Crime Guy RNCed on NY subway dies.

[DEVILsSON]

I'd call this a weak case of self defense.

The government has failed to protect the public. So now in many major cities you have mentally unstable people walking around. Most of them are largely harmless however some do commit acts of serious violence.

Even though there were numbers against the homeless guy, these were not trained security/military/police people. Most people fall prey to the bystander effect and do nothing or worse yet freeze up. So the 3 on 1 or whatever numbers people are imagining are only hypothetical. Had the homeless guy took a blade and started slashing people for example, most if not all others would simply stand there, try to run away, or cower. Also you never know when you're up against someone high on meth/PCP/etc. I am extremely wary of such people. They may die in a violent confrontation but they can easily take you with them in the process.

I would put this guy in a similar category as George Zimmerman.

 

[weed]

I'd call this a weak case of self defense.

The government has failed to protect the public. So now in many major cities you have mentally unstable people walking around. Most of them are largely harmless however some do commit acts of serious violence.

Even though there were numbers against the homeless guy, these were not trained security/military/police people. Most people fall prey to the bystander effect and do nothing or worse yet freeze up. So the 3 on 1 or whatever numbers people are imagining are only hypothetical. Had the homeless guy took a blade and started slashing people for example, most if not all others would simply stand there, try to run away, or cower. Also you never know when you're up against someone high on meth/PCP/etc. I am extremely wary of such people. They may die in a violent confrontation but they can easily take you with them in the process.

I would put this guy in a similar category as George Zimmerman.

there's a guy on the IG who goes around & does color commentary for crackheads/methheads around the city. it's pretty sad but he makes it hilarious. today's video was some guy posing as a traffic cop but wearing MTA gear & shit.

also, I'm amazed I can understand "Groot". I see actual words from you.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

A guy who grabbed another guy and put an incredibly poor choke hold on him. He’s not an expert assassin who knows the exact moment someone is out. Guy was still fighting for all but the last few seconds of the video. How is some guy who learned fifteen minutes of hand to hand ten years ago supposed to get it exactly right? Maybe the ref should’ve counted him out? It’s not like ufc fighters have held choked past when they’re out before right? Or refs missed it?

so since you’re completely wrong the best is answer is to let all the mentally I’ll people assault you so they’re too busy for the rest of us

It's impossible for you to commit suicide by holding your breath because your muscles will instinctively contract to draw air into your lungs. There have been cases of referees missing the signs of an unconscious fighter and they've flailed about unconsciously seemingly in defiance. Imagine it's just some guy on the train, and the round doesn't end until the next stop, before the pressure is released.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Just felt like posting this here.



Don't ask me why.

 

[cincymma79]

Why can't the lesson here be, that if you attempt to subdue someone, maybe you shouldn't try to choke them?

Because chokes are the safest way to take someone down if you know what you’re doing. They were my go to on people less skilled than me for years

 

[cincymma79]

It's impossible for you to commit suicide by holding your breath because your muscles will instinctively contract to draw air into your lungs. There have been cases of referees missing the signs of an unconscious fighter and they've flailed about unconsciously seemingly in defiance. Imagine it's just some guy on the train, and the round doesn't end until the next stop, before the pressure is released.

Predator two is a very good movie. Just because it’s different than the first movie doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold up in it own right. We’re just saying random shit now right?

 

[Hog-train]

You have to present a reasonable threat for it to be considered legitimate self defense. An unarmed man threatening an entire subway car of people is not a reasonable threat.

If you use deadly force in self defense you need to be threatened with deadly force. A skinny, starving homeless person is not a deadly threat to an entire train car full of people.

Why does it have to be an armed person for someone to put another in a chokehold? If he's about to punch someone, that's a reasonable threat.

And it seems like you've already made up your mind based on the sparse details we have. The marine guy could have been using reasonable force but the guy had an underlying health condition so ended up dying. Or any number of things.

I live in Manhattan btw and take the train all the time. There are crazy homeless people in the city everywhere and I literally see them daily. And so do the vast majority of New Yorkers who commute on the train to work.

There have been increasing violent outbursts and attacks all the time. And the vast majority do not make the news. It's perfectly plausible this guy was unhinged and was about to attack.

A few months ago, some shopkeeper got stabbed to death literally half a block from my building. Shit like this happens all the time.

 

[Rational Poster]

You said a threat isn’t threatening, it is; you’re obtuse.

half your replies are historically a reaction gif, if anyone in here is a child, it sure isn’t me.

