Anonymous wrote:+1 it's all very sad and really tragic that New York left this mentally ill man to live on the streets at his own peril and to be arrestedv49+ times, including several assaults on innocent victims.
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.
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.
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.
“I talked to the D.A.’s office,” Sharpton told the crowd at his weekly Saturday rally. “I said, I know y’all got to do an investigation — do what you gotta do, I’m not attacking nobody — but I’m saying, this man needs to be prosecuted, ’cause what you will do if you do not prosecute him in my judgment is you will set a standard of vigilantism that we cannot tolerate.”
“The precedent alone is a threat to all of us,” Sharpton stated, according to the Washington Examiner. “We cannot allow this lawlessness to go unchecked.”
Anonymous wrote:And this is why NY office space is empty. I can't get my ny team in because transit isn't an option and we've cut out car service. Now people have to be worried that if they defend themselves or others they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense lawyers so an overzealous DA can flex his liberals? These charges will be dropped and the guy will never spend an hour in jail but this should infuriate people just as much as orangeman and his fascist brigade.
Anonymous wrote:And this is why NY office space is empty. I can't get my ny team in because transit isn't an option and we've cut out car service. Now people have to be worried that if they defend themselves or others they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on defense lawyers so an overzealous DA can flex his liberals? These charges will be dropped and the guy will never spend an hour in jail but this should infuriate people just as much as orangeman and his fascist brigade.
yeah, because there will be so much of it after defense fees. I'm betting this guy walks--as he should.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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't consider going to NYC for any reason.
Good, we don’t want you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess strong young men should allow predators to attack women and seniors. The new way.
Who was physically attacked by the guy who was killed? Or are you just arguing Strawmen?
He had a pretty established track record of assault. He landed at least one person in the hospital. People deserve better than waiting around for someone attacking and assaulting people to cross the line into murder. Neely was a disaster waiting to happen and here it is.
Which no one on that train could have known, so it’s utter bullshit to use it as an excuse to lay hands on this man.
It means when he was acting threateningly, he was apparently really convincing. The bystanders were convinced. Were you there? Why do you think he wasn't threatening?
Why do you think he was? You were snugged up in your Burke townhouse.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess strong young men should allow predators to attack women and seniors. The new way.
Who was physically attacked by the guy who was killed? Or are you just arguing Strawmen?
He had a pretty established track record of assault. He landed at least one person in the hospital. People deserve better than waiting around for someone attacking and assaulting people to cross the line into murder. Neely was a disaster waiting to happen and here it is.
Which no one on that train could have known, so it’s utter bullshit to use it as an excuse to lay hands on this man.
It means when he was acting threateningly, he was apparently really convincing. The bystanders were convinced. Were you there? Why do you think he wasn't threatening?