Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

Careful, someone is goung to respond to you with the same cycle of arguments of the last 20 odd pages "the people on that train didn't know his history". To which someone will respond "his history makes it credible that his behavior was threatening". And on in the cycle.

But the core problem has been stated many times. The mentally ill are being allowed to roam the subways and kill and maim riders. The people up in arms about this case, did they protest like this for the riders pushed on the tracks? No, because we are supposed to "move cars" or something to avoid them. Talk about blaming the victim!

Yes, and those people have zero street smarts. I personally don't need to review the dossier of a screaming, provoking, threatening insane person to assess the situation properly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

The fact pattern is that a marine with PTSD murdered someone who triggered him.

I’m one of the posters above saying we should reserve judgment until all facts are known. I read that the Marine was posted in the Mediterranean - not sure he’s ever been to a combat zone, so PTSD might not be an argument here.

We don't know if he has PTSD. Veterans have PTSD at only slightly higher rates than non-veterans, btw, and the rates for both are low (7% vs 6%) so it's not a good assumption that veteran = mentally ill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

Careful, someone is goung to respond to you with the same cycle of arguments of the last 20 odd pages "the people on that train didn't know his history". To which someone will respond "his history makes it credible that his behavior was threatening". And on in the cycle.

But the core problem has been stated many times. The mentally ill are being allowed to roam the subways and kill and maim riders. The people up in arms about this case, did they protest like this for the riders pushed on the tracks? No, because we are supposed to "move cars" or something to avoid them. Talk about blaming the victim!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

The fact pattern is that a marine with PTSD murdered someone who triggered him.

I’m one of the posters above saying we should reserve judgment until all facts are known. I read that the Marine was posted in the Mediterranean - not sure he’s ever been to a combat zone, so PTSD might not be an argument here.

The marine was a hero protecting NYC residents from violent, unhinged trash. Unless you’ve lived in NYC do not come on here and spout your nonsense. That dead man’s family and city government failed him and it was left to others to police his vile, out-of-control behavior. Good riddance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

The fact pattern is that a marine with PTSD murdered someone who triggered him.

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

+1. Even when the fact pattern shows that he was literally assaulting grannies and trying to murder people, they will see him as Jean Valjean-- because they are so removed from reality and have no empathy toward anyone who looks or sounds like themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that people think the Marine should know the "necessary" amount of time to choke someone and would know what amount is "more than necessary." Perhaps I don't have as much experience choking people as the former prosecutor has, where he can be precise when he finds himself needing to subdue someone. You know, one of those everyday situations where you fear for your life and have to choke someone for just the right amount of time to make them pass out but not die.

Anyone who took fifth grade level biology knows that a human can’t live without food for three weeks, water for three days, and air for three minutes. If he maintained the chokehold for between seven and fifteen minutes as some witnesses have reported, that is beyond excessive.

He put him in a submission hold, not a chokehold. The photos clearly show he's using a triangle hold, not a bar hold. This means that it is very unlikely the airways were compressed, but they were restricted. I'm pointing out that unless you go around doing this regularly, a cop or a pro wrestler, you probably don't have enough experience to know precisely when you've gotten the person to the point that they won't get up and attack you, but also won't die. A marine wouldn't have that knowledge and neither would a former prosecutor unless you go around choking people often.

Finally, if the New York subway is being terrorized by bloodthirsty mobs of office workers who randomly kill, and cheer the killing of, homeless people who are begging for food, wouldn't the answer ALSO be that we are a failed state in terms of protection from criminals? There is no way to interpret this and similar cases as an endorsement for the status quo.

Thanks for pointing this out. People have been saying that a chokehold will make someone unconscious within seconds, but that’s clearly not the kind of force that was being used here. I’m reserving judgment until all facts are known.

Anonymous wrote:I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

I’m not sheltered from the problem I just know the law and you can’t just kill someone for being loud and disruptive

I'm kind of shocked by how sanctimonious some people are so quick to condemn this marine, when they themselves are sheltered from the problem, and don't expect to be in a situation threatened by mentally ill people roaming the streets.

Someone actually suggested giving him some water, lol. All you sanctimonious people need to go out and see the problem for yourselves. Get out of your protected bubble before you condemn this marine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that people think the Marine should know the "necessary" amount of time to choke someone and would know what amount is "more than necessary." Perhaps I don't have as much experience choking people as the former prosecutor has, where he can be precise when he finds himself needing to subdue someone. You know, one of those everyday situations where you fear for your life and have to choke someone for just the right amount of time to make them pass out but not die.

