Should the murderer who murdered a guy on the subway, be charged with murder?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Homicide if not a hate crime too.

Thank you for bringing up the topic excon.

"Roughly 20 – 25% of the U.S. homeless population suffers from some form of severe mental illness"

https://time.com/6277268/jordan-neely-subway-death-homicide/

We are in the middle of a mental health crisis.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/21/1124365508/whats-really-causing-americas-mental-health-crisis

I see people with severe mental illness all the time and unhoused, it is really sad.

just_sayin

The case will depend on the threats the man made to passengers on the subway and any other provocations involved, along with what the marine's intentions were.  If he felt that the gentleman was a legitimate threat, was going to kill someone or had some weapon or bomb, then a self-defense argument will probably win.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Jordan Neely's Assault Victims

It is important to remember Jordan Neely's assault victims suffered a variety of injuries, including:

* A 68-year-old man Neely punched in the face in 2019 suffered a broken nose and a concussion.

* A 67-year-old woman Neely punched in the face in 2021 suffered a broken nose, a fractured orbital bone, swelling, and substantial pain.

Jordan Neely was no angel.

jack

JulesKorngold said:

It is important to remember Jordan Neely's assault victims suffered a variety of injuries, including:

* A 68-year-old man Neely punched in the face in 2019 suffered a broken nose and a concussion.

* A 67-year-old woman Neely punched in the face in 2021 suffered a broken nose, a fractured orbital bone, swelling, and substantial pain.

Jordan Neely was no angel.

Hello Jules:

Yeah, but should punching somebody be punished by death?  AND, the day he was murdered he didn't punch anybody.

excon

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Further Investigation Needed

@jack
You're right.  He didn't punch anybody that day.  Reports say he was screaming and threatening though.  Daniel Penny tried to neutralize Jordan Neely in order to protect everybody, including himself.  Should Daniel Penny serve prison time for that?  A grand jury will decide.

If I were a juror in the case of Daniel Penny, I would have a number of questions about the chokehold death of Jordan Neely. These questions would include:

* What was the state of Jordan Neely's mental health at the time of his death?

* What was the level of threat that Jordan Neely posed to Daniel Penny and other passengers on the subway?

* Was Daniel Penny justified in using a chokehold to subdue Jordan Neely?

* Was Daniel Penny aware of the risks associated with using a chokehold?

* Did Daniel Penny use excessive force in subduing Jordan Neely?

I would also want to hear from experts on the use of force by civilians and the role of mental health services in addressing violence. I would want to understand the legal and ethical implications of Daniel Penny's actions. Ultimately, I would want to make a decision that was fair and just for all parties involved.

jack

JulesKorngold said:

@jack
You're right.  He didn't punch anybody that day.  Reports say he was screaming and threatening though.  Daniel Penny tried to neutralize Jordan Neely in order to protect everybody, including himself.  Should Daniel Penny serve prison time for that?

Hello, Jules:

I say again, screaming and threatening people are NOT grounds to kill him.

excon

jack

JulesKorngold said:

@jack

You're right.  He didn't punch anybody that day.  Reports say he was screaming and threatening though.  Daniel Penny tried to neutralize Jordan Neely in order to protect everybody, including himself.

Hello again, Jules:

You actually hit the nail on the head..  Nooo, the other nail.. 

Before "stand your ground", in order to plead self defense, you had to show that you had NO escape, and therefore HAD to act..  These days, however, you can WIN a self defense verdict just by FEELING that you or another person is in jeopardy..  And, he felt threatened..  He'll prevail.

In my view, stand your ground laws are nothing more than a license to kill the unpopular. 

excon

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: There's More To It

@jack
You're right.  Daniel Penny should not have choked Jordan Neely to death.  I doubt Daniel Penny intended to kill Jordan Neely.  A karate chop driving his nose bone into his brain would have killed Jordan Neely in seconds.

jack

Argument Topic: There IS more to it

@julesKorngold:

Hello again, Jules:

We cross posted.  I'd LOVE to hear your take on stand your ground.

excon

MichaelElpers

@jack

Ill point out that i dont believe a full opinion can be reached without reviewing all the evidence.

You said there has to be NO escape, and im not certain about that but id argue there is not a high probability of escape for a crowd of people on a subway.

