|
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 04:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote: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.
Right, the preferred strategy is to kill anyone who is a nuisance because otherwise people will have to deal with nuisances in the future!
It makes perfect sense.
|
On December 13 2024 02:47 Mohdoo wrote:
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.
Despite the dysfunctional society you refer to, there's no evidence Penny was pushed to a breaking point by witnessing it rather than just he and other people were reacting to specific events in one train in one city on one day. There could be more of those events as a matter of the scope of the problem but it's not clear that Penny viewed he was Batmanning himself in the way the assassin was.
In what way was Luigi tortured? He came from privilege and plenty, got in an accident, was a spoiled jackass about the fact that modern medicine couldn't miracle fix his back, and after either a drug-induced psychotic break or megalomaniacal delusion thought it was his job to fix the world and stick up for the little guy by murdering a stranger who did nothing to him.
How many people does insurance kill by the way? And how many is too many? How many is not too many? Approximately.
On December 13 2024 04:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote: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. Right, the preferred strategy is to kill anyone who is a nuisance because otherwise people will have to deal with nuisances in the future! It makes perfect sense.
That guy had a history of beating the shit out of vulnerable people.
|
On December 13 2024 04:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote: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. Right, the preferred strategy is to kill anyone who is a nuisance because otherwise people will have to deal with nuisances in the future! It makes perfect sense.
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.
|
On December 13 2024 04:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 04:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote: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. Right, the preferred strategy is to kill anyone who is a nuisance because otherwise people will have to deal with nuisances in the future! It makes perfect sense. 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.
Here's what you are doing though:
1: You are saying that by charging a guy who killed someone in this situation, we are stopping others who might step in and do us all a favor by killing someone who's being a pain in the arse next time.
2: Then you are pretending that your argument isn't that people should be going around vigilante killing people, even though by your own logic it is.
3: Then you are sarcastically shoving it in everyone's face that obviously they just want old ladies to be terrorised
4: Then you play the victim and pretend its everybody else being disingenuous.
Let me ask you one question:
If charging this guy will act as a deterrent for those who might want to do something similar in the future, do you think that NOT charging the guy would result in other people vigilante killing anyone they want who is asking for change, or acting drunk or high?
I am wondering, if I can manage to twist, ignore and change your meanings enough that what you claim to be arguing is actually what you are arguing, what you think the results of all of this should be, and what effect you think that's going to have on society.
|
Tbh I don't understand the crux of the argument. Canada's got guidelines for making a Citizen's arrest, and none of those include "if you accidentally murder someone it's chill".
If you make a citizen's arrest and kill the person you're arresting, you fucked up. "But people won't make citizen's arrests then!" isn't much of an argument, because you don't want people that might kill the suspect making citizen's arrests. Maybe it'll prevent people who might murder the suspect from making citizen's arrests, leaving space for people who would more properly apply that procedure.
|
On December 13 2024 05:04 Fleetfeet wrote:Tbh I don't understand the crux of the argument. Canada's got guidelines for making a Citizen's arrest, and none of those include "if you accidentally murder someone it's chill". If you make a citizen's arrest and kill the person you're arresting, you fucked up. "But people won't make citizen's arrests then!" isn't much of an argument, because you don't want people that might kill the suspect making citizen's arrests. Maybe it'll prevent people who might murder the suspect from making citizen's arrests, leaving space for people who would more properly apply that procedure.
Its even worse if you look at it from a steelman POV of blackjack's argument.
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
|
I'm going to start this with, I think the dude should be charged. People with training on how to do the holds also know when it is time to let go. If he was unconscious for over a minute before he let go, that is at least 50 seconds to long. In grappling tournaments people get pissed if the ref lets it go like 3 seconds too long. And if the guy won't let go people are stomping him. This is a known danger.
But for those who think he should have got in between him and the lady, you have been watching to many movies. Any training will say you should the person from behind to subdue them as safely (for you and others) as possible. How he did it was completely reasonable and possibly heroic right up until he held the choke for way to long and the person died.
If this case did not become a political firestorm my guess is the main defense would have been if this guy had some PTSD or something from his service which caused him to go way overboard on the choke resulting in this non innocent but not deserving of deaths person's demise. Instead we live in a strange time where he is a hero to team Red and Hitler to team blue, when both portrayals are simply wrong. Pretty sure if the guy chocking him was a leftist and the person screaming was wearing a maga hat who was on what team would swap.
|
You can be charged with things, and sued, regardless of whether the person died or not.
|
On December 13 2024 05:14 oBlade wrote:
You can be charged with things, and sued, regardless of whether the person died or not.
But a person died, and that's what resulted in the charge.
If the guy had not died, suffered no long term damage and there were still charges the situation is totally different as would my opinion be.
