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: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

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

[Anonymous]

They should be charging the dead criminal to deter other criminals from acting so brazenly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should be charging the dead criminal to deter other criminals from acting so brazenly

“Kindness” kills!

[Anonymous]

When police aren't doing their jobs and DAs aren't prosecuting, vigilantes come out. There's a clear solution here.

[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.

Eyewitness account:

A witness is coming forward with information on the Jordan Neely case that might potentially exonerate defendant Daniel Penny of the charges he now faces due to the prosecution of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Daniel Penny is the Marine who put Jordan Neely in a chokehold on the NYC subway due to reports that the homeless man was threatening train passengers.

The 66-year-old woman, who did not wish to be identified, told the New York Post on Thursday that she was grateful for what Penny had done to protect the subway passengers.

“I hope he has a great lawyer, and I’m praying for him,” she reportedly said. “And I pray that he gets treated fairly, I really do. Because after all of this ensued, I went back and made sure that I said ‘Thank you’ to him.”

According to reports, Neely, who had a known history of mental illness, allegedly posed a threat to fellow passengers when he boarded an F train in Manhattan.

“He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said about Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

The retiree stated that initially, Penny refrained from engaging with Neely during his disruptive outburst. However, as the situation escalated and became uncontrollable, Penny felt compelled to intervene.

“This gentleman, Mr. Penny, did not stand up,” the rider said. “Did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was … threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wants.”

https://beckernews.com/witness-comes-forward-with-exculpatory-information-on-neely-death-that-could-blow-case-wide-open-50313/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

You know perfectly well that he had schizophrenia and had hurt and assaulted people. He wasn't just "a vagrant and not likely to assault.".it's tragic that his situation was allowed to continue, given his medical, emotional, and criminal history.

[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.

From the New York Times: Mr. Vazquez recalled that Mr. Neely had said “‘I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison,’” and “‘I’m ready to die.’”[i]

I don't know about you, but if I'm riding the NYC subway and a man behaving erratically yells these words, I'm thinking he's seriously contemplating committing a crime that would warrant a life sentence.

It's a tragedy that he died, but if I were a passenger I would still be grateful that another passenger on the train took Neely down. At an abstract level, it's a shame Neely was failed along the way by his parents (obviously the father bears the most responsibility here for abandoning his son both as a child and as an adult), his relatives, the legal system, and the city government. But this guy was headed towards destruction - whether it was self-destruction, life in prison, "death by cop," or "death by vigilante" played out almost randomly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

I'm not sure if you are the same willfully blind person who is clinging to the notion that Neely didn't threaten anyone, but there new information being reported. Perhaps you should read it.


https://nypost.com/2023/05/12/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-witness-praying-for-daniel-penny/

A straphanger who was on the subway when Marine Daniel Penny placed Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold said Thursday she’s “praying” for Penny after it was revealed the 24-year-old would face charges tied to the high-profile case.

“I hope he has a great lawyer, and I’m praying for him,” the 66-year-old woman, who did not want to be identified, told The Post Thursday night. “And I pray that he gets treated fairly, I really do. Because after all of this ensued, I went back and made sure that I said ‘Thank you’ to him.”

But wait, there's more.

e subway rider said Neely, who had a history of mental illness, was threatening passengers after he hopped on an F train in Manhattan.

“He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said of Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

The retiree said Penny did not initially engage with Neely during the wild rant until things got out of hand and he felt the urge to step in.

“This gentleman, Mr. Penny, did not stand up,” the rider said. “Did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was … threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wants.”

Neely had a criminal history with more than 40 arrests, law enforcement sources previously told The Post.

“‘Gonna go to jail for life’? What? What penalties involve going to jail for life?” she wondered. “Could you tell me? Yeah, it’s not kicking somebody in the shin, or punching somebody in the face.”

It sounds as if this witness statement, and likely others, played a role in the charges for second-degree manslaughter. The charge seems to reflect a prosecutorial determination that it using force against Mr. Neely was not unwarranted, but the level of force may give rise to a conviction.