Do you not believe a mentally ill individual screaming threats gives a person a reasonable suspiscion to feel threatened? I believe there was more than 1 individual helping to subdue this person.

Lastly i think the case will largely be dependent upon excessive force. Chokeholds correctly performed can be used to knock a person unconscious without causing extreme bodily harm. The jury will have to determine intent, how long did the man apply the chokehold after he knew the individual was unconscious, did they attempt to resuscitate.

JulesKorngold

jack said:

@julesKorngold:

Hello again, Jules:

We cross posted.  I'd LOVE to hear your take on stand your ground.

excon

Stand your ground laws are a type of self-defense law that allows people to use deadly force without retreating from a threat, even if they could safely do so. These laws have been controversial since their inception, with proponents arguing that they protect people's right to self-defense and opponents arguing that they lead to more violence.

One of the main pros of stand your ground laws is that they give people more options when they are faced with a threat. If someone feels that their life is in danger, they can use deadly force without having to worry about whether or not they could have safely retreated. This can be especially important in situations where there is no time to think or where the person is outnumbered or outmatched.

Another pro of stand your ground laws is that they can deter criminals. If criminals know that people are more likely to use deadly force in self-defense, they may be less likely to commit crimes in the first place.

However, there are also some cons to stand your ground laws. One of the main cons is that they can lead to more violence. When people feel that they have the right to use deadly force without having to retreat, they may be more likely to use it, even if there is no real threat. This can lead to escalation and more violence.

Another con of stand your ground laws is that they can be difficult to enforce. If someone uses deadly force in self-defense, it can be difficult for prosecutors to prove that the person did not have the right to do so. This can lead to innocent people being charged with crimes.

The killing of Jordan Neely is a case that highlights the pros and cons of stand your ground laws. In this case, Daniel Penny was accused of murder after he used a chokehold to subdue Jordan Neely, who was experiencing a mental health crisis. Penny argued that he was acting in self-defense, and police agreed.

This case shows that stand your ground laws can be used to protect people who are acting in self-defense. However, it also shows that these laws can be used to justify the use of deadly force in situations where it may not be necessary.

Again, it seems Daniel Penny had no intention of killing Jordan Neely.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

You said there has to be NO escape, and im not certain about that

Hello M:

I AM certain.  Before stand your ground, if you HAD an escape, you MUST take it.  Since stand your ground, even IF you have an escape, stand your ground lets you KILL somebody if you simply  FEEL threatened or you FEEL that your neighbor is threatened.  I say again, that's a license to kill.

Given the murder we're discussing, the killer FELT threatened, so I think he'll walk.  Should he be thrown in the can for life?  You BETCHA he should!

excon

jack

JulesKorngold said:

Again, it seems Daniel Penny had no intention of killing Jordan Neely.

Hello again, Jules:

Yeah, I knew all that..  What I wanted to know, was how you FELT about it.  Should it give

Kyle Rittenhouse the right to kill people because he FELT threatened??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

I say NO, a thousand times NO.

excon

MichaelElpers

@jack

What I dont understand is why you want to give people making threats more rights than sane citizens.
Everyone has equal access to public space i shouldnt have to comply with threats of an individual.  And i shouldnt have to wait until i get stabbed.

You seem to being using FELT like there has to be no objective standard for feeling threatened.

You bring up Rittenhouse felt threatened but not only was he threatened, he was attacked.
He was threatened by the first attacker and then chased down by him.  He even grabbed the muzzle of the weapon.  The next shootings he was shoved to the ground and hit in the head with a skateboard.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

What I dont understand is why you want to give people making threats more rights than sane citizens.

You seem to being using FELT like there has to be no objective standard for feeling threatened.

Hello M:

I don't wanna give him rights.  I also don't wanna give people the right to exact vengeance..  We HAVE clearly established methods that do that.. 

And, I agree with you..  FEELING threatened is subjective..  Having an escape route, isn't.  There's a door there, or there isn't.  There's a barrier you can hid behind, or there isn't.. That's why I like the old self defense laws that actually DEFEND a person instead of giving them license to kill.

excon

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Great points about giving license to kill. Seems similar to stand your ground laws.