I've written more on this forum and more thoughtful and eloquently than the majority of you deserve.

Most of you, you especially, are incredibly stupid people that are far too confident in your ignorance.


To use deadly force in self defense the threat of deadly force against you needs to be imminent. A verbal threat is not an imminent threat of deadly force.

A verbal threat to an entire train car of people is not a reasonable threat. He would have to be brandishing a weapon, threatening to have a deadly weapon, or actually assaulting someone for it to be a credible threat to an entire train car of people.

For example, if a child threatens to kill you, you don't get to kill the child just for saying that and claim self defense. It's not reasonable to expect a child to be able to carry it out, just like it's not reasonable to expect a single unarmed person is going to kill an entire train car of people.

If Neely started the violence it would be entirely different.

 

[Rational Poster]

Why does it have to be an armed person for someone to put another in a chokehold? If he's about to punch someone, that's a reasonable threat.

And it seems like you've already made up your mind based on the sparse details we have. The marine guy could have been using reasonable force but the guy had an underlying health condition so ended up dying. Or any number of things.

I live in Manhattan btw and take the train all the time. There are crazy homeless people in the city everywhere and I literally see them daily. And so do the vast majority of New Yorkers who commute on the train to work.

There have been increasing violent outbursts and attacks all the time. And the vast majority do not make the news. It's perfectly plausible this guy was unhinged and was about to attack.

A few months ago, some shopkeeper got stabbed to death literally half a block from my building. Shit like this happens all the time.

The person doesn't have to be armed for you to put them in a chokehold, but they need to be presenting an imminent threat of deadly force for you to kill them with a chokehold.

A weapon would make the threat imminent. A verbal threat is not an imminent threat.

 

[Hog-train]

The person doesn't have to be armed for you to put them in a chokehold, but they need to be presenting an imminent threat of deadly force for you to kill them with a chokehold.

A weapon would make the threat imminent. A verbal threat is not an imminent threat.

You're automatically assuming the guy was just making verbal threats and not about to be a physical danger. But we don't know that at all yet. Stop making assumptions bases on your preconceived notions and/or biases.

 

[Rational Poster]

You're automatically assuming the guy was just making verbal threats and not about to be a physical danger. But we don't know that at all yet. Stop making assumptions bases on your preconceived notions and/or biases.

There is nothing biased or preconceived about the position. That's literally the details of the story that we know.

Jordan Neely was generally verbally threatening the whole train car for food because he claimed to be starving. He didn't brandish a weapon, he didn't attack anyone, and no weapon was found on him.

It seems your bias and preconceived notions are getting in the way of interpreting the facts as they've been laid out so far. You're trying to assume things we don't know and haven't been revealed to rationalize the outcome your bias prefers.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Because chokes are the safest way to take someone down if you know what you’re doing. They were my go to on people less skilled than me for years

But if you don't know what you're doing you can end up with a manslaughter charge.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Predator two is a very good movie. Just because it’s different than the first movie doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold up in it own right. We’re just saying random shit now right?

My point is the guy didn't just die spontaneously. We don't know how long the perp held the choke but it was long enough to cause this guy's death. If he had eased off the choke the guy would have breathed involuntarily even if he was unconscious.

 

[cincymma79]

But if you don't know what you're doing you can end up with a manslaughter charge.

Your level of expectation is too high for a subway rider being assaulted

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Your level of expectation is too high for a subway rider being assaulted

Let's see what he says himself when all is said and done.

 

[Hog-train]

There is nothing biased or preconceived about the position. That's literally the details of the story that we know.

Jordan Neely was generally verbally threatening the whole train car for food because he claimed to be starving. He didn't brandish a weapon, he didn't attack anyone, and no weapon was found on him.

It seems your bias and preconceived notions are getting in the way of interpreting the facts as they've been laid out so far. You're trying to assume things we don't know and haven't been revealed to rationalize the outcome your bias prefers.

I have not come to a conclusion - you already have. So how the heck is my bias getting in the way?

Did you even watch the Hispanic witness give his take (one who took the cell phone video) or read any of the other witnesses statements? Seems like you haven't.

As for the fact that no weapon was found on him and he didn't attack anyone. That doesn't necessarily matter if the people had a reasonable belief that he could have a weapon and/or was about to physically harm them.

All the witnesses (so far) said Neely was being threatening their safety, harassing and violent. They also said they were scared - including the person who took the video. He said Neely was scaring the passengers.

One of the eyewitnesses said that Neely stated "I'll hurt anyone on this train."

