If Jordan Neely was a friend, loved one, or military brother of the killer, he would still be alive.
What, on a moving train? How would that work?
Where would they get on? How would they find the right train and the right car?
Besides, if the guy posed a risk to the people on the train, the first thing I’d do would be to get him off the train. Get him out of an enclosed space and onto a platform. Alert a station worker, who would know how to contact the transit cops. Wait in one place for reinforcements to come to me, instead of staying on the move.
I expect better tactical sense from a trained marine.
Someone with a cellphone calls the cops, only instead of merely noting where they are now they mention where they’re heading and when they expect to get there. What are the next stops? How many minutes away are they?
The first thing he did was, apparently, immobilize the guy by wrapping his arms and legs around him — and, instead of getting him off the train, maintained the hold. How, exactly, do you get him off the train while maintaining the hold?
Then he should have let him go and asked someone else to help him get him off the train. Weren’t there another two guys in the dogpile?
I’ve seen it happen on a NY subway. A couple of guys got into a fight over a girl. the moment we reached a stop, two other young men on the train grabbed one of them at random and threw him out the door. Doors closed, train kept moving, everyone was happy.
Besides, if they really couldn’t move him, just stick an arm or a leg in the door. The train will stay put until help arrives.
Apparently not, because it took over 15 minutes for a cop to arrive.
Getting him off the train is the only logical thing to do. The only reasons I can think of for not doing it are:
a. He wasn’t thinking rationally.
b. He didn’t want to be inconvenienced.
c. He wanted to choke the guy out.
Neither make him look that good.
If the argument is that two other guys were already helping to hold him in place when it was less difficult, I’m not sure that letting the guy go before the police arrive is a smart first move: if you’ve already managed to immobilize him with assistance — and you may or may not be able to do it a second time if you let go of him — do you not see any downside to letting go and asking someone else to help once it’s more difficult?
First of all, any three guys can immobilize any one guy without choking him. Second of all, who cares if he got away? The whole goal here was to protect the people on the train, right?
My concern wouldn’t be that he’d get away; it’d be that he’d go back to committing assault and battery.
From long ago, I remember a saying (validity irrelevant): women need a reason to make love. Men just need a place.
I’ve come to believe that a shocking number of people don’t need a particularly compelling reason to kill; just the opportunity.
…that’s kinda what the police are for. For goodness sakes, it isn’t as if you don’t pay them enough.
…yes, but the police kinda weren’t there.
…yeah, but that’s generally how living in a society works. You have a legal system. A process. Law enforcement. You either choose to be part of that society or you don’t.
If you choose to “not let them get away because you imagine that they might go back to committing assault and battery”, even though you had no idea what their criminal history was or it wasn’t, ESPECIALLY as he wasn’t throwing trash at them or threatening them, then you’ve chosen to operate outside how society has agreed to work, and you should be punished appropriately.
No, I’m saying that if he immobilized the guy because said guy was committing a crime right there and then on the subway, then letting him go simply restores the status quo ante right there and then. If you want to argue against immobilizing him in the first place, okay, we can discuss that; but once he’s been immobilized, what have you accomplished by letting go before the authorities arrive?
You didn’t kill him?
You could’ve done that by not even immobilizing him in the first place.
Or by immobilizing him in a less potentially lethal manner.
Like Chauvin/Floyd, we’re being told that at least two bystanders warned the Marine of the potential consequences of the course of action he was on.
The Marine had options. He made choices.
…let him go for fucks sakes. Let him run. Let the police catch him. That’s the system. You are allowed to defend yourself. From everything we have learned so far there didn’t need to be any defending. But even if, for the sake of debate that there was, you still didn’t have to do what we saw in that video. That video didn’t show self-defence. The guy was dead. He was gone. That is inexcusable.
Letting him run isn’t the part I object to. I’m saying that, if you’re going to immobilize him right when you see him committing a crime, releasing him so that he can go back to committing the same crimes makes no sense. What assurance do you have that he would run away instead of going back to committing crimes right there and then, with no police around?
Y’see, there TOWP’s line of argument goes further of the rail due to a moving goalpost: now it’s no longer interrupting a disturbance, now it’s ensuring that the subject cannot provoke another one.
Or, how about, if you do clearly witness a crime in progress, perform a citizen’s arrest. Which involves taking them, y’know, alive.
(Chokeholds have been forbidden by many police departments because, indeed they are too easy and effective as a disabling tool AND too easy to take too far, when you get into the “how do I know if it’s safe to let him go” mentality)
And as mentioned befort this is what brings us back to the OP issue: are we facing a situation where, even if fewer people in gross total are being killed than 30 years ago, too often it happens because individuals have decided to go straight out to maximum impact to “eliminate” the perceived threat.
Like an exchange we had earlier in the thread: I see a mugging in progress, I stop it by sucker-punching the mugger. He as he goes down he hits his head on a concrete stanchion and dies, that’s an unfortunate mishap. But if I keep punching him and punching him until I’m sure he’s not getting back up until the medics arrive… now I have a problem.
Y’know, that seems to be another component to this: the apparent perception that every knuckehead out in the street is somehow Michael Myers or Jason Voorhies on meth and will just come back for you if you settle for anything short of permanent.
I think there’s another piece of pithy frontier bumper (buggy) sticker wisdom at play here:
I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Sure. Cute. Charming.
But you may or may not BE judged by 12 (ie, charged), and you may or may not HAVE been at risk OF being carried by six (ie, killed).
Too many variables at play in these equations – many/most of which involve you: temperament, predilection, state of mind, etc., etc.
You’re quite likely looking at a “reasonable man” question being asked of you. While that Overton Window DOES seem to be shifting in an ominous direction (thus, the OP), when you take another’s life, you may very well put your own at risk.
And the only actor – so far – that has a credible claim of assault and battery is the subway car floor at which the dead man threw his jacket.