@jack

"During and well after the Civil War, stand-your-ground was used to protect white men's homes and possessions, including wives and daughters." NPR 2017

Karen Grigsby Bates

https://www.npr.org/2017/02/25/517181355/race-and-the-controversial-history-of-stand-your-ground-laws

Barnardot

@jack Well it wasn't murder any way because it wasn't premedicated but even then the guy who did it proberly just doesn't like blacks and got hot under the coller. I bet if the home less guy was white the other guy wouldn't have done him in any way.

jack

Barnardot said:

@jack

Well it wasn't murder any way because it wasn't premedicated

Hello B:

Nahhh.. 

2nd-degree murder is any intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned.  A situation in which the killer intends only to inflict serious bodily harm, knowing this could result in death but with no specific intent to kill can be considered as second-degree murder.

If you're gonna post on the law, you oughta have it right. 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=2nd+degree+murders

excon

Barnardot

@jack well the guy hasn’t been found guilty of any thing yet.

MichaelElpers

@jack

Your arguments against stand your ground give threatening and violent individuals give them greater access to public space than a law abiding individual. Youre forcing any threatened individual to run which is ridiculous.

Stand your ground doesnt give a specific license to kill the individual. If the perpetrator is subdued or runs you cannot continue to inflict violence.  The perpetrator is sometime killed in the act of being subdued.

In that case, which seems to be this one, theres mainly 2 things to look at.  1. Was the perp being actually being threatening or violent.
2. Did the defender continue to inflict damage after the perp was subdued.

For #2 i think a lot of things will be looked at.  Was the chokehold administered for an excess amount of time. Did paasengers tell the defendent, or did he know the perp was knock out and continue the chokehold. Did they attempt to resuscitate

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

Was the perp being actually being threatening or violent.

Hello again, M:

Good question.  The answer, as we already discussed, is highly subjective.  Different people will have different viewpoints on what "threatening" actually is.  However, in my view, the word "violent" isn't subjective at all, as it involves coming into actual contact with another person.. 

Under that definition, he wasn't violent. 

excon

MichaelElpers

@jack

Youre inevitably makig near impossible to defend yourself then.  Do i have to wait until some stabs me to try and defend myself or is something threatening me and pulling a knife out enough?

Violent threats are already considered crimes.  What we do know is plenty other passengers had felt threatened enough to call 911.
Other passengers were also helping subdue Neely which i suspect is why it was harder to tell when he lost consciousness.

jack

Argument Topic: Do i have to wait until someone stabs me to try and defend myself?

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

Youre inevitably makig near impossible to defend yourself then.

Hello again M:

In a word, yes.  To sanction the “pre-emptive” murder of an unarmed person who is having a mental breakdown just because it might get violent is anarchy.

excon

Bogan

@Dreamer

I see people with severe mental illness all the time and unhoused, it is really sad.

Why?    You can bet that the id-iot has burned out his own brain by taking every illegal substance since he was old enough to steal the money to buy drugs.     He is the author of his own misfortune and the only good thing about fentanyl is that it is a great way for society to rid themselves of people too stu-pid to stand on their on two feet.      The brain dead who the ex marine did a citizens arrest on was a menace to society and probably always had been since he was old enough to rob and bash people.    I for one am glad he is dead.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hi Bogan welcome back. :) I have not seen you in three months.

@Bogan

I respectfully disagree. The relationship between drugs and wealth is complicated. I will give an example take alcoholism, stress, and trauma. Stress from the pandemic including job loss triggered a sharp increase in alcoholism. Which then acts like an amplification effect increasing the chances of landing in poverty.

"Alcohol consumption rising sharply during pandemic, especially among women" Sasha Pezenik

September 29, 2020, 7:25 PM

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alcohol-consumption-rising-sharply-pandemic-women/story?id=73302479

Blaming the victim and individuals also lets corporations and governments off the hook for lax tax laws and funding freedom from addiction programs. I recommend a higher tax on alcohol to fund these programs. 

Bogan

@Dreamer

I respectfully disagree.

 Well, that is damned civilised of you.   There may be hope for you yet.

 

Dreamer wrote

 The relationship between drugs and wealth is complicated. I will give an example take alcoholism, stress, and trauma. Stress from the pandemic including job loss triggered a sharp increase in alcoholism. Which then acts like an amplification effect increasing the chances of landing in poverty.

