It’s not that they intend to cause death, but that they can (and often do) result in death, regardless of intent.
When you place someone in a chokehold, you are taking the risk that you may kill this person.
Timex
4895
Absolutely, just like if you hit someone in the face.
Timex
4897
Yeah, just like. That’s why hitting someone in the face is classied in the exact same way by many law enforcement organizations. It’s restricted as deadly force, for the same reason.
Do you have sources for this? Now I’m genuinely curious what sorts of unarmed techniques are considered deadly force, and where.
Timex
4899
I think I was mistaken, in that most of the restrictions on hitting someone in the head are actually limited to hitting them in the head with an impact weapon (like a baton). So I guess maybe they are allowed to punch you in the head in a non deadly force situation?
I had thought it was any strike to the head or face, but most of the police dept guidance I’m finding upon looking it up is talking about impact weapons.
(Edit: The philly police apparently ban cops punching you in the head or face entirely, except under unspecified “exigent circumstances”)
If you put someone in a chokehold for just 5 minutes they’re probably dead.
I agree that a full presentation of the evidence to a jury is what makes most sense to settle our petty online bickering. Whether that happens or not will depend on the DA’s perception of the strength of the evidence and how it will impact their political career.
That isn’t my assertion. My view, and intention in the half dozen posts I made on this, are that the recent environment on the transit system could itself be used as a defense, and perhaps one a jury of local peers would be more sympathetic to than commentators far more distant from the environment. Justice isn’t measured and meted out in a philosophers’ vacuum - its determined by local police, lawyers, judges and juries.
What happened is tragic. That doesn’t mean it was illegal, or even immoral - we really don’t have enough information to be certain.
Yes, you correctly highlighted that the Florida law includes the word attack. That was my mistake in skimming.
What constitutes an attack in the eyes of the law? If someone states their intention to cause you bodily harm, do you have to wait until the first strike to respond physically?
That kind of thing is probably extremely contingent. If an unarmed person utters threats but takes no action I think that you would certainly be in the wrong if you took action first. On the other hand if they were brandishing a deadly weapon (i.e. not simply holding but brandishing in a threatening manner), you might be more justified.
What is NEVER justified is strangling an unarmed man until they are unconscious and then CONTINUING to strangle them for many minutes until you are sure they are dead.
Here’s what the New York Penal Code says:
- A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter’s conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
Timex
4904
I do not believe this is what happened here. I haven’t seen anything suggesting that the continued to hold him after he lost consciousness.
To be clear, if this is in fact what happened, then I think everyone here would agree that it was murder.
Thank you for sharing this.
Not quite, but close. In Florida, at least. A recent case involving a guy fucking around and finding out (that the dude he was messing with was a professional fighter) revolved around that question.
edit: remove weird random bolding of text in the middle
Since the coroner determined Neely died of strangulation, you are almost certainly wrong.
I think the word ‘attack’ is there for a reason, and it means what ‘attack’ usually means in the context of violence. Which is to say, the intent of the law isn’t to empower you to use violence against someone for talking to you. And yes, I recognize that some juries are going to be more lenient than the law intends.
In any event, I think the point was, there are few places where a strict reading of the law allows you to respond to words with violence. I’m not sure I know of any.
Qmanol
4909
Dude violently attacked and killed a man. Not inclined to give much sympathy to a violent killer, regardless of whether he can weasel out of legal consequences due to the increased permissiveness of laws passed by people with vigilante fetishes.
Via Balloon Juice, an opinion from someone who teaches chokeholds:
I teach the lateral vascular restraint and its counter as an aikido instructor. I’m also the demonstration dummy when Saotome Sensei and my more senior colleagues teach it at seminars and in classes. This is because I have a 19 inch neck and because I know how to protect myself if it is applied. When I teach it, I teach specifically that you must not hold it for more than four seconds if it is applied correctly because after four seconds you risk killing the person you’re trying to subdue. This is because you’re basically making the body think it is having a stroke and if you apply it too long you actually cause one/the equivalent of one.
When I lived in Scotland and worked as a bouncer I’ve applied it in a real life situation where I was defending other people from someone who was drunk and violent. I honestly didn’t think I had it locked in properly and I’d never actually applied it before. It was just the fastest and simplest way to get control of the guy’s head. Before I clamped down on his carotid and jugular – hence the name of lateral vascular restraint – I told the guy to stop struggling and I’d release him. He didn’t, so I locked it in and I started to count out loud: “One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand, four one thousand” while gently lowering him to the ground. At four one thousand I released the hold, he was out, I checked his pulse, put him in the recovery position, we called the constables and for an ambulance, and I said “FUCK ME!!! IT WORKED!!” The drunk guy I’d rendered unconscious was fine. He came to before the ambulance arrived and they took him off to sober up.
That the guy in New York held it for 15 minutes means he either didn’t have it applied right and wound up asphyxiating Neely or if he did have it clamped on the vessels on each side of the neck he was trying to kill him. Given that Neely is reported to have struggled, my guess it is the former. And that means Jordan Neely was slowly asphyxiated to death. Regardless, holding this for fifteen minutes is way beyond the pale.
I honestly can’t understand how else you think it happened. The coroner says the guy was strangled to death. People being strangled don’t go from alive-and-kicking to dead, they first lose consciousness. If you stop choking them, they’re probably not going to continue suffocating to death, are they?
Timex
4911
The suggestion was that he was strangled for many minutes after he lost consciousness. This does not appear to be what the witness stated, who said that he was moving around and they didn’t think there was anything wrong with him.
Part of what can happen when you lose consciousness from a hold like this, is that you can stop breathing, or your heart can stop, requiring that you then be resuscitated. It doesn’t require you to continue to be strangled for an extended period after losing consciousness.
The one witness suggested that they didn’t think there was any problem with Neely, because he was moving around. I have not seen anything that stated here continued to be held after losing consciousness, as we saw in some recent police brutality cases.
It’s possible that such a thing happened, but I have not seen any witness say that’s what happened, and I didn’t see any video showing Neely being restrained while he’s unconscious. Have you seen video showing this?
As I said, of such a thing happened, where he continued to strangle an unconscious person, then I agree that’s bad.
Timex
4912
It’s also possible that he wasn’t actually trying to apply it as an actual carotid control hold, and wasn’t trying to make him lose consciousness. He may have just been holding onto him to try and restrain him from moving.
I’m not at all sure this is consistent with what the medical examiner said about cause of death, but I guess we will find out.
