And the batterer might get choked out. Don’t start none, won’t be none.
It is apparently enough for those looking for an excuse.
“Oh, something touched my shoe? Now I’m in fear for my life, and have the right to end yours.”
It seems to be a common fantasy, and among those who share it, there is only envy and admiration towards those who get to fulfill it.
And I suppose others share a fantasy of being the batterer; or of getting battered, and not fighting back. Perhaps they have — as you say — envy and admiration for the batterer, or for those who get battered and don’t fight back?
Then again, perhaps your psychology is in error.
Right. As is often quoted in matters of law, would “a reasonable man” do such a thing. Hell, what’s the longest time between stops in the F line? It’s surely in the low minutes. The three people --who had already got to the point of hands-on grappling so there was no question about taking risk of injury-- could have just shoved him out of the car at the next stop, threat situation over.
They are likely to tell you “the board is not the court, so, yes, we can and will judge right here right now, and BTW the right judgement is…” that this is a case of (a) someone who obviously gets up every morning with bloodlust to murder a black man, why not lock him up w/o bail right away; or (b) someone who did what obviously needed to be done, why hassle him with an investigation.
OK now that is itself making a whole heap of assumptions about what is in the minds of other people.
And k9bfriender’s wasn’t? They look to me like mirror images.
It really feels like you see only two options in this subway situation.
There are NOT only two.
This case – as far as we know right now – is reminiscent of Derek Chauvin/George Floyd.
You forget c) someone who people think deserves applause and a medal.
In any case, this thread should help people understand why lynching was celebrated. We often look back in horror at pictures and wonder how people could happily pose grinning next to a charred, mutilated body. Clearly that mindset is alive and well today.
As long as you are bothsidesing yourself, I will quote myself:
Too many people here pretending to read the minds of everyone else.
Which BTW, is part of the problem behind the hairtrigger issue addressed in the OP/Thread Title: Why does it look like so many people have convinced themselves that whatever unknown person that has unexpectedly “disturbed their space” is him/herself ready to kill so “let’s do it to them before they do it to us” in the words of Hill Street’s Jablonski.
I agree. I don’t know why k9bfriender was pretending to read minds; I shrugged and went with it by responding in kind, albeit with a ‘perhaps’; to the extent that he’ll admit that he was in error, why, I’ll cheerfully admit to doing likewise.
Eh, while people do say he didn’t deserve to die for them, I don’t see anyone applauding or even defending Neely’s actions. I do however see people saying that the person that killed him deserves a medal.
So, no, your psychology towards those who don’t think he should have been killed is absolute bunk. While generally those who would award medals do so out of admiration for their actions, so I’d say that’s fairly accurate.
I didn’t read your mind, I read your words of admiration, where you said you think he deserves a medal.
If you changed your mind, and don’t think that he deserves a medal, then sure, retract that statement. But unless you do, then it’s reasonable to say that you admire his actions.
You spoke of envy for someone in a situation you summed up as “Oh, something touched my shoe? Now I’m in fear for my life, and have the right to end yours.” I have no such envy, and the situation isn’t a parallel.
I don’t think you did; I think what you’re posting is false. I think what I said was neither yes nor no on the question of a medal, but only — maybe.
Then you think they should be killed for possibly hitting somebody with an empty candy wrapper?
Have you any comment at all on all the news sites that say he didn’t even do that?
Shouting threats.
And no less than three passengers thought he was enough of a danger to try and restrain him.
That case had racial implications. And a gun, and Chauvin was tracking the guy down, not trapped in a subway car. And Chauvin acted alone, The Marine has two other passengers also so frightened by the threats and behavior they thought they had to take a hand.
The only one saying that is Penny’s lawyers. There are no reports of anyone else making that claim.
Two other passengers chose to join in on the dogpile, anyway.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about here? Everything you said in this statement is wildly incorrect.
All this talk about people cheering on lynching in the past is not putting across the message y’all think you’re putting across.
I’d say that, if a guy starts throwing garbage at me, and I can’t tell what it is, it can seem reasonable to me to attack them in a way that may or may not lead to them dying; pretty much any use of force on my part could lead to them dying, which is why I’d advise them not to throw garbage at me in the first place.
Sure, if I knew for sure that he was going to limit himself to an empty candy wrapper — has anyone said that, in this case? — I’d be willing to consider cutting him a break. But if he feels like playing stupid games, I think the SDMB default response is well known.
