|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 13 2024 00:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2024 23:29 KT_Elwood wrote:
According to reports, while the person acted agressively, he never harmed anyone.
The accused un-aliver of the person didn't stand between possible victims..or the person.. he just attacked him from behind.
Americans seem to have a different understanding of proportional violence.
Americans recognize human beings do not come with handily accessible and conveniently differentiated "pause" and "terminate" buttons that other people can simply press when necessary and therefore historically go against punishing survivors for making it out of situations which arise from the aforestated fact of life. And the rest of the world recognizes that people should not be judge, jury and executioner
|
The problem with these discussions is that people either want to apply hindsight thinking or bad faith argumentation to make their point. Like for fucks sake nobody is saying you should be allowed to execute people for being belligerent. People are saying if someone is posing a danger to others in a public place you should be allowed to restrain them and if the person is inadvertently harmed you shouldn’t go to prison for it.
|
On December 13 2024 00:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 00:02 oBlade wrote:On December 12 2024 23:29 KT_Elwood wrote:
According to reports, while the person acted agressively, he never harmed anyone.
The accused un-aliver of the person didn't stand between possible victims..or the person.. he just attacked him from behind.
Americans seem to have a different understanding of proportional violence.
Americans recognize human beings do not come with handily accessible and conveniently differentiated "pause" and "terminate" buttons that other people can simply press when necessary and therefore historically go against punishing survivors for making it out of situations which arise from the aforestated fact of life. And the rest of the world recognizes that people should not be judge, jury and executioner
This would be a really thought provoking comment if there hadn't just been a trial?
You have a right to defend yourself under natural law, which supersedes everything, no matter what country you are in or who is involved in the attack - a country can jail you for saving life but not in the name of justice.
Juries come solely from the English tradition, and exist today around the world because after the American Revolution, which was the first to distill the ideas of the Enlightenment into the foundation for a country, the same phenomenon propagated across the Continent and eventually the world.
The Netherlands certainly recognizes that people should not be jury, anyway.
|
On December 13 2024 00:22 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with these discussions is that people either want to apply hindsight thinking or bad faith argumentation to make their point. Like for fucks sake nobody is saying you should be allowed to execute people for being belligerent. People are saying if someone is posing a danger to others in a public place you should be allowed to restrain them and if the person is inadvertently harmed you shouldn’t go to prison for it. And people are allowed to defend themselves.
But when the restrained person goes limp and losses consciousness and you keep on choking them it stops being self defence and becomes murder.
|
On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
I apply the golden rule. If I were attempting to subdue a deranged person threatening to kill people on the subway I would not want to be prosecuted if they were unfortunately harmed. On the other side if I were a deranged person high on drugs and threatening people on the subway I would accept that that I’m putting myself in danger by creating an altercation with other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get high on drugs in public.
But don’t worry. Simply being prosecuted is quite the punishment in itself. It’s sufficient to ensure that the next time this happens the people capable of doing something to stop it will wisely not get involved. Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress.
so even though he was innocent of any wrong doing, there will be some sort of chilling effect on people willing to act in the future?
so he was entirely in the clear, did nothing wrong, but we expect less people willing to do this as a result. this sounds familiar. [implied comparison to abortion bans not directed specially at you]
|
On December 13 2024 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 00:22 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with these discussions is that people either want to apply hindsight thinking or bad faith argumentation to make their point. Like for fucks sake nobody is saying you should be allowed to execute people for being belligerent. People are saying if someone is posing a danger to others in a public place you should be allowed to restrain them and if the person is inadvertently harmed you shouldn’t go to prison for it. And people are allowed to defend themselves. But when the restrained person goes limp and losses consciousness and you keep on choking them it stops being self defence and becomes murder.
From what I've been reading that's indeed the real point of contention. I can't find information on what unfolded after Neely lost consciousness (allegedly after 2-3 minutes).
Generally the duration of unconsciousness varies between individuals, ranging from ~10-20 seconds. For Penny to be able to quickly turn Neely over and restrain him from the back (ideally together with the other passenger), he'd have to determine unconsciousness from behind him. That is very difficult if not outright impossible (ask any MMA fighter/ref how difficult this is during a real fight). That explains why Penny maintained the chokehold.
After Neely regained consciousness, I'd assume the struggle likely continued. It's possible that Penny never knew during the struggle that Neely lost consciousness.
|
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him.
|
On December 13 2024 01:01 Velr wrote:
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him.
I don't know how you misinterpreted my comment so badly. I said he fell unconscious, not that he was unconscious for several minutes. It was probably 10-20 seconds. Re-read the comment.
|
On December 13 2024 00:37 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
I apply the golden rule. If I were attempting to subdue a deranged person threatening to kill people on the subway I would not want to be prosecuted if they were unfortunately harmed. On the other side if I were a deranged person high on drugs and threatening people on the subway I would accept that that I’m putting myself in danger by creating an altercation with other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get high on drugs in public.
