Crime Guy RNCed on NY subway dies.

[Hog-train]

Actually the law is if you kill someone by mistake it's manslaughter.

Unless they can successfully argue self defense - which is what they're going to attempt to do.

 

[HereticBD]

The only risk of quick death over a choke if if you have some sort of blood clot that gets removed because of the pressure and then goes to your brain, but then the death would be caused by a stroke.

Nah, I'm pretty sure the choke would be the culprit in that scenario. Like, if they weren't choked, they wouldn't have had complications caused by it. I think there are many more risk factors in choking someone unconscious than that, but whatever.

In this case, it doesn't really matter. Dude's vigilantism resulted in a death, and the guy he killed wasn't brandishing a weapon or anything, so he'll probably have to face some consequences, regardless. Unless the witnesses back him up to an extreme degree, he's likely gonna have to serve some time.

 

[Rational Poster]

Unless they can successfully argue self defense - which is what they're going to attempt to do.

No one was being attacked and he didn't have a weapon. You need to be able to prove someone's life was in imminent danger. Neely wasn't attacking anyone and didn't have a weapon. No one's life was in imminent danger.

 

[Hog-train]

No one was being attacked and he didn't have a weapon. You need to be able to prove someone's life was in imminent danger. Neely wasn't attacking anyone and didn't have a weapon. No one's life was in imminent danger.

You don't need to have actually been in the act of physically been attacking someone to have valid (and legal) self defense claim. There could just be the reasonable threat of force.

Again, I'm not claiming either way. I truly do not know and haven't made up my mind until I see more eyewitness testimony.

But the claim he didn't have a weapon or he wasn't in the act of physically attacking and someone is dead, therefore automatic guilty (legally) - that's simply not true.

This NYC lawyer explains it well.

 

[Rod1]

The lesson here is to let crazy people assault other people and don’t interfere. If anything arm the crazy person so they can not injure themselves assaulting people

Or you know not kill an unarmed guy

You don't need to have actually been in the act of physically been attacking someone to have valid (and legal) self defense claim. There could just be the reasonable threat of force.

Again, I'm not claiming either way. I truly do not know and haven't made up my mind until I see more eyewitness testimony.

But the claim he didn't have a weapon or he wasn't in the act of physically attacking and someone is dead, therefore automatic guilty (legally) - that's simply not true.

This NYC lawyer explains it well.

When it comes to deadly force the standard is a little higher.

 

[Rod1]

Nah, I'm pretty sure the choke would be the culprit in that scenario. Like, if they weren't choked, they wouldn't have had complications caused by it. I think there are many more risk factors in choking someone unconscious than that, but whatever.

In this case, it doesn't really matter. Dude's vigilantism resulted in a death, and the guy he killed wasn't brandishing a weapon or anything, so he'll probably have to face some consequences, regardless. Unless the witnesses back him up to an extreme degree, he's likely gonna have to serve some time.

Oh yeah i thought you were talking about this case

 

[cincymma79]

Or you know not kill an unarmed guy


When it comes to deadly force the standard is a little higher.

A guy who grabbed another guy and put an incredibly poor choke hold on him. He’s not an expert assassin who knows the exact moment someone is out. Guy was still fighting for all but the last few seconds of the video. How is some guy who learned fifteen minutes of hand to hand ten years ago supposed to get it exactly right? Maybe the ref should’ve counted him out? It’s not like ufc fighters have held choked past when they’re out before right? Or refs missed it?

so since you’re completely wrong the best is answer is to let all the mentally I’ll people assault you so they’re too busy for the rest of us

 

[emefer]

If Daniel Penny and the other 2 people subduing Neely can argue they were defending themselves and others because they were reasonably scared of him, they'll get off. Regardless if he died. That's the law.

I'm not arguing either way. I don't know. If he unnecessarily choked him for too long or even unnecessarily started the physical altercation, then obviously he should be found guilty.

I was so scared of the guy that I snuck up behind him and choked him to death.

 

[Rod1]

A guy who grabbed another guy and put an incredibly poor choke hold on him. He’s not an expert assassin who knows the exact moment someone is out. Guy was still fighting for all but the last few seconds of the video. How is some guy who learned fifteen minutes of hand to hand ten years ago supposed to get it exactly right? Maybe the ref should’ve counted him out? It’s not like ufc fighters have held choked past when they’re out before right? Or refs missed it?

