Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why are they still being used by LE in some places, and why was the marine in NYC applauded for using it on the homeless guy?

Don't call him homeless. It's a disservice to the many peaceful unhoused individuals to try to garner sympathy for this man by calling him homeless. Many people with homes are aggressive addicts, so unfair to use that.

Dp
Whatever
They should all be off the streets

[Anonymous]

I hope the guy has great witnesses and a jury with common sense of it come to that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

The fact that you normalize the necessity to get away from people who pose danger is very telling
It shouldn’t be like that in a civilized country

+1 truly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

The fact that you normalize the necessity to get away from people who pose danger is very telling
It shouldn’t be like that in a civilized country

+1 truly

people who live in those large urban areas become desensitized to what others would consider not "normal everyday situations".

I grew up in LA, in a not so great area. I was desensitized to crime and violence. Then I moved to a really nice suburb out of CA many many years ago, and now when I go back, the same type of situations I was desensitized to makes me very uncomfortable.

I think the NYC PP is like this. People who live in NYC (and SF) deal with crazy people all the time, so they've become desensitized to the situation and find ways to deal with it, like just move to the next car.

I don't think "just moving to the next car" is going to work in every situation like this. What if the cars are full? What if the guy follow you? That's happened, too, where the crazy person follow you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

The fact that you normalize the necessity to get away from people who pose danger is very telling
It shouldn’t be like that in a civilized country

+1 truly

DP. I think you have it the other way around. In a civilized country, vigilante action is not permitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

The fact that you normalize the necessity to get away from people who pose danger is very telling
It shouldn’t be like that in a civilized country

+1 truly

DP. I think you have it the other way around. In a civilized country, vigilante action is not permitted.

This was not vigilante action, not even close. I'm sure the people on that train felt threatened and they took action, good for them. This sob hit a 67 year old woman in the face, punched her. What a sick individual, and no, he needed to be behind bars hitting himself in the face instead of terrorizing the community. But I'm going to take yours and many other comments, ie AOC, and in the future I will walk/run away and let deviants like this hurt whoever they want to hurt. Not going to be called a vigilante because I'm protecting my personal safety. F society, that's what you want right? Well, you got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Have you never had a mentally ill person threaten to kill you? Happened to me quite recently in Georgetown. I was able to quickly move away. But if someone threatened me like that on the metro, I would be grateful if someone else was at least ready to restrain the person as I moved as far away as I could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not quite, they have to do something that would make a reasonable person fear that an assault was imminent and that deadly force is necessary to defend yourself or someone else. To me, a person acting erratically, throwing garbage at passengers, removing their jacket and violently throwing it to the ground, and yelling about how they don’t mind getting life in prison and are ready to die, would make me extremely concerned that the person was about to do something that could land them in prison because they just didn’t care anymore. To me, the debate is whether the level of force used was justified. I don’t know enough right now, but I would be hard pressed to convict the guy of anything in this situation given the facts as I know them. And before someone asks for a citation, everything I listed was in a WaPo article.

[Anonymous]

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.

“Non-lethal” is a misnomer marketing term. “Less lethal” is somewhat more accurate, but “less likely to be lethal” is probably the most accurate.

The “carotid” choke the Marine used is an extremely common technique in Judo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Mixed Martial Arts and the like. Carotid chokes get applied all the time in those venues. Most people “tap out” but not everybody; some become unconscious.

Police chokeholds were long viewed as less likely to be lethal, particularly as compared to a person being clubbed, hit in the head with a blackjack, gang tackled and pummeled, or even shot. What helped bring them into disrepute was inadequately trained individuals applying them incorrectly, not knowing when to let go, or applying a “trachea” choke rather than a carotid one.

To assert lawful self defense or defense of others, the Marine will need to demonstrate that his actions met the relevant criteria under New York law. A great deal depends on whether a reasonable person would have thought that the individual who was choked represented a real, immediate risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the Marine or someone else. Unfortunately, none of the video published so far shows what led up to the Marine’s actions. But no one is required to absorb the first (potentially fatal) attack before defending themselves. If the Marine can articulate the necessary predicate he should not be charged. If not, he certainly will be, and be in a very bad position.

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind, please, that 9 people were murdered last year on the NY subway. Anyone with any sense would be 100% in their guard any time they ride it. It wouldn’t take much to perceive fear or feel like one is in danger of being physically assaulted

If someone was screaming like a maniac at me when I was riding a train- that would do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind, please, that 9 people were murdered last year on the NY subway. Anyone with any sense would be 100% in their guard any time they ride it. It wouldn’t take much to perceive fear or feel like one is in danger of being physically assaulted

If someone was screaming like a maniac at me when I was riding a train- that would do it.

Yeah. From what I know, this guy over-reacted, possibly in a way that makes him criminally liable. But this was *entirely predictable.* When a society allows public spaces to be taken over by anti-social, frightening, and often violent behavior, it is entirely predictable to that people will respond by feeling scared and defending themselves/others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind, please, that 9 people were murdered last year on the NY subway. Anyone with any sense would be 100% in their guard any time they ride it. It wouldn’t take much to perceive fear or feel like one is in danger of being physically assaulted

If someone was screaming like a maniac at me when I was riding a train- that would do it.

And this is why it is unlikely that a grand jury will ever indict the Marine. I don’t think I could vote to indict him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drug addicts aren't healthy individuals. They die quicker in custody and often stop breathing when normal people would have had no issues.

+1

This seems like the likely explanation of what happened. The Marine probably held the person in a normal chokehold but the person was unhealthy and died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Have you never had a mentally ill person threaten to kill you? Happened to me quite recently in Georgetown. I was able to quickly move away. But if someone threatened me like that on the metro, I would be grateful if someone else was at least ready to restrain the person as I moved as far away as I could.

We don't know exactly what happened leading up to the physical confrontation other than witness accounts that the victim was behaving erratically, including shouting that he didn't care if he lived or went to jail. What is reasonable in terms of a threat from a mentally unstable person is difficult to determine. Sure, anyone who has lived in an urban environment frequently encounters mentally ill individuals and individuals who are addicted to drugs and are exhibiting unstable behaviors. Their mere existence is not a threat, but at some point, are people morally required to wait until they are attacked before they do something?

The mentally ill unhoused person in the video below was muttering about Satan before he brutally attacked a woman who was trying to walk away from him. As a warning, this video is horrible, but who is to say whether a person trying to move to another car might not have been attacked in the same way?

https://abc7ny.com/woman-beaten-in-subway-station-waheed-foster-assault-howard-beach/12268543/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He is right. Her comment was irresponsible. She should have said “died”.