…do they say that? Some mention it, and some don’t; do some go the extra mile by saying “no, he didn’t even do that,” or do some just not mention it one way or the other while others do?
Yeah, in that link that’s the statement from Penny’s lawyers. And even that statement doesn’t say specifically that he was shouting threats, or how exactly he was threatening anybody.
What that link does say, further down the page, is pretty much exactly what I’ve been seeing elsewhere:
When he walked into a subway car on 1 May, Neely – a street performer who was experiencing homelessness – was complaining of hunger and thirst, according to Mr Vazquez, who posted a video of part of the incident on his Facebook page.
He wrote that Neely was yelling and said he was tired, didn’t care whether he went to prison, and was ready to die. He said Neely threw his jacket to the floor of the train car before another passenger grabbed him in a headlock. Others grabbed at his arms.
Might that behavior have scared people? Sure. Was it aggressive battery directed toward anyone, either in particular or at others on the car in general? I wasn’t there; but it sure doesn’t read like that to me.
In all this talk about people being afraid of Neely, I wonder whether it’s occured to anybody else that some on the car may also have been afraid of the three people who took him down and slowly strangled him, despite warnings from at least one other passenger (and I believe I’ve seen other statements) that they might well be killing him?
Again from that same link:
In bystander video from inside the train car, a passenger can be heard warning the man holding Neely in a chokehold.
“You don’t want to catch a murder charge,” a man can be heard saying. “You got a hell of a chokehold, man.”
You seriously think that the Straight Dope Message Board response is “play stupid games and anyone’s entitled to murder you?”
Nobody’s said what he threw was an empty candy wrapper. Nobody’s specified what was meant by “throwing garbage”, or even whether he was supposed to have done so on this occasion or at some other time and place entirely. The only sources who have said specifically what he threw, when, and where said that before he was put in the chokehold he threw his own jacket down on the ground. Not at anybody. And they say that was the only thing he threw. I’m a lot more inclined to believe those sources than the ones that don’t know or at least aren’t saying what he threw, or when, or at whom.
And I still don’t think you’re entitled to use deadly force on somebody even if they did throw at you any of the items generally meant by the term “garbage”. If somebody throws rotten tomatoes at a politician, these days, they’ll get arrested. The security detail’s entirely entitled to do that, and to physically restrain the tomato tosser until the police get there. They’re not entitled to open fire; or to spend fifteen minutes strangling the tomato tosser while bystanders tell them they’re killing them. Random bystanders certainly aren’t entitled to do so either.
They describe what he did do. No, they don’t describe in detail everything he didn’t do. Why on earth would they? They don’t say he didn’t throw a grenade, either. They would certainly have mentioned it if they had credible reports that he had.
The NPR article I cited above said that he “did not appear to want to attack anyone”. I’m not going to hunt up all the others I read right now to check. Maybe later. Have you got anything at all, from a reasonably reputable source, that specifies what garbage he was supposed to have thrown, at whom, and whether it was part of this particular incident?
They can, but then they’ve committed assault. They are not in danger of severe bodily harm, and have responded out of proportion to the threat.
“Don’t start none, won’t be none,” is not something said by a law-abiding citizen. It is what is said by gang members and people in organized crime. The people who follow through with that often wind up in jail for assault. This shouldn’t be news to you.
And that’s just choking them out, which takes a couple minutes at most. The situation here is suffocating him for 15 minutes, meaning he continued to choke him after he was completely limp. There is nothing that the guy could have been doing that would justify that.
This is a guy who intentionally inflicted bodily harm on another human that resulted in that human’s death. The only way that isn’t murder is if it is self-defense. But self-defense only applies if the person is a reasonable and immediate threat–and a passed out person is not a threat.
Someone who intentionally commits violence that leads to death is clearly a bigger threat to society than someone who yells or even throws trash. Even if you think the latter is committing a crime, it is not the responsibility of the general public to punish people for crimes.
It’s one thing to argue something like “we don’t have all the information.” But to not only defend what it seems like now—an unnecessarily long chokehold that killed someone—but even say you’d do the same thing yourself? That’s disturbing. It’s not okay.
Even the people who saw it told the guy to stop. The very people who were supposedly threatened by the guy could see the choker was going too far.