Unless we know better, hasn’t the marine committed manslaughter? Is there evidence that the marine intended to kill Neely? (take about presumptions of innocence…)
When a dozen folks post replies to one person in a heated argument and snarkily respond to one another about posts from that one person, yeah, that’s a dogpile in my mind.
Thrag
4856
NY also has charges like reckless or criminally negligent homocide if we want to get into legalese.
Thrag
4857
Okay, that’s fair. And I did use a little sarcasm to try and make the point.
This forum just has such polite dogpiles.
Hahaha. Well, at least we have that.
Timex
4859
At this point, I’m very used to it, but I’ll point out that it may feel more polite if you’re never on the receiving end.
I apologize if my posts came across as heated or rude. That certainly wasn’t my intent.
Technically I don’t think so. He’s committed homicide, that’s inarguable. Manslaughter or worse is determined by the trial and verdict.
When I’m on the subway and a Michael Jackson impersonator (or any other kind of performer) gets on the train, I want to kill them.
I guess the Daily Mail accidentally (?) leaked the ex-marine’s name? Which makes me think the media had it all along, and it wasn’t just the police and DA that we’re choosing to withhold it in favor of piling on Neely’s record. So this is a mainstream media story after all.
Another bit of detail I read this morning. During the 15 minutes that the ex-marine was choking Neely, the train (of course) arrived at a station, the doors opened, and most of the people in the car got out. Which will make it hard to maintain the defense that Neely needed to be restrained any further, since everyone involved had ample opportunity to avoid any danger from Neely.
Apparently no witness claims that Neely threatened the other passengers, and the quote was made up by cops.
Thoughtful piece by Spencer Ackerman.
I have no idea where the Marine grew up, just like I have no idea where the two men who assisted him in choking Neely to death grew up. Dehumanization of the homeless is definitely not a characteristic exclusive to transplants: Bernie Goetz is from Queens. Nor do we know what the Marine or those who aided him were attempting to do, and I don’t mean to invoke Goetz as a way to imply that I do. But you’d have to be blind not to notice the way that certain people who move here from the suburbs tend to want a New York that’s free of New Yorkers. Maybe a better way to say it would be: Don’t live here if you’re scared of your neighbors; and if you do live here, get to know your neighbors. We are, in fact, in this together, no matter how crazed, depraved and psychotic this city can make all of us, natives and transplants alike.
Right now, we New Yorkers live under the frightening prospect of what will happen on June 21. That’s when the city’s Rent Guidelines Board is expected to recommend a rent increase that could be as high as seven percent. Meanwhile, the state budget that Albany finalized this week will raise the city minimum wage to $17 over the next three years, which is simply not enough to live on here. Rents rising faster than wages will mean more homelessness. More homelessness will mean more Jordan Neelys. In my lifetime, New York’s middle class, which I am from, has only shrunk. Capital has only ascended, remaking the city into something less and less affordable, especially over the past 30 years.
That’s a horrible story and indicative of the problem of Left leaning people to mix everything into everything to the point where nothing can be addressed or done. Which leads San Fran homeless chaos and the inevitable conservative backlash when the Left has no answers.
The answer to the story isn’t “True New Yorkers embrace crazy people yelling at them”, nor “this is all the fault of the financial district.” Crazy people yelling at you in a confined space is a problem. Killing those people for being crazy is also a problem. When you depersonalize it to the point when you’re saying “oh, it’s really new immigrants to NYC” you’re decontextualizing to the where nothing pertinent to thr details of the story matter, so you can draw conclusions based on preexisting beliefs. When you shrug and say “the problem is capitalism” you’re making the problem so broad that you remove any possibility of finding a solution (other than overthrowing the entire socioeconomic system).
One of those problems is not like the other. That’s kind of his point.
Timex
4871
I believe that the reason why a responsible media outlet wouldn’t release his name is that he’s not been charged with anything, and releasing his name could potentially ruin his life, and expose him to harassment from random people.
Yes, I’m sure that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Could anything convince you of this person’s innocence? If not, the discussion seems pointless. Your absolutism on his guilt, and disdain to any deference to the law and presumption of innocence according to law, is distasteful.
For the record, I do think it’s possible he’s guilty. And I think @Timex is openminded in the possibility.