But don’t worry. Simply being prosecuted is quite the punishment in itself. It’s sufficient to ensure that the next time this happens the people capable of doing something to stop it will wisely not get involved. Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress. so even though he was innocent of any wrong doing, there will be some sort of chilling effect on people willing to act in the future? so he was entirely in the clear, did nothing wrong, but we expect less people willing to do this as a result. this sounds familiar. [implied comparison to abortion bans not directed specially at you]
There’s a civil lawsuit pending against him, he’s been vilified in the media, and his life has been turned upside down. You think that’s not enough of a deterrent for people to think twice before injecting themselves into a situation? Can you clarify the point about abortion bans?
|
On December 13 2024 01:01 Velr wrote:
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him.
Do you have proof that he continued choking him for several minutes after he lost consciousness or are we just making things up as we go now
|
On December 13 2024 01:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 01:01 Velr wrote:
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him. Do you have proof that he continued choking him for several minutes after he lost consciousness or are we just making things up as we go now
There's a difference between actively trying to choke a person out and having them in a chokehold. The former is trying to make them unconscious, the latter is holding them in a position that they can't get out of. The harder the squeeze, the more it moves from the latter to the former.
The severity of the struggle determines the likelihood of unconsciousness. If Neely was struggling very hard, then Penny would've had to squeeze harder to control him.
It's also very important to get the arm underneath the chin to perform a chokehold. The person being held can escape by tucking their chin underneath the arm and thus creating leverage. The person holding has to make sure this doesn't happen by keeping the arm underneath the chin. This creates a struggle that can result in unintentional unconsciousness.
Also important to mention that falling unsconscious doesn't generally result in death. Under professional guidance it can even be performed safely (as demonstrated by professional MMA fighters).
|
If you fully block both carotid arteries it takes around something more than 10s to become unconscious iirc. Oh yeah the vertebral ones too, but they are harder to block.
Spock would be proud of this conversation.
|
On December 13 2024 01:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 01:01 Velr wrote:
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him. Do you have proof that he continued choking him for several minutes after he lost consciousness or are we just making things up as we go now There is video of the final minutes, I haven't looked for the video itself because I'm not into watching people die but it was shown to the jury and apparently he maintained the hold for nearly a minute after the victim stopped moving.
Prosecutors argued Penny’s initial attempt to defend his fellow passengers was understandable and “even laudable,” but that the student went too far and used lethal force unnecessarily. They argued he continued to choke Neely after some passengers exited the train and Neely stopped moving for nearly a minute. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/daniel-penny-verdict-trial-jordan-neely-death-b2657660.html
I have no problem with him stepping in, I have no problem with him restraining him. And during that he can lose consciousness. I have a problem if he keeps choking him after he stops resisting and dies as a result.
|
On December 13 2024 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 01:54 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 01:01 Velr wrote:
So he struggled with an unconcious guy or what exactly are you saying?
I get that it's difficult in the moment and a deadly accident is entirely possible.... But choking an unconcious guy for several minutes(!) has nothing to do with "in the moment" or "it's hard to tell".
By that logic the guy that kneeled on George Floyd was actually surprisingly lenient with his way of restricting him. Do you have proof that he continued choking him for several minutes after he lost consciousness or are we just making things up as we go now There is video of the final minutes, I haven't looked for the video itself because I'm not into watching people die but it was shown to the jury and apparently he maintained the hold for nearly a minute after the victim stopped moving. Show nested quote +Prosecutors argued Penny’s initial attempt to defend his fellow passengers was understandable and “even laudable,” but that the student went too far and used lethal force unnecessarily. They argued he continued to choke Neely after some passengers exited the train and Neely stopped moving for nearly a minute. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/daniel-penny-verdict-trial-jordan-neely-death-b2657660.htmlI have no problem with him stepping in, I have no problem with him restraining him. And during that he can lose consciousness. I have a problem if he keeps choking him after he stops resisting and dies as a result.
I doubt average passengers can tell the difference from a distance between a safe chokehold and actively choking someone out. Most people don't watch/do MMA. Penny could've just laid there and held Neely in a less restrictive chokehold making sure that Neely wouldn't start struggling again after he wakes up. Not every chokehold is equal.
|
|
|
IMO the 2 killings being discussed ought to be chalked up to "society breaking from insufficient maintenance". Jordan Neely was having a really bad time and he was suffering. He needed help from society and he never got it. He was a victim.
This is where one of the very difficult moral questions comes into play. When someone is fundamentally a victim of society, as was the case with Jordan Neely, how should that factor into preventing harm done by a victim? This is a common moral fork in the road that is the core of many moral disagreements. The core of the question is "To what extent should a victim be punished for the person they become when society fails them?"
Children are harmed by watching people like Jordan Neely screaming demented stuff and generally frightening everyone. It is not good for kids. We can't pretend it is ok to say kids should just deal with it. People are being dishonest when they say Jordan Neely should have simply been left alone. Expecting kids to be raised in this kind of environments like this is immoral. We owe children better than that. Daniel Penny became a vigilante of sorts, but on the complete opposite side of the moral spectrum for me. So even though I am saying I understand the mechanism of why he did what he did, I want to be clear I think he did a bad thing. On the other hand, Luigi was pushed by the failures of society to do a good thing.