Are people going to continue to argue that saying that someone threatening to kill is not an actual threat?

[Anonymous]

Ugh. It looks like a bunch of us posted at the same time. Sorry about that.

[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.

Eyewitness account:

A witness is coming forward with information on the Jordan Neely case that might potentially exonerate defendant Daniel Penny of the charges he now faces due to the prosecution of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Daniel Penny is the Marine who put Jordan Neely in a chokehold on the NYC subway due to reports that the homeless man was threatening train passengers.

The 66-year-old woman, who did not wish to be identified, told the New York Post on Thursday that she was grateful for what Penny had done to protect the subway passengers.

“I hope he has a great lawyer, and I’m praying for him,” she reportedly said. “And I pray that he gets treated fairly, I really do. Because after all of this ensued, I went back and made sure that I said ‘Thank you’ to him.”

According to reports, Neely, who had a known history of mental illness, allegedly posed a threat to fellow passengers when he boarded an F train in Manhattan.

“He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said about Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

The retiree stated that initially, Penny refrained from engaging with Neely during his disruptive outburst. However, as the situation escalated and became uncontrollable, Penny felt compelled to intervene.

“This gentleman, Mr. Penny, did not stand up,” the rider said. “Did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was … threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wants.”

https://beckernews.com/witness-comes-forward-with-exculpatory-information-on-neely-death-that-could-blow-case-wide-open-50313/

This charging decision is going to come back to bite Bragg in the @ss. If this woman testifies at Penny’s trial that case is done.

[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.

Dp but you completely missed the point in what he was saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

Right, but someone arrested multiple times for assaults, as Neely was, is likely to assault. Are you this willfully obtuse in real life?

[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.

I am sure they are already hustling to get all the money they can extract from the bleeding hearts

[Anonymous]

All these people thinking that Mr. Neely's behavior didn't warrant concern: Would you be willing to be locked in a room with someone behaving like Mr. Neely? Would you be willing to lock YOUR CHILD in a room with Mr. Neely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

I'm not sure if you are the same willfully blind person who is clinging to the notion that Neely didn't threaten anyone, but there new information being reported. Perhaps you should read it.


https://nypost.com/2023/05/12/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-witness-praying-for-daniel-penny/

A straphanger who was on the subway when Marine Daniel Penny placed Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold said Thursday she’s “praying” for Penny after it was revealed the 24-year-old would face charges tied to the high-profile case.

“I hope he has a great lawyer, and I’m praying for him,” the 66-year-old woman, who did not want to be identified, told The Post Thursday night. “And I pray that he gets treated fairly, I really do. Because after all of this ensued, I went back and made sure that I said ‘Thank you’ to him.”

But wait, there's more.

e subway rider said Neely, who had a history of mental illness, was threatening passengers after he hopped on an F train in Manhattan.

“He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said of Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

The retiree said Penny did not initially engage with Neely during the wild rant until things got out of hand and he felt the urge to step in.

“This gentleman, Mr. Penny, did not stand up,” the rider said. “Did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was … threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wants.”

Neely had a criminal history with more than 40 arrests, law enforcement sources previously told The Post.

“‘Gonna go to jail for life’? What? What penalties involve going to jail for life?” she wondered. “Could you tell me? Yeah, it’s not kicking somebody in the shin, or punching somebody in the face.”

It sounds as if this witness statement, and likely others, played a role in the charges for second-degree manslaughter. The charge seems to reflect a prosecutorial determination that it using force against Mr. Neely was not unwarranted, but the level of force may give rise to a conviction.

Are people going to continue to argue that saying that someone threatening to kill is not an actual threat?

This witness statement should have resulted in ZERO charges.
The charge requires that he acted recklessly. He didn't. He was trying to keep him subdued to prevent him from hurting others. He didn't intend to kill or even hurt him.