot of places and they want be coming back out.

Damn. This sounds like it was in Great Britain, but they do this here in the USA, the gene pool will become a lot smarter.