Well, if you are going to use a potentially lethal solution to a problem, you should probably rethink it if you don’t know where the line between lethal and non-lethal is. Or be prepared to be charged.

Let's back up. Why do you think it is acceptable to put people in this position? The government has decided that it has no responsibility toward severely mentally ill person, and leaves the general public to deal with it at random. The results will OBVIOUSLY be death or violence. Sometimes when the mentally ill person randomly punches them in the face, as Neely did to an elderly lady earlier. Sometimes when the mentally ill person tries to throw someone on the tracks, as Neely did a week ago. And sometimes when someone, like Penny, steps in to protect the public.

There's no way to celebrate what happened on that subway. But there's also no way to rationally pretend that Penny was homicidal, based on the facts as we know them. People are not going to continue to be okay with increasing levels of violence and decreasing levels of protection. They will also not tolerate the status quo in which anyone who tries to protect themselves is cast as a villain. You would have no interest in this case if it were Neely who choked out Penny. No one is protesting for the normies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been arrested 42 times.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12045021/Eric-Adams-starts-war-words-AOC-Jordan-Neely-death.html

And? “Been arrested multiple times” doesn’t excuse murder. That’s not how the law works.

Hope the “Marine” rots in jail.

Yes, probably most of these arrests were for vagrancy, panhandling, and other crimes of being poor and homeless. They were not 42 charges of assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A different former prosecutor here, I have watched the video and I think the former Marine gets convicted of whatever form of homicide he is properly charged with. He choked the guy several minutes beyond the guy going limp and unresponsive, while bystanders filmed and urged him to let go. The case is almost exactly the same as Floyd, the only difference being that while Floyd barely made any trouble for police this guy was apparently yelling for food and water. Nobody there knew his arrest history it cannot possibly be relevant to whether the Marine’s actions were justified - they were not justified to the level that he took them. Whether the Marine has PTSD or we find out he has other history that might explain his motivation to choke the guy much longer than necessary only time will tell.

I can’t help thinking what might have happened if someone on that train just offered the guy a water bottle and the lunch or snack they had in their bag.

You’re not a prosecutor. If someone offered him water, the response may very well have been him unleashing a torrent of verbal and/or physical abuse on him.

So really there was no choice but to kill him.

Nice strawman

How is it a straw man if it is exactly what happened?

Well first toxicology results have not come back yet.

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that people think the Marine should know the "necessary" amount of time to choke someone and would know what amount is "more than necessary." Perhaps I don't have as much experience choking people as the former prosecutor has, where he can be precise when he finds himself needing to subdue someone. You know, one of those everyday situations where you fear for your life and have to choke someone for just the right amount of time to make them pass out but not die.

Well, if you are going to use a potentially lethal solution to a problem, you should probably rethink it if you don’t know where the line between lethal and non-lethal is. Or be prepared to be charged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that people think the Marine should know the "necessary" amount of time to choke someone and would know what amount is "more than necessary." Perhaps I don't have as much experience choking people as the former prosecutor has, where he can be precise when he finds himself needing to subdue someone. You know, one of those everyday situations where you fear for your life and have to choke someone for just the right amount of time to make them pass out but not die.

Anyone who took fifth grade level biology knows that a human can’t live without food for three weeks, water for three days, and air for three minutes. If he maintained the chokehold for between seven and fifteen minutes as some witnesses have reported, that is beyond excessive.

He put him in a submission hold, not a chokehold. The photos clearly show he's using a triangle hold, not a bar hold. This means that it is very unlikely the airways were compressed, but they were restricted. I'm pointing out that unless you go around doing this regularly, a cop or a pro wrestler, you probably don't have enough experience to know precisely when you've gotten the person to the point that they won't get up and attack you, but also won't die. A marine wouldn't have that knowledge and neither would a former prosecutor unless you go around choking people often.

Finally, if the New York subway is being terrorized by bloodthirsty mobs of office workers who randomly kill, and cheer the killing of, homeless people who are begging for food, wouldn't the answer ALSO be that we are a failed state in terms of protection from criminals? There is no way to interpret this and similar cases as an endorsement for the status quo.