Increasingly, people are being killed over smaller and smaller things

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@BigT

“Don’t start none, won’t be none,” is not something said by a law-abiding citizen.

I’m a law-abiding citizen, and I say it.

Someone who intentionally commits violence that leads to death is clearly a bigger threat to society than someone who yells or even throws trash.

Nonsense. Speaking as a law-abiding citizen, if you tell me that Guy A sees no reason not to batter me, and that Guy B is no threat to me as a law-abiding citizen but will attack Guy A if Guy A starts battering me, then I can apparently get along great with Guy B, and I would advise Guy A about starting none and being none like I was just saying.

Even if you think the latter is committing a crime, it is not the responsibility of the general public to punish people for crimes.

Is it okay, in your view, for the general public to stop crimes?

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.

It’s not okay to commit battery against law-abiding citizens. Is it okay, in your view, to stop a criminal from committing battery against law-abiding citizens?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@thorny_locust

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.

In the absence of a security detail, I figure a law-abiding citizen is entitled to do that as well.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@thorny_locust

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?

I have no idea what you’d find reputable, and so there seems to be little point — you can of course just keep saying ‘No, That’s Not It’ — but, no, I haven’t seen anything that specifies what garbage he was supposed to have thrown during this incident; only general stuff. “The 30-year-old entered the northbound train and reportedly started yelling and throwing garbage at other commuters”, say, or that “Neely was reportedly throwing garbage at other passengers and ranting.” Or, at that: “There’s plenty we don’t know about what transpired Monday afternoon on an F train, but this much is clear: Neely was threatening passengers, throwing garbage at them and otherwise behaving erratically.” Or: “Police said Neely was yelling at passengers and throwing garbage at them when the ex-Marine eventually seized the homeless man in the chokehold.” Or: “At 2.30pm on Monday, he was riding on the F train heading towards Broadway Lafayette station when he started screaming and throwing garbage at fellow passengers, according to witnesses.” And so on.

Presumably it’ll get hashed out at trial?

[thorny_locust]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Is it okay, in your view, to stop a criminal from committing battery against law-abiding citizens?

Yes. Using the minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish the purpose.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@thorny_locust

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.

In the absence of a security detail, I figure a law-abiding citizen is entitled to do that as well.

To restrain the tomato tosser? Yes. To strangle them to death for throwing tomatoes? No.

And presuming that battery is actually occuring, or will otherwise actually occur.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

no, I haven’t seen anything that specifies what garbage he was supposed to have thrown during this incident; only general stuff. “The 30-year-old entered the northbound train and reportedly started yelling and throwing garbage at other commuters”, say, or that “Neely was reportedly throwing garbage at other passengers and ranting.” Or, at that: “There’s plenty we don’t know about what transpired Monday afternoon on an F train, but this much is clear: Neely was threatening passengers, throwing garbage at them and otherwise behaving erratically.” Or: “Police said Neely was yelling at passengers and throwing garbage at them when the ex-Marine eventually seized the homeless man in the chokehold.” Or: “At 2.30pm on Monday, he was riding on the F train heading towards Broadway Lafayette station when he started screaming and throwing garbage at fellow passengers, according to witnesses.” And so on.

You’re giving exact quotes. So presumably you have sources for them?

Or are those not actual quotes?

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Presumably it’ll get hashed out at trial?

Presumably yes. If there is a trial. Which there should be.

Last I heard he hasn’t been charged. Maybe that will change.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@thorny_locust

You’re giving exact quotes. So presumably you have sources for them?

Or are those not actual quotes?

Of course they’re actual quotes. The first is from here,and the second from here; the third from here, the fourth from here, the fifth…you know what? This seems pointless; you can presumably google “Neely” and “Threw Garbage At” just like I can, at which point you’ll presumably turn up stuff like “Neely was on an F train heading toward the Broadway-Lafayette stop in NoHo when he began acting erratically around 2:30 p.m. Monday, passengers told police. He yelled and threw garbage at commuters, prompting an argument with the 24-year-old ex-Marine, cops said.”

[Banquet_Bear]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Of course they’re actual quotes.

…its telling that your first two links are to tabloid garbage Daily Mail, the third is to an editorial, and the fourth is attributed to “according to the police” and was written four days ago.

And yet, in the statement released by the person who was a direct witness to this, who had the most to gain from a narrative that “Neely was throwing garbage”, Penny doesn’t mention this. No other witnesses are on the record stating this. The source here is “cops said…”. There has been no follow up on this. This is the only source. That isn’t enough to treat this accusation as credible. It certainly isn’t enough to justify a lynching.

[Czarcasm]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Is it okay, in your view, for the general public to stop crimes?

It is NOT o.k. to play judge, jury and executioner. Since the only real danger at that time was the murderer and those assisting him, would it be o.k. to pull a gun and shoot them because I was afraid they would come after me next?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Czarcasm

Since the only real danger at that time was the murderer and those assisting him, would it be o.k. to pull a gun and shoot them because I was afraid they would come after me next?

Why would you be afraid they’d come after you? Were you battering anyone?

[Czarcasm]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

In the absence of a security detail, I figure a law-abiding citizen is entitled to do that as well.

Would a law-abiding citizen be entitled to kill someone for throwing a tomato at them?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Czarcasm

Would a law-abiding citizen be entitled to kill someone for throwing a tomato at them?

I believe a law-abiding citizen could well be, uh, “entitled” to use force to immobilize them, which could well kill them, which is yet another reason why you shouldn’t throw a tomato at a law-abiding citizen.

[Czarcasm]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Why would you be afraid they’d come after you? Were you battering anyone?

Your standard for battering is so low it would entitle people to shoot children at a playground.

[Mighty_Mouse]

Only if the children looked grubby enough to be non-persons.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Czarcasm

Your standard for battering is so low it would entitle people to shoot children at a playground

My standard? Someone else posted a definition upthread; are you taking issue with that definition?

[Czarcasm]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I believe a law-abiding citizen could well be, uh, “entitled” to use force to immobilize them, which could well kill them, which is yet another reason why you shouldn’t throw a tomato at a law-abiding citizen.

Holy fuck!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Mighty_Mouse

Only if the children looked grubby enough to be non-persons

You know, if you can’t argue against my actual position, that says quite a lot about yours. What, the stuff I’m saying isn’t bad enough in your view? You need to add this?

[Mighty_Mouse]

He has enough sense to realize that even if throwing a tomato at someone is “battery” under the law (which is NOT conceded) committing battery and battering someone are two different things.

[Czarcasm]

And there is the problem. You give people easy access to firearms, but society still(at least on the surface) frowns on killing human beings. The solution? Dehumanize certain groups, allowing those with a need to feed their ego to feel comfortable/justified in letting the ammo fly.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Czarcasm

The solution? Dehumanize certain groups, allowing those with a need to feed their ego to feel comfortable/justified in letting the ammo fly.

Where is this “dehumanize certain groups” stuff coming from? I’m saying I’m in favor of doing it (a) to a human, (b) not because of what group that human is in.

[Mighty_Mouse]

If a bunch of prep school boys were harassing a homeless person no one would be “maybe” calling for giving a medal to another homeless person who blew away the prep schoolers.

Some homeless people might, but they are “no one” in the estimation of the cheerleaders of lynching.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Mighty_Mouse

but they are “no one” in the estimation of the cheerleaders of lynching.

Falsehood after falsehood here, I see.