Anonymous wrote:Super sad.

We paid the guy to learn how to kill people, and he used it against a fellow American who he said was not a threat.

Our country so fails mentally ill people. Including, perhaps, that marine.

This man’s mom was murdered when he was 14. What a sad life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I looked at the CNN link above.
All those relatives of Neely who didn’t give a fig that he was homeless are suddenly oh so caring and want justice for him, and even went so far as to set up a gofundme! Nice cashing on his death. They should file a lawsuit against the subway! What a sick joke.

Tell me you don’t understand schizophrenia without telling me.

Many homeless people have homes that will take them in.

Many homeless vets have places they can stay and benefits they are too disorganized to file for.

Yeah, I don’t really care to “understand schizophrenia”. Only so much time in a day, and only so many years on earth. These people are a lost cause and should be locked away. Fed, clothed, kept reasonably comfortable, but that’s it. It’s unfortunate, but I care more about the rest of society—orderly, law abiding, functioning people—than affording these people so much latitude that they impose their misery on everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

And then was murdered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

You are clearly not an expert on criminal law or procedure either since you are also not laying out the correct standard. If a reasonable person would believe that an assault was imminent, it is permissible to defend yourself or others. You do not need to wait for the person to actually assault someone. I find it reasonable that this Marine engaged with the homeless guy after he was yelling aggressively, throwing garbage at people, and saying things like he wants to go to prison and he’s ready to die. To me, that signifies someone getting ready to do something. The 15 minute chokehold may be a different issue, but I have zero issue with the physical engagement.

You are clearly no even a Kindergarten level understanding of the “reasonable person” the person must have apprehension which is different than fear. The danger must be imminent.

Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.

NP, but … did you have a stroke while writing this?

I’m not going to play anonymous lawyer v anonymous lawyer on the internet, but for someone in the middle of a criminal law D measuring contest, you seem really confused.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to comprehend.

100% correct. I have no earthly idea what this string of words means (and I wasn’t the PP you were addressing anyway):

“Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.”

Is English not your native language?

It’s literally copied from the legal definition which is why you can’t comprehend it not because it’s bad English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

And? Come on, you can do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

You are clearly not an expert on criminal law or procedure either since you are also not laying out the correct standard. If a reasonable person would believe that an assault was imminent, it is permissible to defend yourself or others. You do not need to wait for the person to actually assault someone. I find it reasonable that this Marine engaged with the homeless guy after he was yelling aggressively, throwing garbage at people, and saying things like he wants to go to prison and he’s ready to die. To me, that signifies someone getting ready to do something. The 15 minute chokehold may be a different issue, but I have zero issue with the physical engagement.

You are clearly no even a Kindergarten level understanding of the “reasonable person” the person must have apprehension which is different than fear. The danger must be imminent.

Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.

NP, but … did you have a stroke while writing this?

I’m not going to play anonymous lawyer v anonymous lawyer on the internet, but for someone in the middle of a criminal law D measuring contest, you seem really confused.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to comprehend.

100% correct. I have no earthly idea what this string of words means (and I wasn’t the PP you were addressing anyway):

“Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.”

Is English not your native language?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

You are clearly not an expert on criminal law or procedure either since you are also not laying out the correct standard. If a reasonable person would believe that an assault was imminent, it is permissible to defend yourself or others. You do not need to wait for the person to actually assault someone. I find it reasonable that this Marine engaged with the homeless guy after he was yelling aggressively, throwing garbage at people, and saying things like he wants to go to prison and he’s ready to die. To me, that signifies someone getting ready to do something. The 15 minute chokehold may be a different issue, but I have zero issue with the physical engagement.

You are clearly no even a Kindergarten level understanding of the “reasonable person” the person must have apprehension which is different than fear. The danger must be imminent.

Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.

NP, but … did you have a stroke while writing this?

I’m not going to play anonymous lawyer v anonymous lawyer on the internet, but for someone in the middle of a criminal law D measuring contest, you seem really confused.

I knew you wouldn’t be able to comprehend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

True he also threw his jacket on the ground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel horrible feeling the way I do, but as someone who has been threatened by a crazy person on the train, on a bus, and just on the street, I don't feel much sympathy for this crazy person.

Question for the people who do have sympathy for this crazy person: have you ever been confronted by one and do you expect to likely be that situation again? I have and I do expect it will happen again.

My suspicion is that many of you live your lives insulated from those kinds of people. Maybe that makes you more objective than me. My feeling certainly comes from concerns over my own safety.

This particular homeless person had previously attacked three different women unprovoked and had a warrant for one of them. This particular homeless person did not just yell at people and scare them, he hurt people.

On the day he was murdered he did none of that. He did nothing but yell about food and wanting to eat.

This is objectively false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal here, I'd be inclined NOT to charge the Marine. Unless he is an expert in choke holds and subduing people - like, you know, the police should be - if he was just trying to subdue Neely and there was no intent to kill, I would not charge.
It is true that the passengers didn't know Neely's intent nor his record. However, If the marine - and others, the people who helped him - preceived danger, that is not an unreasonable defense given Neely's pattern of past behavior. When he actually WAS a danger to at least the lady he punched in the face.

I do not want to be on a train in need of help and everyone is afraid to help me because they could end up getting charged.

Being a liberal I’m guessing you’re not expert on criminal law or police procedures.

You can’t kill someone’s because you perceive danger. That would mean every woman getting in her car late at night in a garage who sees a men there could kill him, because she “perceives” danger.

The person must actually do something dangerous and have the ability to carry out the dangerous act.

You don’t need help on a train simply because a man is yelling.

You can’t simply kill a man because 18 months ago he was dangerous.

You are clearly not an expert on criminal law or procedure either since you are also not laying out the correct standard. If a reasonable person would believe that an assault was imminent, it is permissible to defend yourself or others. You do not need to wait for the person to actually assault someone. I find it reasonable that this Marine engaged with the homeless guy after he was yelling aggressively, throwing garbage at people, and saying things like he wants to go to prison and he’s ready to die. To me, that signifies someone getting ready to do something. The 15 minute chokehold may be a different issue, but I have zero issue with the physical engagement.

You are clearly no even a Kindergarten level understanding of the “reasonable person” the person must have apprehension which is different than fear. The danger must be imminent.

Sadly I doubt I understand apprehension or imminent. Do you still won’t get it.

NP, but … did you have a stroke while writing this?

I’m not going to play anonymous lawyer v anonymous lawyer on the internet, but for someone in the middle of a criminal law D measuring contest, you seem really confused.