Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

[Anonymous]

Chokeholds are coming under scrutiny at the local, state, and federal level. To state the obvious, they can be lethal when done improperly.

*Federal officers are now prohibited from using chokeholds and executing warrants unannounced in some circumstances, per Justice Department.

*Local governments or law enforcement officials in at least 23 cities completely or partially banned the use of chokeholds, carotid restraints, or both following the protests.

*At least 17 states, including Minnesota, also enacted legislation to ban or restrict the practice.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/16/justice-department-bans-chokeholds-limits-no-knock-entries/8360832002/#:~:text=Local%20governments%20or%20law%20enforcement,or%20both%20following%20the%20protests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

Being frightened does not raise to a level of needing to kill or even assault someone by restraint.

You can only defend yourself or other when assaulted or your life is in danger (like pointing a gun at you).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't there other non lethal means to restrain someone? Why a chokehold? Should realize by now that people have died, unintentionally it would appear, due to law enforcement using chokeholds to restrain.

Agree with PP that a Marine has a good chance of knowing when to stop so this guy is unconscious instead of dead. And he had two other guys to help restrain him, so not seeing the need for lethal force AT ALL with what’s been reported so far.

And yes, if someone or something is annoying you while on public transportation, you move. That’s been true since I was riding the Metrobus to school in the 80s when I was 11 and it is still true today. It’s not like the subways are full right now. None of this was necessary.

It's unlikely that the homeless guy was in peak, or even average, physical condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

Being frightened does not raise to a level of needing to kill or even assault someone by restraint.

You can only defend yourself or other when assaulted or your life is in danger (like pointing a gun at you).

You are wrong.

Being frightened is a legal justification for using deadly force IF you reasonably feared for your life.

What constitutes such a reasonable fear varies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

Being frightened does not raise to a level of needing to kill or even assault someone by restraint.

You can only defend yourself or other when assaulted or your life is in danger (like pointing a gun at you).

You are wrong.

Being frightened is a legal justification for using deadly force IF you reasonably feared for your life.

What constitutes such a reasonable fear varies.

No it doesn’t. The person has to take actions to threaten your life. Otherwise I can shoot ever single man that walk behind me on my walking path, because that is frightening. Or I can shoot every single man standing in my parking garage at night when I arrive home from work.

I can’t just kill people who frighten me.

They must commit an act that actually threaten my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are wrong.

Being frightened is a legal justification for using deadly force IF you reasonably feared for your life.

What constitutes such a reasonable fear varies.

No it doesn’t. The person has to take actions to threaten your life. Otherwise I can shoot ever single man that walk behind me on my walking path, because that is frightening. Or I can shoot every single man standing in my parking garage at night when I arrive home from work.

I can’t just kill people who frighten me.

They must commit an act that actually threaten my life.

Not in stand your ground states. You can shoot someone for simply saying you were scared "when they knocked on your door."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chokeholds are coming under scrutiny at the local, state, and federal level. To state the obvious, they can be lethal when done improperly.

*Federal officers are now prohibited from using chokeholds and executing warrants unannounced in some circumstances, per Justice Department.

*Local governments or law enforcement officials in at least 23 cities completely or partially banned the use of chokeholds, carotid restraints, or both following the protests.

*At least 17 states, including Minnesota, also enacted legislation to ban or restrict the practice.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/16/justice-department-bans-chokeholds-limits-no-knock-entries/8360832002/#:~:text=Local%20governments%20or%20law%20enforcement,or%20both%20following%20the%20protests.

LOL...maybe there are a few exceptions, but choke holds have been considered lethal force in LE for over 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

Being frightened does not raise to a level of needing to kill or even assault someone by restraint.

You can only defend yourself or other when assaulted or your life is in danger (like pointing a gun at you).

Says who? You? And verbal assaults count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

And yet he was killed. So a charge of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate.

Hey, you play dumb games, you win dumb prizes. It's unfortunate that the man died, but I think the man who restrained him until the police arrived absolutely did the right thing.

[Anonymous]

A drug addict posing danger to law-abiding passengers on a NYC subway train subdued by several bystanders tragically died. It's a shame that he was allowed to walk the streets untreated, and that the NYPD cannot put officers every hundred feet to deal with the addicts who have taken over a deserted city.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone with credibility know how long the choke hold was in place after the crazy man went unconscious? This could be the difference between no charges and a murder charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.

Obviously he went too far in restraining him. I don't think he should have been killed and I think it's appropriate that he be tried for manslaughter. I just think it's ridiculous to act like the guy posed no threat to others.

Or that it's completely unreasonable (without actually having been there) that people might have been frightened by his behavior.

Being frightened does not raise to a level of needing to kill or even assault someone by restraint.

You can only defend yourself or other when assaulted or your life is in danger (like pointing a gun at you).

Says who? You? And verbal assaults count.

“Verbal assault”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A drug addict posing danger to law-abiding passengers on a NYC subway train subdued by several bystanders tragically died. It's a shame that he was allowed to walk the streets untreated, and that the NYPD cannot put officers every hundred feet to deal with the addicts who have taken over a deserted city.

Great job, PR flack for the Marine’s lawyer!