Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

40+ arrests? Surely, he would have been better off in an institution, hospital, or group home. Forced to be there, if necessary.

[Anonymous]

I hope he doesn't take a plea deal and he takes this to trial. I'd like to see a jury convict him. Because they won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Is this how "law abiding gun owner" works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all. [/quote

NP yes. And his past actions have PROVEN that he can and does assault people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Is this how "law abiding gun owner" works?

I'm not a gun owner. I do see how the system doesn't protect innocent people. Repeat criminals often have more rights of protection, Fortunately, I don't depend on a subway or other rapid transit to get to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

NP this man had 40 arrests and multiple assault charges. If you follow the pattern, he likely was going to assault someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

A better question is why it took police 15 min to get there? If they had been there within 5 minutes, this man would still be alive. I'd sue police for their slow response time instead of this marine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

I'm fully aware. I'm also aware that people like you have more concern for those with a criminal history than for innocent people going about their business of work, play, etc. Your "I'm so sorry that innocent person lost his/her life" means very little to the grieving families and those who are assaulted or killed. Mr. Neely should have been kept safely away from the public and to keep him safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

NP this man had 40 arrests and multiple assault charges. If you follow the pattern, he likely was going to assault someone.

+1 Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

Also, there needs to be an imminent threat... meaning... there is a threat, it can happen in a short period of time, you can't retreat, the person is able to carry out the threat.