Gee, ya think “I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die” might relate to the OP? 
Choking someone for fifteen minutes is not “holding” that person.
A single song written 70 years ago that does NOT show tolerance for such behavior. The narrator is not shown in a good light at all.
If they keep punching for fifteen minutes straight?
If they deliberately choose to throw that punch to a part of the anatomy where punches often kill?
I think that should be decided by a jury.
Problem is: if scared people are going to routinely act on their fear by using deadly force in cases in which it’s not necessary – and then get told that they did nothing wrong and in fact acted heroically – then there are going to be a whole lot more scared people around, who are quite legitimately afraid of being killed for accidentally tripping over somebody or missing the trash can they were trying to throw their trash into.
And if scared people can’t reasonably be expected to refrain from killing anybody that they’re scared of – pretty soon it isn’t going to be safe for anybody to go out of doors. Anywhere, and however armed. Probably not going to be safe to stay home, either.
Strangling him for fifteen minutes was not a reasonable amount of force.
For one thing, I don’t know that that ever was a legal defense outside of the Hollywood “old west.”
For another: in medieval Europe they hung children for stealing bread. And in pre-civil-war USA we enslaved people. Just because somebody did something sometime doesn’t mean it was a great idea.
The reports I saw said that he was kicking convulsively, then went limp and shat himself; and they went right on choking him. They may not have declared death till he got to the hospital; but if he didn’t die on the train, the people holding him had plenty of reason to think that he had. They apparently said that they took the convulsive kicks for further resistance.
Now whether this sort of thing has been happening at a similar or greater frequency all along and just not being reported, or not being widely reported – that’s an entirely different issue.
Is it possible that the mentally ill person in question spent his life trying to and not getting help for his illness, and so kept shouting and throwing trash around in public?
– did something need to be done about this guy? Sure seems like it. But spending fifteen minutes slowly strangling him to death doesn’t seem to me at all like the “something” that should have been done.
Exactly, but, it goes to the matter of whether this is something that is either really or in perception happening more for more trivial situations, or was always there.
Irrespective of the details, which I don’t know and I suspect many commenters don’t either, what I find troubling is a lot of people seem to be in a hurry to defend killing a person. To me, it’s the hurry that indicates a preconceived agenda.
Reminds me of a story from The Moth, which I’ll link below. It was by a British guy who fended off a home intruder with an antique sword he had laying around. He did so successfully, but deliberately trying not to hurt him severely. When this was reported in the news he later got a number of “reviews” from people who criticized him for not killing the guy. According to him, most of those came from the U.S. and specifically Texas.
Of course I have a preconceived agenda: I may, while minding my own business, get assaulted or battered by someone like the guy who got killed, since he apparently went in for that sort of thing, and I ‘hurry’ to note that I’m against that; and I ‘hurry’ to add that I, too, may well slap a chokehold on a guy who so assaults and/or batters.
No one claimed it was a “good idea”- my point was people have been killing others for trivial reasons since Cain killed Abel. And they are doing it less in the last decade or so.
I think of it as “Travis Bickle” syndrome. You spend your days in front of a TV screen that tells you society is going to hell, others are out to get you, and worst of all, they think they’re better than you. And that they always get away with it. You stand in front of a mirror flexing with your gun acting out the fantasy of “you talkin’ to me?”
You start to wish one of the bastards would try something, just once, and then you’ll show them. And eventually it happens. Maybe not the life-or-death threat you were hoping, but something that’s close enough to force the fit. And somebody dies.
A good story.
A few years ago, a drunk thought that the Sheriffs house was his house. Guy was lost. The Sherriff was armed I’m sure. Middle of the night when a guy tries to kick in his door. Twice.
Sherriff called regular duty officers, that, you know, where on duty to take care of the guy.
He could have just blown him away.
Sheriff did the right thing.
I think that is the debate. It’s not about the random killings. It’s that now there are in fact people claiming it’s a “good idea” in at least some cases. That’s what’s new, since roughly 2015 or so.
I’d say since Trayvon Martin. People watched as a man hunted down and killed a teenage boy, and got off scott free for it.
Then they want their chance. They look forward to the day when someone turns around on their property, or rings their doorbell, or throws some trash around, and then they get to be the hero. They get to kill someone with no consequence, and have people applaud them for it.
It used to be if you wanted the chance to get away with killing someone, you had to join the police force. Now people feel empowered to kill anyone who looks at them wrong.
I wouldn’t say that the ex-marine was looking to kill someone when he got up that day, but I would say that he was thrilled when the opportunity presented itself.
Too many people think that old westerns have a relation to reality, and “He needed killin” is a valid justification.
Fortunately, at least some of these murderers end up facing consequences, which may have some chilling effect on the violent behavior of these self appointed vigilantes. Hopefully it will have a chilling effect on those who encourage them as well.
Hopefully, though I doubt it, it will have the same effect on those that are trying to overthrow the United States of America.
No need to go all British here, did you hear the one about the police officer who was fired for not shooting someone?
I disagree. I bet he wishes he was in another car. But neither of us have any evidence either way.
He’s about to be a conservative celebrity.
…there have been exactly zero verified accounts that Neely did any assaulting or battering or garbage throwing or any threatening here. The only accounts we have are that he was loud and that he threw his jacket on the ground. We can never trust the earliest reports. Especially if those reports are laundered through the cops. This is always true of the “breaking news cycle.”
i really doubt this. Look, people killing another for what they they thought was a good idea goes back to Ogg the Neanderthal. It is not new, nor are there more of it. Just the media showing it is newer as that is what the media wants to show us, as that is what they think people want to see.
Unless you were on a Jury, questioning their verdict is- IMHO- very wrong.
I doubt this.
Difference is, now we have members of the public agreeing that it was a good idea and even applauding them for it.
This is ridiculous. I can have the opinion that both the jury was wrong, and that the law that they based their decision on was wrong. I can also have the opinion that the verdict cleared the way for other wannabee vigilantes.
I will also ask you, in the statement that you responded to, what did I have factually wrong? Whether or not he was convicted has nothing to do with the facts in my statement.
You put someone in a chokehold for 30 seconds because you need to immobilize them and can’t think of another way. You put them in a chokehold for 15 minutes because you want them dead.
ISTM we have different things being addressed in this thread.
The first one was whether in fact as the Thread Title says, people are increasingly being killed over more trivial things. Which runs into a problem when we reach for the statistics since the statistics just tell us if there are more or fewer homicides (both aggregate and per cap). At this point we’re still way below the 70s and 80s but have had a sharp bounce from the lows of the late 00s/early 20teens.
What the stats may not clearly tell us, though, is if more of these were or were not over trivialities, or involved a provocation, or were actual violent confrontations that escalated.
The other thing being discussed here is the question of people who have placed themselves in the frame of mind of being literally in the War Zone and having to be ready to kill or be killed in any hostile situation and choosing to “be proactive” about it. Which is mostly the result of a manufactured propagandizing. But, which at the same time is independent of the trivialities issue: they can be in a serious situation and still do something excessive and innecessary. Those we do hear about more, including from themselves, but is that really numbers or loudness?
IMO it’s different things on the one hand to just blow away someone who walks across your property line, and on the other a whole different one to be in a violent confrontation and take it too far. In the latter case, sometimes you can’t avoid it. (And I am talking in the general case, not specifically about Neely where it could have been, dammit.) But other times yes, it’s you who put your own damn self in that situation by getting into/provoking confrontations and then escalating (Zimmerman).