Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess strong young men should allow predators to attack women and seniors. The new way.

Who was physically attacked by the guy who was killed? Or are you just arguing Strawmen?

He had a pretty established track record of assault. He landed at least one person in the hospital. People deserve better than waiting around for someone attacking and assaulting people to cross the line into murder. Neely was a disaster waiting to happen and here it is.

Which no one on that train could have known, so it’s utter bullshit to use it as an excuse to lay hands on this man.

It means when he was acting threateningly, he was apparently really convincing. The bystanders were convinced. Were you there? Why do you think he wasn't threatening?

Why do you think he was? You were snugged up in your Burke townhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess strong young men should allow predators to attack women and seniors. The new way.

Who was physically attacked by the guy who was killed? Or are you just arguing Strawmen?

He had a pretty established track record of assault. He landed at least one person in the hospital. People deserve better than waiting around for someone attacking and assaulting people to cross the line into murder. Neely was a disaster waiting to happen and here it is.

Which no one on that train could have known, so it’s utter bullshit to use it as an excuse to lay hands on this man.

It means when he was acting threateningly, he was apparently really convincing. The bystanders were convinced. Were you there? Why do you think he wasn't threatening?

Why do you think he was? You were snugged up in your Burke townhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't consider going to NYC for any reason.

Good, we don’t want you.

One less potential subway victim, that's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will be acquitted.

After spending tens of thousands on legal defense.
And, I bet gofundme won't let him raise money.

GiveSendGo is so much better.

Actually, there is a fundraiser on givesendgo that has over $100,000 raised so far. Good.

Good. When the killer goes to jail, that money can be used to pay the settlement to the victim’s next of kin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will be acquitted.

After spending tens of thousands on legal defense.
And, I bet gofundme won't let him raise money.

GiveSendGo is so much better.

Actually, there is a fundraiser on givesendgo that has over $100,000 raised so far. Good.

Good. When the killer goes to jail, that money can be used to pay the settlement to the victim’s next of kin.

yeah, because there will be so much of it after defense fees. I'm betting this guy walks--as he should.

[Anonymous]

And this is why NY office space is empty. I can't get my ny team in because transit isn't an option and we've cut out car service. Now people have to be worried that if they defend themselves or others they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense lawyers so an overzealous DA can flex his liberals? These charges will be dropped and the guy will never spend an hour in jail but this should infuriate people just as much as orangeman and his fascist brigade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is why NY office space is empty. I can't get my ny team in because transit isn't an option and we've cut out car service. Now people have to be worried that if they defend themselves or others they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense lawyers so an overzealous DA can flex his liberals? These charges will be dropped and the guy will never spend an hour in jail but this should infuriate people just as much as orangeman and his fascist brigade.

The Cult doesn’t care. Cities are rotting before our eyes but their righteousness is blind to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is why NY office space is empty. I can't get my ny team in because transit isn't an option and we've cut out car service. Now people have to be worried that if they defend themselves or others they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense lawyers so an overzealous DA can flex his liberals? These charges will be dropped and the guy will never spend an hour in jail but this should infuriate people just as much as orangeman and his fascist brigade.

PP New Yorker. I am one of the women who finds the minimization of the safety concerns we have on the train repellent, and I’m also the woman who frequently passes through the station where Neely was killed. Anyway. My husband’s office is in midtown and he and everyone from the CEO and upper management is in 5 days a week. Everyone takes the train, excepting possibly the CEO. This whole idea that it’s not possible to staff an office because of the trains is simply not true.

We’ve had an interesting, complex conversation here. No need to derail it, right?

[Anonymous]

Alvin Bragg and Mayor Adams have caved to the mob.
If they had gathered all the evidence, the videos, and had done their due diligence in speaking to everyone involved, including witnesses, there would be no charges. Same if he had taken this to a Grand Jury.

And, activist Al Sharpton had a hand in this too....

“I talked to the D.A.’s office,” Sharpton told the crowd at his weekly Saturday rally. “I said, I know y’all got to do an investigation — do what you gotta do, I’m not attacking nobody — but I’m saying, this man needs to be prosecuted, ’cause what you will do if you do not prosecute him in my judgment is you will set a standard of vigilantism that we cannot tolerate.”