And this is a separate incident but in Nov 2021, he slugged a 67 yr old female stranger in the face as she exited a subway station. Fractured her orbital bone.

So we already know for a fact that he's CAPABLE of random violence. And arrested 42 times within the last 10 years. So completely within the realm of possibility that Neely was going to be violent.

Now I always try not to judge a case based on a person's previous record or reputation and just on the individual incident itself. And if the marine held onto choke for too long, then he should definitely do time.

Even if initially choking Neely was justified - but Penny went unnecessarily over the bare minimum to neutralize him, he should still do time IMO. I go by the law.

Facts that we do NOT know yet: How long did Penny hold the choke for. How hard did he choke him. What immediately preceded the physical altercation. What threatening actions did Neely do to make the people on the train scared. What was the thing that Neely throw.

How many witnesses will testify that they feared for their personal safety (the current witness statements so far all say this.) So many things we do not know yet.

But it seems pretty clear cut we will soon find out because there are so many direct witnesses.

BTW, if Penny is charged and indicted, the other 2 men should ALSO be charged. It doesn't matter that they didn't actually apply the choke. They helped in it physically and therefore should legally be charged as well if Penny is guilty.

If the other 2 will not be charged, that indicates to me that this is a politically motivated indictment.

 

[Rational Poster]

I have not come to a conclusion - you already have. So how the heck is my bias getting in the way?

As for the fact that no weapon was found on him and he didn't attack anyone. That doesn't necessarily matter if the people had a reasonable belief that he could have a weapon and/or was about to physically harm them.

One of the eyewitnesses said that Neely stated "I'll hurt anyone on this train."

And this is a separate incident but in Nov 2021, he slugged a 67 yr old female stranger in the face as she exited a subway station. Fractured her orbital bone.

So we already know for a fact that he's CAPABLE of random violence. And arrested 42 times within the last 10 years. So completely within the realm of possibility that Neely was going to be violent.

Now I always try not to judge a case based on a person's previous record or reputation and just on the individual incident itself. And if the marine held onto choke for too long, then he should definitely do time.

Facts that we do NOT know yet: How long did Vincent hold the choke for. How hard did he choke him. What immediately preceded the physical altercation. What threatening actions did Neely do to make the people on the train scared. What was the thing that Neely throw. So many things we do not know yet.

But it seems pretty clear cut we will soon find out because there are so many direct witnesses.

As I already explained repeatedly a verbal threat is not an imminent threat of deadly force that would allow deadly force to be used in response. Especially in the context of one unarmed man vs an entire train car.

Bringing up his criminal record is just more evidence of the bias you have that you're not even willing to admit to yourself. No one on the train would have been aware of his criminal history.

 

[Hog-train]

As I already explained repeatedly a verbal threat is not an imminent threat of deadly force that would allow deadly force to be used in response. Especially in the context of one unarmed man vs an entire train car.

Bringing up his criminal record is just more evidence of the bias you have that you're not even willing to admit to yourself. No one on the train would have been aware of his criminal history.

As I explained repeatedly as well - that's not the law. Verbal threats can still justify a legal self defense response.

Seems like you choose to selectively read. I already just said I try to judge an incident based on the incident alone.

However, his previous violent record just puts the POSSIBILITY that he can be violent on the table.

And I am 100% sure his previous random violent history will come out in during the trial.

I ask you this: Why do you think the other two men helping to hold him down haven't also been charged?

 

[cincymma79]

Let's see what he says himself when all is said and done.

I have the good fortune of being ex military and very well trained in jiu jitsu. A guy who got basic hand to hand years ago is going to choke until he feels the person stop moving if he has no adrenaline running. Then there’s freak stuff like heart attacks and whatnot. So again if I see a crazy person stabbing you while peeing on you I will be sure to walk faster away from you just to be safe.

 

[Rational Poster]

As I explained repeatedly as well - that's not the law. Verbal threats can still justify a legal self defense response.

Seems like you choose to selectively read. I already just said I try to judge an incident based on the incident alone.

However, his previous violent record just puts the POSSIBILITY that he can be violent on the table.

And I am 100% sure his previous random violent history will come out in during the trial.

I ask you this: Why do you think the other two men helping to hold him down haven't also been charged?

Of course it's the law. A verbal threat is just a verbal threat, it's not an imminent or active threat of violence. It's just words.

An unarmed man cannot kill an entire train car of people without a weapon. It's not reasonable to expect that to happen.