Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Anonymous wrote:The news articles state that a fight broke out and then he was placed in a stranglehold. Likely there was an assault prior to the restraint.

It’s also very obvious from the video that S soon as the Marine realized the man was unconscious, he jumped up off the ground. He did not intend to kill the man, that much is obvious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neely had an arrest warrant outstanding for assaulting a 67 year old woman in the East Village. One suspects those who subdued him on the subway feared how he would react if let loose to terrorize others.

This is the fault of the NYC government for not capturing this criminal earlier and not already having him under lock and key to answer for his prior offenses. The marine should not be charged for trying to protect others.

Again, the people on the train did not know about Neely's outstanding arrest warrant for assault. All they had to go by was what they saw in the moment. The marine's actions were also not based on knowing that Neely had a history of assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Former prosecutor here, and this is what will be argued if he is charged and tried. The criminal act wasn’t the chokehold itself, it was continuing it after the person was no longer resisting or conscious. Even with that approach, getting a conviction in this case will be extremely difficult.

Anonymous wrote:Neely had an arrest warrant outstanding for assaulting a 67 year old woman in the East Village. One suspects those who subdued him on the subway feared how he would react if let loose to terrorize others.

This is the fault of the NYC government for not capturing this criminal earlier and not already having him under lock and key to answer for his prior offenses. The marine should not be charged for trying to protect others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are a great many people who feel this way in America. There are a great many who feel compassion but make little to no effort to change social policies, including investment of tax funds, toward really helping the least of us.

I would bet that the person who made the quoted comments considers themselves a good Christian. Certainly many who do have the same attitude towards the least of us. Real Christianity seems quite dead in America which is probably why we have become a culture where every single day there is a new mass shooting in the news and something like 150,000 deaths of despair (suicides, ODs, etc.) every year. Our country is a bleak place these days.

I appreciate what you are saying, but what do you do with someone who is offered help, but refuses it? There are many charities and programs to help people who need help. I, and many on this board contribute and volunteer for such. What about when the person is also mentally unstable and prone to violence? What many on this board are saying is that such people deserve our sympathy but not our tolerance. We need to think about the victims they create and the trauma they inflict on others.

That crazy man was about to inflict trauma on the passengers of that car. That marine did what he did to prevent that. We should not punish him for it.

DP.
My two cents.... these people should have 2 choices. 1. Get help - if you are drug addicted, you get clean by going to a facility. If you are mentally ill, you go to a hospital and get help - medications, therapy, etc. - whatever it takes. If you cannot manage your mental illness, you remain hospitalized. 2. Go to jail. If you refuse to get help for your addiction/illness - you go to jail. It is not fair to the rest of the public to have to deal with your actions.

That's it. Two choices. Enough of the progressive experiments to deal with homelessness, drug addiction, and mental illness. One quick look at some of these cities proves those experiments are not working.

This incident is a failure of NYC. There have been numerous attacks causing severe injury or death on the subway in the past couple years. And, they have not been dealt with appropriately. Enough already.

Anonymous wrote:Neely had an arrest warrant outstanding for assaulting a 67 year old woman in the East Village. One suspects those who subdued him on the subway feared how he would react if let loose to terrorize others.

This is the fault of the NYC government for not capturing this criminal earlier and not already having him under lock and key to answer for his prior offenses. The marine should not be charged for trying to protect others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

NP. I’ve lived and worked in NYC for over 15 years and am constantly on the subway. You know who rides the subway, too? The SEVERAL people who restrained this man. I’m sure they’ve also encountered all sorts of people on the subway in their lives but clearly many people on this car thought this situation was different and warranted action. Do you think this was their first time on a train?

Several people restraining this man, and the unnamed (why?) ex-Marine needs to maintain the strong chokehold? C'mon. The ex-Marine won't be charged for negligible homicide or anything else beyond maybe pleading to a misdemeanor for simple battery. Of course if he were charged he'd be acquitted in a heartbeat (nullification).

FWIW, just heard a retired NYPD sergeant say that the initial chokehold wasn’t the problem, but that he continued it after he was no longer moving. “Once you stop moving, that chokehold should have been released.” He expects the Marine to be charged with criminally negligent homocide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

I'm not a lawyer and wondering if prosecutor can argue that prolonging the chokehold when person has lost consciousness and is not resisting can be seen as intent to kill and no longer self defense.

Might have been a Law and Order episode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The video is pretty bad. The marine continues the chokehold for quite a while after Neely goes limp and another bystander warns him that he has defecated on himself and is likely to die soon.

It was horrific. He defecated himself that's what happens when you die like that. This was murder. No one pushed the emergency button or anything they just killed this man. I hope he's charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is such a false choice. There is absolutely no obligation to move, and the suggestion that the Marine was somehow the instigator because he didn't flee the car is, frankly, absurd.

There are legitimate questions regarding the amount of force used, and they should of course be explored. But to pose this as a choice between flee the car or kill someone is deeply disingenuous.

So, do you live in New York? Do you ride the subway regularly? If not, I respectfully suggest that you don't have much experience with this. If people on the subway began to confront everyone acting erratically, they'd have to hire more cleaners to mop up the blood and guts.

NP. I’ve lived and worked in NYC for over 15 years and am constantly on the subway. You know who rides the subway, too? The SEVERAL people who restrained this man. I’m sure they’ve also encountered all sorts of people on the subway in their lives but clearly many people on this car thought this situation was different and warranted action. Do you think this was their first time on a train?

Several people restraining this man, and the unnamed (why?) ex-Marine needs to maintain the strong chokehold? C'mon. The ex-Marine won't be charged for negligible homicide or anything else beyond maybe pleading to a misdemeanor for simple battery. Of course if he were charged he'd be acquitted in a heartbeat (nullification).