“The precedent alone is a threat to all of us,” Sharpton stated, according to the Washington Examiner. “We cannot allow this lawlessness to go unchecked.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/05/07/we-cannot-allow-this-lawlessness-sharpton-calls-for-charges-against-man-who-subdued-jordan-neely-1356782/

[Anonymous]

This is America. You shouldn’t be able to murder someone with your bare hands just because they are acting strange or having a mental health episode. That isn’t “self defense.” The law disagrees.

The people supporting the Marine are inching toward the notion that they should be able to kill anyone they deem a “threat.” And guess who they will consider a “threat” just because their fee-fees are agitated?

Holding this view, and acknowledging that the city has serious issues with the mentally ill roaming the streets and posing threats are compatible.

That said, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely expansive view of personal liberties. You have every right to be a raving mentally ill lunatic on the subway as long as you don’t commit a crime. Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. I’m supportive of looser involuntary commitment laws, but that would likely go against everything the current SC has been recently promoting in regards to a very expansive view of personal liberties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is America. You shouldn’t be able to murder someone with your bare hands just because they are acting strange or having a mental health episode. That isn’t “self defense.” The law disagrees.

The people supporting the Marine are inching toward the notion that they should be able to kill anyone they deem a “threat.” And guess who they will consider a “threat” just because their fee-fees are agitated?

Holding this view, and acknowledging that the city has serious issues with the mentally ill roaming the streets and posing threats are compatible.

That said, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely expansive view of personal liberties. You have every right to be a raving mentally ill lunatic on the subway as long as you don’t commit a crime. Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. I’m supportive of looser involuntary commitment laws, but that would likely go against everything the current SC has been recently promoting in regards to a very expansive view of personal liberties.

Witnesses have claimed he was threatening.
They were in fear. And, his history indicates that maybe they were right given that he had assaulted people in the past.
I hope his past history is allowed into trial.
Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. But, being mentally ill in public and threatening other people IS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is America. You shouldn’t be able to murder someone with your bare hands just because they are acting strange or having a mental health episode. That isn’t “self defense.” The law disagrees.

The people supporting the Marine are inching toward the notion that they should be able to kill anyone they deem a “threat.” And guess who they will consider a “threat” just because their fee-fees are agitated?

Holding this view, and acknowledging that the city has serious issues with the mentally ill roaming the streets and posing threats are compatible.

That said, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely expansive view of personal liberties. You have every right to be a raving mentally ill lunatic on the subway as long as you don’t commit a crime. Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. I’m supportive of looser involuntary commitment laws, but that would likely go against everything the current SC has been recently promoting in regards to a very expansive view of personal liberties.

This guy wasn't "behaving erratically", he actually was dangerous. Multiple people had said so, officially. That doesn't even include his multiple earlier victims, btw.

When people conflate crazy homeless people with dangerous homeless people, then more tragedies like this will happen. Think more deeply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is America. You shouldn’t be able to murder someone with your bare hands just because they are acting strange or having a mental health episode. That isn’t “self defense.” The law disagrees.

The people supporting the Marine are inching toward the notion that they should be able to kill anyone they deem a “threat.” And guess who they will consider a “threat” just because their fee-fees are agitated?

Holding this view, and acknowledging that the city has serious issues with the mentally ill roaming the streets and posing threats are compatible.

That said, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely expansive view of personal liberties. You have every right to be a raving mentally ill lunatic on the subway as long as you don’t commit a crime. Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. I’m supportive of looser involuntary commitment laws, but that would likely go against everything the current SC has been recently promoting in regards to a very expansive view of personal liberties.

Do you have a crystal ball to tell how an unbalanced person will act the next moment? There have been several cases of innocent people being shoved to their deaths under NYC subway trains. I don’t blame the passengers for being jittery.

[Anonymous]

+1 it's all very sad and really tragic that New York left this mentally ill man to live on the streets at his own peril and to be arrestedv49+ times, including several assaults on innocent victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 it's all very sad and really tragic that New York left this mentally ill man to live on the streets at his own peril and to be arrestedv49+ times, including several assaults on innocent victims.

The govt is not this man’s (or any man’s) keeper but does have to duty protect the public from criminals.