Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

But really, isn’t it just more appropriate these ill people aren’t just roaming around on public transport? You weren’t there, btw. You have no idea what was appropriate in this situation.

You weren’t there, either. But I’m betting that I ride the NY subway more and am a lot more familiar with its subtleties and rules than some keyboard warrior in a shit shack in Vienna, cackling over the fact that another black man was murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

And yet he was killed. So a charge of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

And yet he was killed. So a charge of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate.

I'm the PP and I agree. I imagine he ultimately will be charged as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

Seems there was a pattern here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

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

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

Were the cars pretty full? Could all of those people have moved to a different car? Wouldn't the guy just follow the crowd? I don't think everyone moving out of that car would've solved the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

And yet he was killed. So a charge of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate.

I don't agree. There were several people who restrained him. He was out of control and a danger to those on the subway car.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he was dangerous and needed to be subdued. Why wouldn't someone understand that?

He didn’t do anything dangerous

How do you know? We’re you there?

There have been several statements collected by witnesses, if you have been keeping up. Yes, he was yelling and screaming.

This is not a crime. If it were, I’d be entitled to choke out your brats when they have a tantrum in public. I’m honestly shocked and sickened by the attitudes here. Do we live in Minority Report, where people can be killed for futurecrime?

Not at all surprised it was a Marine who killed him. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I have read a number of articles about this and watched an interview with the man who took the video. In his interview (in Spanish with a translator), he did note that the man had not assaulted anyone (although you could argue that throwing trash at people might be assault). The witness did, however, note that he was frightened by the man. He also said, in a comment that I found very telling, that if the police had come five minutes earlier, the marine would have been hailed as a hero. I think the fact that two other men were helping the marine subdue the man speaks to the fact that they genuinely viewed his behavior as a threat.

Of course whether they went too far is the question, and it sounds like the force used was excessive.

I ride the NY subway every day, and encounter loud, erratically behaving people regularly. If I deem one of them to be an actual potential threat (and the vast majority are not), I move further down the car, or switch cars. Removing oneself from the threat is the appropriate, and usual, tactic.

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

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

Were the cars pretty full? Could all of those people have moved to a different car? Wouldn't the guy just follow the crowd? I don't think everyone moving out of that car would've solved the issue.

Yes if they all move to other cars he most likely would not follow and even if he did unless there is a threat to life you can't kill somebody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

He was violent in the past. It's not unreasonable to think he was being threatening in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in NYC and take the F train most days. The myth or rumor that policing is down is just that. There are more cops in subway stations and patrolling subway cars than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of living in New York. Obviously homelessness and mental health crisis are also up, and there are a lot of almost tragedies and true tragedies like this happening all the time.
I also believe a trained marine should know the difference between chokehold to subdue and chokehold to kill. Obviously, this guy had some sort of white savior act to “protect others bothered” going on. From
The eyewitnesses it doesn’t sound like the man murdered was doing anything dangerous.

I guess all the witnesses were wrong to be frightened and to feel threatened.

I wonder if he did anything dangerous before he hit the 67-year-old woman in the face?

No one on that train. Could have known about his priors, nor is it appropriate for a vigilante to kill a man for past crimes.

They wouldn't have know his priors, but his past record does suggest that his actions weren't benign and that many people felt rightfully threatened by him. Agree he still shouldn't have been killed, but restraining him doesn't seem unreasonable in that case.

This is why being a vigilante is illegal, no his priors do not matter. You can't assume somebody is dangerous based on priors, you can't kill somebody unless they are a threat to your life. That does not mean looking or sounding scary.

I think it makes sense to try to restrain a violent person before they attack other people.

I don’t think we’d be having this conversation if the person had simply restrained him.