You’ve clipped out the important bit of that language, @AK_Icebear.
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. ”
Per the language, you can’t just manufacture the fear out of the ether. It’s supposed to be fear caused by an actual attack.
Timex
4814
A chokehold is specifically designed and classified as a restraint technique. That is its purpose.
The reason it (sometimes) needs the situation to meet the requirements of deadly force, is not because it is designed to be deadly. It is explicitly not designed for that. But because it CAN be deadly, many law enforcement departments limit its use to situations which merit deadly force. Again, striking someone in the head or face falls into the same category, because it can also cause death, albeit rarely. Needing to meet the requirements for deadly force does not mean that an action is used with the intention to cause death.
No, I think you are making an unsubstantiated assumption here. The man describes a situation where he clearly felt physically threatened. The fact that he does not describe in detail the actual physical actions that were being taken by Neely does not at all suggest that no such actions were taken.
It is speculation either way to assume they were taken, or weren’t. I don’t think we need to speculate, we can just wait and see. It appears that the DA is going to investigate it, and I think that’s good.
Hence the “just” in there.
Did this situation merit deadly force?
Maybe he didn’t intend on killing the man. But he knowingly used a method that is often restricted to situations that merit deadly force because there is a very real risk that it can result in death. If you put someone in a chokehold, you may kill that person, and that is on you. It’s like how you don’t point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill.
Did he say he felt physically threatened, or are those your words? Because I think those are your words. And does it even matter how he felt? He describes what happened. He relates what Neely actually did. He mentions no violent act. No witness has mentioned any violent act, or at least no such account as been reported. It seems unlikely that there was any violent act by Neely, or we would surely have heard about it by now. Instead it’s all vague, loaded language, like the language you use to describe it.
Also, I think if you find yourself effectively on the side of the argument that law enforcement agencies are too restrictive on the use of deadly force, it may be time for some reflection.
Timex
4819
I don’t think we can make that call until we see the situation.
Waiting to see what actually happened seems like a reasonable position to take. I cannot see any benefit to rushing to judgement.
I think that it’s important to keep in mind that an actual law enforcement officer has many other tools at his disposal than a random guy on a subway does.
Is there any evidence presented so far that would suggest that it was merited? And if not, why is the starting position not that deadly force was not merited?
Timex
4821
Technically, if he were a law enforcement officer, then yes, there is evidence that deadly force may have been merited, as we have witness testimony that they were threatened by Neely’s actions. It’s possible that a reasonable person could have expected Neely to be about to cause serious injury to people on the subway, especially given that he literally said he would harm anyone on the subway, and that would be what normally merits use of deadly force.
I’m not sure why you want to rush to judgement here. What is a presumption of guilt on the part of the straphanger going to get you? Why not wait until we see what actually happened?
But he’s not a law enforcement officer, is he?
One man kills another. Do you start with the assumption that the killing was justified, or unjustified?
Timex
4823
I guess looking at that question I just asked, I guess I’d say that if you want to presume his guilt, fine. But I’m not going to.
You assume his innocence until proven guilty.
But in doing so, you’re presuming the guilt of the victim, no?
Timex
4825
No?
I mean, we always presume innocence unless we have evidence proving guilt. Right?
Again though, this seems like we’ve played this out at this point.
I’m not even saying you need to presume his innocence, although I don’t really understand why you aren’t. But that’s fine.
I’m just saying that I do not feel a desire to, or see the benefit of, presuming guilt when I can just wait to get more information.
In which case, you presume Neely did not attack anyone. So why is he dead?
Thrag
4827
Like a video of him choking the dude for an extended period of time? That kind of evidence?
Timex
4828
To me, that clearly establishes that Neely died as a result of the straphanger’s actions. I don’t think that’s in dispute at all. The medical examiner said so.
But that doesn’t mean that the straphanger murdered Neely, or committed a crime. There are many sorts of mitigating circumstances which could justify his actions.
Again though, if you guys want to assume he murdered him, go for it.
And those justifications amount to guilt on the part of Neely.
In the event of a tie, my presumption of innocence goes to the dead guy.
Thrag
4831
Which of those justifications do not involve a presumption of guilt on the part of the victim. List them.
Plus we are arguing whether the guy should be charged. There’s prima facia evidence of a crime.
Timex
4832
Sure.
I’m not presuming that they exist. I’m merely saying that they MIGHT exist, and I want to see what actually happened before I pass judgement.
The footage exists… it’s not like it’s some mystery that can never be answered. I just want to wait and see it.
