4793

I will have to disagree with you here. If he had actually punched someone, then restraining him would be a very acceptable response.

But clearly, we have different views on many things.

I just wanted to confirm that you don’t really know what happened prior to them restraining him, you just think that there’s nothing at all that could have merited it.

From a purely legal perspective, just so you are aware, punching someone in the face falls under the same restrictions as a choke hold. Striking someone in the head is also considered deadly force, and needs the same requirements to be met.

4794

You keep saying this but we do know, definitively, that the guy didn’t do anything violent.

4795

I do not believe you do. But certainly we will see once the footage comes out.

4796

Restrain yes. Slowly and deliberately snuff the life out of afterwards? Not so much!

4797

Don’t we have witness testimony to the effect that he didn’t do anything violent?

4798

Florida’s law states “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Laws in at least 28 states and Puerto Rico allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present. (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia Wyoming.)

At least ten of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.” (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.)

4799

I don’t believe we do, do we?

4800

I mean, those are laws about what you can do when you’re attacked.

This is what you responded to:

Just threatening. Not an attack.

4801

This keeps getting sidestepped. Putting someone in a chokehold isn’t just restraining them.

4802

What’s clear from the NYT comments is that there is a pervasive feeling among a sizable portion of locals of being threatened while commuting on public transit there. I visit frequently and occasionally run into unpleasant tension on the metro. I don’t know what it would feel like to make that commute daily, and slowly accumulate experiences at the extreme of the spectrum.

My conclusion is that probably means the pontificating by distance on what is or isn’t criminal, or even moral, doesn’t amount to much. At least local public opinion seems to be one of “good riddance”, based on similar experiences projected onto this situation.

I think the best take in those comments (which I may have missed here) is that this event, and the local public reaction, show what happens after multiple failures. The public transit system isn’t a place for homelessness, or busking, or criminal activity. There should be more (mandatory) institutional support for the chronically homeless, and less tolerance for harassment by anyone on public transit. And so on.

4803

You mean the opinion of the couple dozen/hundred people commenting on a website story, a very small portion of whom actually live there.

You realize that this is not a representative sample of locals, right?

4804

You posted a video with a witness interview right up there somewhere. The man describes what happened. He does not mention any violent act by Neely. You’d think he would have, had there been one.

4805

I think if litigated, it is likely the defense will argue the statements and actions by the homeless man constituted a threat against the safety of all those on the train, which apparently would be sufficient in some states.

NY has no such law (?), but the same argument would probably be used in a general assault/manslaughter case I guess.

4806

Absurd

4807

Also, why do we need proof that he didn’t do anything violent, as opposed to needing proof that he did do something violent? Why should there be a presumption of violence here?

4808

It’s certainly true that some people who kill other people will argue that the words of those other people were an attack, but that doesn’t mean we have to take those kinds of self-serving claims seriously. The words of the statutes refer to someone being attacked, don’t they?

4809

That’s fair.

My own observation in somewhat regularly visiting NYC, including this week, is this view (lawlessness on subway, fed up with homelessness) is common amongst those locals I can sample myself. If you have a more representative sample, please do share it.

4810

I really do hope this guy offers his “I had to kill him because I’m fed up with homelessness” defense. That should work out well for him.

4811

No.

reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

4812

You do realize a jury would most likely be made up of locals from NYC?