Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

Not if I’m on the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

What indication was there that Neely was armed? You can’t just kill people based on assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he didn't!!!! Did you even watch the video before you started running your mouth?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

You just have to read this thread to see why obtaining a conviction, which requires a unanimous verdict, will be next to impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

What indication was there that Neely was armed? You can’t just kill people based on assumptions.

Defending himself from what exactly? Someone yelling about food and being hungry on the subway? He was unarmed and didn't touch anyone. Defend himself from what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

What indication was there that Neely was armed? You can’t just kill people based on assumptions.

No, but people other than the Marine called 911 reporting that they thought Neely was armed, which lends credence to any claim by the Marine that he thought Neely was armed and that’s why he didn’t let go sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

What indication was there that Neely was armed? You can’t just kill people based on assumptions.

Defending himself from what exactly? Someone yelling about food and being hungry on the subway? He was unarmed and didn't touch anyone. Defend himself from what?

Someone yelled that they thought Neely had a knife or gun. It's reasonable that Penny heard that.

You can make up scenarios but facts are important.

[Anonymous]

Statement from the Marine:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Make the jury sit there for 15 minutes to see how long it is choking someone out who stopped resisting after 2 minutes. I would think the conviction would be pretty easy. This was an over the top reaction to a typical mentally ill person on the subway. Something is wrong with that ex-marine.

The Marine jumped up as soon as Neely stopped moving and turned him to his side. Your criticism is wrong.

No he did not. The video is very clear.

Penny thought Neely was armed. He was justified in defending himself and the other passengers.

What indication was there that Neely was armed? You can’t just kill people based on assumptions.

Defending himself from what exactly? Someone yelling about food and being hungry on the subway? He was unarmed and didn't touch anyone. Defend himself from what?

Someone yelled that they thought Neely had a knife or gun. It's reasonable that Penny heard that.

You can make up scenarios but facts are important.

I agree. Someone made up a scenario that Neely was armed. This was not a fact. And now he’s dead. That’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

A different former prosecutor here, I have watched the video and I think the former Marine gets convicted of whatever form of homicide he is properly charged with. He choked the guy several minutes beyond the guy going limp and unresponsive, while bystanders filmed and urged him to let go. The case is almost exactly the same as Floyd, the only difference being that while Floyd barely made any trouble for police this guy was apparently yelling for food and water. Nobody there knew his arrest history it cannot possibly be relevant to whether the Marine’s actions were justified - they were not justified to the level that he took them. Whether the Marine has PTSD or we find out he has other history that might explain his motivation to choke the guy much longer than necessary only time will tell.

I can’t help thinking what might have happened if someone on that train just offered the guy a water bottle and the lunch or snack they had in their bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A different former prosecutor here, I have watched the video and I think the former Marine gets convicted of whatever form of homicide he is properly charged with. He choked the guy several minutes beyond the guy going limp and unresponsive, while bystanders filmed and urged him to let go. The case is almost exactly the same as Floyd, the only difference being that while Floyd barely made any trouble for police this guy was apparently yelling for food and water. Nobody there knew his arrest history it cannot possibly be relevant to whether the Marine’s actions were justified - they were not justified to the level that he took them. Whether the Marine has PTSD or we find out he has other history that might explain his motivation to choke the guy much longer than necessary only time will tell.

I can’t help thinking what might have happened if someone on that train just offered the guy a water bottle and the lunch or snack they had in their bag.

The guy had a history of actual violence, not just erratic or scary behavior. One family member said that he had schizophrenia but no medication - people with untreated schizophrenia are perceptibly unpredictable. With the belief that he was armed and his threatening words, self-defense is easy. A charge or conviction seems unlikely.