Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently a homeless man asked me for money. I said no apologetically, but he tried to attack me and steal my bag. He spit on me. I screamed as loud as I could. If I had a weapon, I would have used it. He could have easily killed me. I am very ill and it would not take much from a lunatic homeless vagrant to kill me. Sorry, I'm not dying for these people, they have already taken enough from me.

But this man did not do any of those things.

DP: How do you know what he did and didn't do? You weren't there and I'm sure the full story isn't out yet.

""
He didn't do any of those things this is all he did: "Neely was on a Manhattan F train and had been reportedly screaming about being hungry, thirsty, and tired when he was pinned down and placed in a chokehold by another passenger." That's it, didn't attack anyone was just acting loud which I see in DC everyday but they don't get attack and murdered.

Yeah. I’m sure he was a real sweetheart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was murder which was noted by the corner and he should be charged.

It was a homicide, which means killing of a person by another. Not all homicides are criminal. Criminality is not a call the coroner can make.

+1, so many people spouting off in this thread who are completely ignorant of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently a homeless man asked me for money. I said no apologetically, but he tried to attack me and steal my bag. He spit on me. I screamed as loud as I could. If I had a weapon, I would have used it. He could have easily killed me. I am very ill and it would not take much from a lunatic homeless vagrant to kill me. Sorry, I'm not dying for these people, they have already taken enough from me.

But this man did not do any of those things.

DP: How do you know what he did and didn't do? You weren't there and I'm sure the full story isn't out yet.

""
He didn't do any of those things this is all he did: "Neely was on a Manhattan F train and had been reportedly screaming about being hungry, thirsty, and tired when he was pinned down and placed in a chokehold by another passenger." That's it, didn't attack anyone was just acting loud which I see in DC everyday but they don't get attack and murdered.

Read the NY Post article with the more complete account from the witness.

[Anonymous]

Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

+331.9m

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Tell me, you don’t understand defund the police without telling me you don’t understand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

You are clearly not an expert on criminal law or procedure either since you are also not laying out the correct standard. If a reasonable person would believe that an assault was imminent, it is permissible to defend yourself or others. You do not need to wait for the person to actually assault someone. I find it reasonable that this Marine engaged with the homeless guy after he was yelling aggressively, throwing garbage at people, and saying things like he wants to go to prison and he’s ready to die. To me, that signifies someone getting ready to do something. The 15 minute chokehold may be a different issue, but I have zero issue with the physical engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy is getting charged, I guarantee it. No reason to put someone in a chokehold for 15 minutes, especially with other men helping to contain the mentally ill man.

It was disproportionate use of force relative to the risk. No gun or knife was drawn.

He didn't seem to active have him in a chokehold for 15 minutes. According to the phone video, he had him in a chokehold for some time and when he stopped kicking (passed out), let go.

Holding him until he stopped flailing doesn't seem disproportionate. Up until then, the unhoused person was dangerous.

Yes it was approx 15 min.

If someone had you in a choke hold for just being loud you would also fight for your life.

Waiting until he is dead is too long.

The Marine picked a good one to chokehold, someone who was behaving frighteningly and attacking other passengers and had a history of attacking people.

Funny how he just happened to pick someone with a lengthy history of violence. Wonder how that could have happened?

It’s called profiling and it’s illegal

No, I didn't mean profiling. I meant that it's not a coincidence that the unhoused person who was acting threateningly and frighteningly also happened to be a person with a lengthy violent past.

It is profiling because if it was a bunch of white lax bros acting loud and obnoxious the guy wouldn’t have done anything.

He made assumptions about someone based on their appearance and circumstances. Profiling.

If a lax bro was on there being loud and aggressive and threatening toward other passengers, and if there were a recent history of lax bros assaulting or even killing passengers on trains, I think it is likely the same thing would have happened.

[Anonymous]

And, we wonder why people rarely come to the aid of others who are in danger because of the actions of others.

How many times have we seen attacks and assaults on metro trains and nobody helps?

Look how this young marine is being treated on this board by some. There is your answer........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

Not np. For the slow to learn, his intention was most likely not to kill anyone, just to restrain him until help arrived, as the others who were helping were trying to do. I can use force if I feel endangered or threatened, whether you like it or not. I can assure you if a marine wanted to kill you, it would happen fairly quickly given their training. This man was trying to help until assistance arrived. Clearly since there was more than one person helping in the restraint, there was a threat perceived. Killing was most likely never in anyone's mind. But you go on with your anger.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kill someone or push the emergency button to let someone know what's happening?? He picked to kill someone he should be charged.

Oh? If the homeless person punched a passenger, would the conductor rescue them? Would anyone, besides this Marine?

Yet that didn't happen. Tell me again WHY was he murdered?

He wasn't murdered, but with that you're bias is showing and there is no discussion.

[Anonymous]

Super sad.

We paid the guy to learn how to kill people, and he used it against a fellow American who he said was not a threat.

Our country so fails mentally ill people. Including, perhaps, that marine.

This man’s mom was murdered when he was 14. What a sad life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Super sad.

We paid the guy to learn how to kill people, and he used it against a fellow American who he said was not a threat.

Our country so fails mentally ill people. Including, perhaps, that marine.

This man’s mom was murdered when he was 14. What a sad life.

It's sad but the unhoused person's fate was inevitable.

Marines are trained to handle problems; he did. He didn't leave it to someone else, he tool care of things.

(I thought the man's mother died when he was 26. Yes, a sad life. And now he adds to the statistic of autistics who die young.)