If the guy had "trained WWE" more than he "trained UFC" and instead of a shitty choke tried a shitty nelson, the hobo guy would be alive.

If you honestly believe you need to kill an unarmed guy that you outweigh and also outnumber 3 to 1, you sound like a total whimp

 

[cincymma79]

If the guy had "trained WWE" more than he "trained UFC" and instead of a shitty choke tried a shitty nelson, the hobo guy would be alive.

If you honestly believe you need to kill an unarmed guy that you outweigh and also outnumber 3 to 1, you sound like a total whimp

hey look a fourth grade argument. I can play that game. Are you saying Jews can’t defend themselves?

 

[emefer]

The only risk of quick death over a choke if if you have some sort of blood clot that gets removed because of the pressure and then goes to your brain, but then the death would be caused by a stroke.

Define quick death

 

[Rod1]

Are you saying Jews can’t defend themselves?

What?

 

[Rod1]

Define quick death

Death that happens while or close to the event that triggered it.


Having a stroke a few hours or days after the fact isn't.

 

[emefer]

You don't need to have actually been in the act of physically been attacking someone to have valid (and legal) self defense claim. There could just be the reasonable threat of force.

Again, I'm not claiming either way. I truly do not know and haven't made up my mind until I see more eyewitness testimony.

But the claim he didn't have a weapon or he wasn't in the act of physically attacking and someone is dead, therefore automatic guilty (legally) - that's simply not true.

This NYC lawyer explains it well.

The problem is he used deadly force and it’s up to the state to prove it wasn’t reasonable.


Under our law, a person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful deadly physical force by such individual.

Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of the following terms: “deadly physical force” and “reasonably believes.”

DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury. [Serious physical injury means impairment of a person’s physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

 

[emefer]

Death that happens while or close to the event that triggered it.


Having a stroke a few hours or days after the fact isn't.

You can choke someone to death in less than 5 minutes. Is that not quick death?
You say the only danger of quick death from strangulation is a blood clot causing a stroke? lol ok

 

[rearnakedchoke]

The guy released a video yesterday? Not sure that is the smartest thing to do.

regardless, hard to make up your mind when you only see a snippet of the actual events. During trial, there will be testimony from witnesses who were there and agreed or disagreed with the level of force used. Some cases are cut and dry, others not so much.
Like the force used by the capitol police officer on Ashli Babbitt. I’m sure most people will agree the shooting was justified based on the numerous commands given to Babbitt who refused to heed the warnings during an insurrection.

 

[Denter]

Or you know not kill an unarmed guy


When it comes to deadly force the standard is a little higher.

Yeah, imo the appropriate level of response is to verbally confront if they are being verbally abusive. Normally a little bit of intimidation is enough. If the crazy bum escalates to physical with you, then you can escalate physically back (beat him up). To tackle and choke would only be appropriate if he was attacking people.

 

[Rational Poster]

You don't need to have actually been in the act of physically been attacking someone to have valid (and legal) self defense claim. There could just be the reasonable threat of force.

Again, I'm not claiming either way. I truly do not know and haven't made up my mind until I see more eyewitness testimony.

But the claim he didn't have a weapon or he wasn't in the act of physically attacking and someone is dead, therefore automatic guilty (legally) - that's simply not true.

This NYC lawyer explains it well.

You have to present a reasonable threat for it to be considered legitimate self defense. An unarmed man threatening an entire subway car of people is not a reasonable threat.

If you use deadly force in self defense you need to be threatened with deadly force. A skinny, starving homeless person is not a deadly threat to an entire train car full of people.

 

[Rod1]

You can choke someone to death in less than 5 minutes. Is that not quick death?
You say the only danger of quick death from strangulation is a blood clot causing a stroke? lol ok

Oh yeah, i re-read my post i kind of fucked up.

I meant to say "the only risk of death from a quick choke" and by quick choke i mean under 20 seconds

 

[Rod1]

Yeah, imo the appropriate level of response is to verbally confront if they are being verbally abusive. Normally a little bit of intimidation is enough. If the crazy bum escalates to physical with you, then you can escalate physically back (beat him up). To tackle and choke would only be appropriate if he was attacking people.

I think the big problem is the whole outnumbered part, once you are 3 on 1 its pretty hard to justify choking someone to death.