 Well, how about this logic?     Du-mb people make poor life choices.  They take illegal drugs and abuse alcohol.  While it is true that some smart people can become addicted to drugs or alcohol, it is primarily du-mb people who are the real problem.   Take me.   I was once a member of the "disadvantaged" class who's family ended up there because of circumstances beyond their control.    But smart people are upwardly mobile while du-mb people remain in the lowest class forever.    I recognised at an early age that my family had a real problem with alcohol, and I lived in a community where the detrimental effects of alcohol on families was manifest.    So as a smart kid, I had no desire to consume alcohol at all, and I am today a lifelong teetotaller.    That was a smart life choice.   And if I did drink alcohol today, I would not drink Bud Lite.

 

Dreamer wrote

 Blaming the victim and individuals also lets corporations and governments off the hook for lax tax laws and funding freedom from addiction programs. I recommend a higher tax on alcohol to fund these programs. 

 Blaming everybody else, especially "the rich" for the self inflicted problems of the poor and the du-mb, is another standard tactic of the left.   The tactic is, to pretend that you are the champions of the "oppressed" against the machinations of the successful, who only got "rich" by oppressing the oppressed.  Such logic only appeals to the du-mb and the poor, who need to blame somebody else for their own poor life choices.    And they also need "the rich" to pay their welfare while they sneer at them.       But being du-mb, they don't know when to stop squeezing the productive.   They squeeze the productive lemons until the pips squeak with ever more taxes, which results in the productive moving to a state like Texas or Florida, where smart and productive people are welcomed.    Unsurprisingly, Texas and Florida are booming while Democrat controlled states with policies that you support are turning into third world sheetholes.    I am amazed that you can't see this.  It is right there in front of your eyes.    Could you please take off your ideological blinkers and start thinking straight?    And I say that with great respect.

  If you would like to start thinking straight then recognise that poverty is primarily a factor of low intelligence, not "persecution" or "oppression."    

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Four Americans die for each employee of Big Tobacco.

Rich people cause the problems of the poor and then blame the victim.

https://theconversation.com/tobacco-killed-500-000-americans-in-2020-is-it-time-to-control-cigarette-makers-153611

Bogan

@Dreamer

If your last post was directed at me, it is pathetic and not worth responding too.    Making declarations unsupported by a reasoned argument is not debating.     If your link supports your declaration, then read it, summarise it's salient points, and submit its premises in your own words.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I was having technical difficulties. That was the 3rd or 4th attempt.

@Bogan

For some reason my comment kept getting moderated, no idea why was innocuous enough. Was about historic trauma and addiction. I linked to a peer reviewed article to support my claim.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Poverty causes your brain to shrink. America is run by robber barons.

@Bogan

"The usual side effects of poverty are abundant and well documented. They include crime, chronic stress and a long list of health conditions. But you may not have heard of this one: lower IQ."

By Amanda Montañez on March 3, 2017

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/this-is-your-brain-on-poverty/

Adam debunks the American Dream. This video shows how you gotta be rich to be poor.

Historic trauma is correlated with addiction.

"Low self-esteem and transgenerational trauma have been associated with substance use disorders among Native American teens in the U.S. and Canada."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans

Monopoly, monopsony, Oligopoly, and Oligopsony are just a few examples of how the system is rigged. The rich play the blaming the victim card over and over. Race was invented by white rich people in Virginia colony 1676 as a form of social control.

A person who believes that low income people are poor because they are just plain is using an extreme version of confirmation bias. Just read practically any book. For example for a bit more money you can often get a much more durable product. Yet, if you don't have that money you pay much more in the long term.

Rich people often get rich off of economic rent. Private equity firms looting America. Private equity firms making money off of mega churches tax free.

 Take Big Tobacco, Booze, and Casinos for example. All three add very little if any value. Casinos use hard logic and science and encourage superstition in the gift shops with rabbit's foots and other good luck charms. Every 40 mins a person dies in the USA from a drunk driver. Big Tobacco kills 4x as many people as it employs.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

The disinformation dozen make profit off of disinformation, that's pure economic rent. Even Big Pharm the opposite in many ways of Del Big Tree often focuses on high profit making and low value drugs rather than low profit and high value vaccines. Big tech monetizes the Flat Earth movement, disinformation, and hate.

Howard Zinn thinks America historically was run by robber barons and still is, I agree.