The main questions in this incident are about 1) What happened before the video and 2) What was the marine’s intent? My guess is that the marine didn’t intend for anyone to die [1] - that doesn’t absolve his actions, but it makes a difference in how I interpret this event. You can’t accidentally lynch someone, and using that sort of loaded language injects tons of intent we simply don’t visibility into.
It’s necessary and important that there’s a full investigation to figure out WTF happened. Hopefully that’ll generate some clarity to help us interpret events more fairly.
[1] I’d like to think it’s rare that anyone would intend to murder a random stranger with a shit-ton of witnesses around, but maybe I have a little more faith in the average human.
I’m not sure he’s guilty, but the information at our disposal suggests that, at the very least, there is a case to put to a jury, and that the initial law enforcement and media effort to spin him as some kind of hero was as wrong-headed as such efforts usually are. If I were on the jury, of course I would weigh all the evidence presented and follow it to the conclusion it leads to.
What I find distasteful is the insistent message from people — frankly, people like you — that Neely had it coming. And as for the law, I’m still waiting for you to correct your mangling of that Florida stand your ground law. I pointed out the error up there somewhere. I’m sure you can find it.
Timex
4876
Based on coverage that I’ve seen on this story thus far, this does not appear to be how the media is presenting this story. CNN was definitely not portraying him as some sort of hero.
I do not believe anyone has suggested that he had it coming.
When I presented things like his past cases of assault against innocent women on the subway, it wasn’t to justify actions taken against him. It was purely to say that there is legitimate reason to believe that the actions that took place prior to his restraint could have merited restraint, and that suggests we should want to see that evidence before drawing conclusions. For instance, if Neely had no history of violent crime, then it would become much less likely that he had done anything prior to being restrained to merit such an action taken against him.
So it’s not a condemnation of Neely, it’s merely a reason why I’d want to see that evidence.
Timex
4877
You know though, upon further introspection, I admit I am a bit judgy against Neely, and that’s not fair to him either. I let the fact that he previously assaulted women cloud my judgement against him, because that kind of act really does piss me off. But in this case, it doesn’t create evidence that we haven’t seen yet, and it shouldn’t be presumed. I’m still wanting to wait and see it though.
Again, no witness has claimed that Neely took any hostile or violent action, and apparently the report that he threatened to hurt anybody on the train was a false report. It’s possible he did something, but if so, it’s bizarre that no witness has reported it.
Yeah, that’s fair.
Timex
4879
Well, I’m not sure that report was false. There was a guy on twitter who said he couldn’t find reference to it, but I don’t know if I’d consider him a reliable source.
I think at this point, I’m just going to wait and see what the DA turns up.
Also fair. Me, I’ll wait until someone stands behind it before believing it. It’s no better than a rumor otherwise:
Timex
4881
One thing that makes me about the story, is that the train pulled into a station and stopped.
Now, you suggested that this was an indication of guilt, because the Marine had an opportunity to leave. I would question that argument, because disengaging from holding Neely at that point would have been messy and dangerous.
But the more important part here though, is where the hell were the cops?
I feel like the cops should have been on that train as soon as it pulled into the station, and they apparently didn’t get on at all and the train left? Aren’t there like, 83 gazillion cops and metro security officers all over the place?
Why, why can’t he walk away when the supposed victims are gone. Why does he have to keep strangling this guy?
NY added something like $150 million worth of cops allegedly to prevent $80 million in fare evasion. They hang out near the entrances and mostly look at their phones.
People say the city is just trying to create a reserve army for protests, or just running up the budget to hedge against calls to reduce funding. These guys aren’t really supposed to do anything but hang.
How fucked up are we as a society that (if we take the kind interpretation that Neely’s death was not intentional) citizens feel like they need to jump on someone who might be a threat, because we’re hyper sensitized by daily mass shootings? This reminds me of how before 9/11 I couldn’t imagine anyone trying to attack a terrorist on a plane, and now I’d be surprised if people didn’t try to attack them, because the story of fighting back has been pounded into us.
This is the natural conclusion of “you need a good guy with a gun to fight a bad guy with a gun” and “cops have no duty to protect, if you can even find them”. Lots of false positives where someone might think they are doing the “right thing” but they aren’t, and people die as a result.
America is a nation of PTSD.
Celebration and official legitimisation of the vigilante is also a core element of a fascist society, I think that’s on Umberto Eco’s list.
Timex
4886
Well, because once you let go of the guy, he could then attack you, and he’s probably not super cool with the fact that you’ve been restraining him.
Yeah, this is the bullshit I was talking about.
EspressoJim makes a legitimate point too, about how the cops legally have no responsibility to protect us… so what exactly are we supposed to do? If the cops literally say in court that it’s not their responsibility to protect us, then we kind of have to protect ourselves.
It would make more sense to have the cops actually do their jobs, but apparently that’s not a thing.
So, once you’ve grabbed him in a chokehold, you can’t ever stop choking him?
Timex
4888
I think you would release him when the cops show up, and take control of the situation. At least, that’s the end state that I’d be expecting.
It’s a chokehold. That approach means the guy pretty much always dies.
Timex
4890
Uh, that’s not at all true man.
A chokehold is designed as a restraint technique. It is not at all intended to kill the target.
The reason that it’s only allowed to be used in situations which allow for deadly force, is not because it’s designed to be a deadly technique. It’s that it CAN result in death. As I said, the same thing applies to tons of things, like striking someone in the head.
You’re saying that this vigilante didn’t intend to use deadly force, but you’re also saying this should only be used when deadly force is on the table. Would it have also been acceptable for him to walk up behind the guy and club him on the head?
It probably would’ve been safer if he had shot the guy in the knee. Or stomach.
Timex
4893
What I’m saying is that there appears to be confusion in thinking that because certain techniques that some law enforcement organizations classify as deadly force, those techniques intend to cause death. That’s not what it means.
Hitting someone in the head is prohibited by most law enforcement organizations, except in cases where deadly force is warranted (which basically means you think that you or someone else is going to be harmed), because it can cause unintended harm and death. But that does not mean that doing it indicates that the person doing it intended to kill the target. If you punched someone in the face, even though such a maneuver would be restricted as deadly force by many law enforcement organizations, it would not generally be considered to indicate an intent to kill a target. People get in fights all the time, and punch each other in the face, and they don’t generally get held for attempted murder in most cases.
Up until fairly recently, chokeholds were widely used by law enforcement as a restraining technique. The vast majority of people they were used against did not die as a result of being put into that restraint. It’s a more recent change in guidance that upped the requirements to use such restraints, because they want to avoid them in most cases since there is a chance that they can kill a person accidentally.
And before anyone starts freaking out, I’m not arguing that law enforcement should use more chokeholds. I’m merely pointing out that there seems to be some suggestion that use of a chokehold is performed with the intention of killing the target, and that is very much not the case.