But just to be clear, Neely should not have been killed. It was very bad and way more unfortunate than the littering Luigi did. Daniel Penny is not a hero. He is an unfortunate effect of a broken society. I don't think he had bad intentions, but his actions clearly made a bad situation much worse. On the other hand, Luigi made an enormous improvement in every possible way.
When society fails to protect its citizens, they will protect themselves. Even though I find it unfortunate Luigi dealing with the situation himself caused harm to society by littering the street with a warm bag of trash on the sidewalk, the core of the issue is a government failing to provide proper waste management solutions. Luigi was tortured into striking out against the health insurance industry by a prolonged failure of our government to uphold their end of the social contract. Insurance kills too many people. Its that simple. Unless someone else is doing something, no one can fault Luigi for what he did. Nothing being done isn't good enough. Something must be done. If everyone else is just going to sit on their hands, I guess we need to forgive Luigi for littering.
It is fair to say that Daniel Penny was pushed to a breaking point after watching this entirely dysfunctional society manifest day after day. I can vaguely gesture towards certain parts of SF, Portland, Seattle, etc, as places where children are forced to carefully walk through areas and pretend its not insanely fucked up watching people scratch their skin off screaming racial slurs. Of course it is super bad and tragic that Daniel Penny took it way too far by killing the guy. But I think both Jordan Neely and the warm bag of trash were both killed for the same fundamental reason: criminal mismanagement of society by our government.
|
Northern Ireland27001 Posts
On December 13 2024 01:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 00:37 brian wrote:On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
I apply the golden rule. If I were attempting to subdue a deranged person threatening to kill people on the subway I would not want to be prosecuted if they were unfortunately harmed. On the other side if I were a deranged person high on drugs and threatening people on the subway I would accept that that I’m putting myself in danger by creating an altercation with other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get high on drugs in public.
But don’t worry. Simply being prosecuted is quite the punishment in itself. It’s sufficient to ensure that the next time this happens the people capable of doing something to stop it will wisely not get involved. Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress. so even though he was innocent of any wrong doing, there will be some sort of chilling effect on people willing to act in the future? so he was entirely in the clear, did nothing wrong, but we expect less people willing to do this as a result. this sounds familiar. [implied comparison to abortion bans not directed specially at you] There’s a civil lawsuit pending against him, he’s been vilified in the media, and his life has been turned upside down. You think that’s not enough of a deterrent for people to think twice before injecting themselves into a situation? Can you clarify the point about abortion bans?
I can only assume it’s the idea that even if people aren’t criminally prosecuted for performing abortions under certain conditions, that some may not do so due to worrying about the possibility.
I believe a callback to somebody else downplaying a similar possibility to what you described in your post, just in a different domain
|
On December 13 2024 03:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 01:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 00:37 brian wrote:On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
I apply the golden rule. If I were attempting to subdue a deranged person threatening to kill people on the subway I would not want to be prosecuted if they were unfortunately harmed. On the other side if I were a deranged person high on drugs and threatening people on the subway I would accept that that I’m putting myself in danger by creating an altercation with other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get high on drugs in public.
But don’t worry. Simply being prosecuted is quite the punishment in itself. It’s sufficient to ensure that the next time this happens the people capable of doing something to stop it will wisely not get involved. Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress. so even though he was innocent of any wrong doing, there will be some sort of chilling effect on people willing to act in the future? so he was entirely in the clear, did nothing wrong, but we expect less people willing to do this as a result. this sounds familiar. [implied comparison to abortion bans not directed specially at you] There’s a civil lawsuit pending against him, he’s been vilified in the media, and his life has been turned upside down. You think that’s not enough of a deterrent for people to think twice before injecting themselves into a situation? Can you clarify the point about abortion bans? I can only assume it’s the idea that even if people aren’t criminally prosecuted for performing abortions under certain conditions, that some may not do so due to worrying about the possibility. I believe a callback to somebody else downplaying a similar possibility to what you described in your post, just in a different domain
Yeah that would be my guess too but then that only supports my argument. Simply the threat of prosecution is sufficient to deter behavior, regardless if a conviction was scored.
|
On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress.
Without having someone there to outright murder the guy, she will just have to ignore him until he goes away like in every other country.
|
On December 13 2024 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2024 22:21 BlackJack wrote:
Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress. Without having someone there to outright murder the guy, she will just have to ignore him until he goes away like in every other country.
Right, the preferred strategy is to try to ignore them and hope you aren’t attacked. Usually it works, sometimes you get attacked. That’s just life in the big city.
Reminds me of when Andrew Yang said during the Democratic debate that a female friend of his was randomly punched in the face by a psychotic person and we should expand the capacity of psychiatric hospitals for people that can’t function in society without harming people. He got booed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
