Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

dp.. you think every single person in that car should've moved?

PP of the post you’re responding to. Yes, this happens all the time. There are cars every day with one or few people in them. You get on a car, it smells like vomit or shit, you move. You get on a car, there’s a crazy person who you’re uncomfortable with, you move. What you don’t do is kill that person. That’s not something that happens every day, nor should it.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

NP. I’ve lived and worked in NYC for over 15 years and am constantly on the subway. You know who rides the subway, too? The SEVERAL people who restrained this man. I’m sure they’ve also encountered all sorts of people on the subway in their lives but clearly many people on this car thought this situation was different and warranted action. Do you think this was their first time on a train?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

dp.. you think every single person in that car should've moved?

PP of the post you’re responding to. Yes, this happens all the time. There are cars every day with one or few people in them. You get on a car, it smells like vomit or shit, you move. You get on a car, there’s a crazy person who you’re uncomfortable with, you move. What you don’t do is kill that person. That’s not something that happens every day, nor should it.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

Sure? That has absolutely nothing to do with the points I made, which, again, were (i) the mentally ill person was the instigator, and (ii) characterizing this as a choice between moving cars and killing someone is either deeply stupid or deeply disingenuous.

It also establishes the opposite of the point you were trying to make - if failure to move cars will often lead to *death,* the mentally ill are, in fact, typically dangerous.

Also, I lived in NYC for 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t really care to “understand schizophrenia”. Only so much time in a day, and only so many years on earth. These people are a lost cause and should be locked away. Fed, clothed, kept reasonably comfortable, but that’s it. It’s unfortunate, but I care more about the rest of society—orderly, law abiding, functioning people—than affording these people so much latitude that they impose their misery on everyone else.

There are a great many people who feel this way in America. There are a great many who feel compassion but make little to no effort to change social policies, including investment of tax funds, toward really helping the least of us.

I would bet that the person who made the quoted comments considers themselves a good Christian. Certainly many who do have the same attitude towards the least of us. Real Christianity seems quite dead in America which is probably why we have become a culture where every single day there is a new mass shooting in the news and something like 150,000 deaths of despair (suicides, ODs, etc.) every year. Our country is a bleak place these days.

I appreciate what you are saying, but what do you do with someone who is offered help, but refuses it? There are many charities and programs to help people who need help. I, and many on this board contribute and volunteer for such. What about when the person is also mentally unstable and prone to violence? What many on this board are saying is that such people deserve our sympathy but not our tolerance. We need to think about the victims they create and the trauma they inflict on others.

That crazy man was about to inflict trauma on the passengers of that car. That marine did what he did to prevent that. We should not punish him for it.

DP.
My two cents.... these people should have 2 choices. 1. Get help - if you are drug addicted, you get clean by going to a facility. If you are mentally ill, you go to a hospital and get help - medications, therapy, etc. - whatever it takes. If you cannot manage your mental illness, you remain hospitalized. 2. Go to jail. If you refuse to get help for your addiction/illness - you go to jail. It is not fair to the rest of the public to have to deal with your actions.

That's it. Two choices. Enough of the progressive experiments to deal with homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness. One quick look at some of these cities proves those experiments are not working.

This incident is a failure of NYC. There have been numerous attacks causing severe injury or death on the subway in the past couple years. And, they have not been dealt with appropriately. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

dp.. you think every single person in that car should've moved?

PP of the post you’re responding to. Yes, this happens all the time. There are cars every day with one or few people in them. You get on a car, it smells like vomit or shit, you move. You get on a car, there’s a crazy person who you’re uncomfortable with, you move. What you don’t do is kill that person. That’s not something that happens every day, nor should it.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

NP. I’ve lived and worked in NYC for over 15 years and am constantly on the subway. You know who rides the subway, too? The SEVERAL people who restrained this man. I’m sure they’ve also encountered all sorts of people on the subway in their lives but clearly many people on this car thought this situation was different and warranted action. Do you think this was their first time on a train?

Several people restraining this man, and the unnamed (why?) ex-Marine needs to maintain the strong chokehold? C'mon. The ex-Marine won't be charged for negligible homicide or anything else beyond maybe pleading to a misdemeanor for simple battery. Of course if he were charged he'd be acquitted in a heartbeat (nullification).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are clearly no even a Kindergarten level understanding of the “reasonable person” the person must have apprehension which is different than fear. The danger must be imminent.

Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.

NP, but … did you have a stroke while writing this?

I’m not going to play anonymous lawyer v anonymous lawyer on the internet, but for someone in the middle of a criminal law D measuring contest, you seem really confused.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to comprehend.

100% correct. I have no earthly idea what this string of words means (and I wasn’t the PP you were addressing anyway):

“Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.”

Is English not your native language?

It’s literally copied from the legal definition which is why you can’t comprehend it not because it’s bad English.

Lol look back at your post. There is literally nothing that was copied from a legal definition. It’s jibberish.

Exactly from the definition idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

This is where you lose all credibility. You can’t even acknowledge that he was screaming about wanting to go back to prison and being ready to die, oh and also throwing garbage at passengers.

This where you lose all credibility. You can’t even admit he was never a threat to anybody.

If I had not food or water going to jail seems like and easy solution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This dude was off his rocker screaming at and assaulting people in NYC for the better part of a decade. His MJ routine is from years ago when he wasn’t as delusional or violent. It’s a shame these people aren’t locked up or institutionalized where they won’t be a threat to themselves or others but he was a ticking time bomb and finally met his match.

He should have been in jail after assaulting the 67 year old woman. Then none of this would have happened.

So his death is the fault of NY and the failure of the justice system.

NP. But I completely agree!! This guy should have been in jail. Ridiculous that people have to defend themselves now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

Exactly, PP. Prior history does not matter--especially since no one on the train, including the marine who placed him in the headlock, knew about it! So prior history was not a factor in the marine's decision to put him in a headlock. That decision was based on only what the marine saw with his own eyes, and what he saw did not include an actual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

Exactly, PP. Prior history does not matter--especially since no one on the train, including the marine who placed him in the headlock, knew about it! So prior history was not a factor in the marine's decision to put him in a headlock. That decision was based on only what the marine saw with his own eyes, and what he saw did not include an actual assault.

It suggests that he wasn't just innocently asking for water, like many have charactarized it, and that he was convincingly threatening other people.

[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: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.

dp.. you think every single person in that car should've moved?

PP of the post you’re responding to. Yes, this happens all the time. There are cars every day with one or few people in them. You get on a car, it smells like vomit or shit, you move. You get on a car, there’s a crazy person who you’re uncomfortable with, you move. What you don’t do is kill that person. That’s not something that happens every day, nor should it.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

NP. I’ve lived and worked in NYC for over 15 years and am constantly on the subway. You know who rides the subway, too? The SEVERAL people who restrained this man. I’m sure they’ve also encountered all sorts of people on the subway in their lives but clearly many people on this car thought this situation was different and warranted action. Do you think this was their first time on a train?

Several people restraining this man, and the unnamed (why?) ex-Marine needs to maintain the strong chokehold? C'mon. The ex-Marine won't be charged for negligible homicide or anything else beyond maybe pleading to a misdemeanor for simple battery. Of course if he were charged he'd be acquitted in a heartbeat (nullification).

The marine remains unnamed because of the nutjob protestors.... Once his identity is revealed, he becomes a target by the left.
Seems as if there will be a grand jury next week. A key part of the questioning will be the marine's mindset during the chokehold.
Hopefully, the GJ will have some sense and recommend no indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

Exactly, PP. Prior history does not matter--especially since no one on the train, including the marine who placed him in the headlock, knew about it! So prior history was not a factor in the marine's decision to put him in a headlock. That decision was based on only what the marine saw with his own eyes, and what he saw did not include an actual assault.

How many times does it need to be said that you do not have to wait until someone gets assaulted before intervening?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

Exactly, PP. Prior history does not matter--especially since no one on the train, including the marine who placed him in the headlock, knew about it! So prior history was not a factor in the marine's decision to put him in a headlock. That decision was based on only what the marine saw with his own eyes, and what he saw did not include an actual assault.

It matters in that it lends credence to the Marine’s version of events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

You'd have to prove there was an intention to kill him. Some call it "execution" or even "lynching", others call it "accident" or "restraint". Choice of words indicates nothing but personal opinions, video doesn't prove intention. But propaganda has already started to make him another martyr. His history of violent assaults (some captured on video and already circulating on Twitter) is going to hurt his "saint" status and also not going to play well into some narratives. AOC is already at it clamoring about many mentally ill incarcerated at Rikers and how they deserve special housing instead, except she has no clue how to get them treated and housed without endangering people around them. And then race baiting is beginning too with minor protests erupting in NYC, and some stirring the pot to get momentum.

The thing that mental health crisis is getting attention finally is not a bad thing, it's time to address this seriously. But

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

I think you need to read about his history of assaulting and hurting people and being arrested repeatedly. He should have been hospitalized long-term.

His history is irrelevant… you cant kill someone’s because they assaulted someone 8 months ago.

You'd have to prove there was an intention to kill him. Some call it "execution" or even "lynching", others call it "accident" or "restraint". Choice of words indicates nothing but personal opinions, video doesn't prove intention. But propaganda has already started to make him another martyr. His history of violent assaults (some captured on video and already circulating on Twitter) is going to hurt his "saint" status and also not going to play well into some narratives. AOC is already at it clamoring about many mentally ill incarcerated at Rikers and how they deserve special housing instead, except she has no clue how to get them treated and housed without endangering people around them. And then race baiting is beginning too with minor protests erupting in NYC, and some stirring the pot to get momentum.

The thing that mental health crisis is getting attention finally is not a bad thing, it's time to address this seriously. But

+1