If someone doesn't intervene next time because the guy who killed someone got charged with killing someone, then either that person is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone and they should not be intervening in anything at all, or they are making the absolutely insane leap of logic that 'Someone got charged for killing someone in this situation so if i deal with it without killing someone i will also get charged'.
The difference between killing someone and not killing someone is very significant here.
I personally don't believe we should let people get away with killing others in case it is a deterrent to people who aren't going to kill anyone. The logic doesn't follow. You don't need to make legal allowances for people who can't think clearly, especially when said allowances let someone get away with killing someone else.
|
Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments.
The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute.
|
On December 13 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:
Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments.
The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
How is this a strawman of your argument?
Its exactly what your argument (at least, the deterrent angle of it) is.
When you say I'm am strawmanning you you claim that i said
‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
That's not what I said though is it, shall I put it in quotes for the second time in this post?
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
Okay let's move on:
Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute.
So your argument is that not charging people will deter people from acting in the future, but simultaneously that even the idea that not charging will deter people from acting in the future is ridiculous.
Got it.
My point here is, we WANT to deter people from engaging in potentially lethal combat on the subway. That is a good thing.
|
Insurance operates much like the mafia.
You pay them in the hopes that nothing happens to you and if it happens, you hope that they compensate you for it after you bet that they are going to pay more for you than you paid to them.
It‘s not really sustainable and requires a baseline of people who are reliable and pay without ever needing their services.
But it‘s an asymmetrical model from the start. They‘re not that different from a casino in how they earn money.
|
To Jock and BJ: I think you're both talking past each other.
I think BJ is considering that Neely threatened to kill everyone on the train. If we assume that to be true, then deterring Penny from subduing Neely is a detriment to the people on the train, not a benefit. The threat to people is real and tangible and Penny is not acting as a vigilante in this scenario.
Jock, I believe, is considering the looks of the acquittal. If Neely was not a real and tangible threat to people, then encouraging people to subdue him would be encouraging brutal vigilantism.
So I think you're both arguing from a different core assumption. BJ assumes that Neely was a real threat, Jock assumes that he wasn't.
|
On December 13 2024 06:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:
Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments.
The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
Show nested quote +
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
How is this a strawman of your argument? Its exactly what your argument (at least, the deterrent angle of it) is. When you say I'm am strawmanning you you claim that i said Show nested quote +‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman. That's not what I said though is it, shall I put it in quotes for the second time in this post? Show nested quote +
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
Okay let's move on: Show nested quote +Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute. So your argument is that not charging people will deter people from acting in the future, but simultaneously that even the idea that not charging will deter people from acting in the future is ridiculous. Got it. My point here is, we WANT to deter people from engaging in potentially lethal combat on the subway. That is a good thing.
I just think it’s naive to believe you can divide it up into the subway vigilantes that “murder people” and the subway vigilantes that don’t “murder people.” It’s the same group of people. You can’t just deter the people that “aren’t confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone.” Everyone that intervenes is thinking “I don’t know what’s going to happen but I can’t sit by and do nothing.”
|
On December 13 2024 06:59 Vivax wrote:
Insurance operates much like the mafia.
You pay them in the hopes that nothing happens to you and if it happens, you hope that they compensate you for it after you bet that they are going to pay more for you than you paid to them.
It‘s not really sustainable and requires a baseline of people who are reliable and pay without ever needing their services.
But it‘s an asymmetrical model from the start. They‘re not that different from a casino in how they earn money.
Its the kind of model that would certainly benefit from not being interjected into the profit-centric society we have, for sure. Some things are just social good and don't need to be fucked for the sake of the profit motive.
|
The media doesn‘t really give a shit about the average gunshot victim. But what this guy did was the equivalent of an editor stepping on a slug barefoot. And you could hear it pop and just ew gross what is this on my foot better write about it.
It‘s a one of a kind experience. But you grow fond of stepping on slugs barefoot, with time and experience.
|
On December 13 2024 07:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 06:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:
Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments.
The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
How is this a strawman of your argument? Its exactly what your argument (at least, the deterrent angle of it) is. When you say I'm am strawmanning you you claim that i said ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman. That's not what I said though is it, shall I put it in quotes for the second time in this post?
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
Okay let's move on: Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute. So your argument is that not charging people will deter people from acting in the future, but simultaneously that even the idea that not charging will deter people from acting in the future is ridiculous. Got it. My point here is, we WANT to deter people from engaging in potentially lethal combat on the subway. That is a good thing. I just think it’s naive to believe you can divide it up into the subway vigilantes that “murder people” and the subway vigilantes that don’t “murder people.” It’s the same group of people. You can’t just deter the people that “aren’t confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone.” Everyone that intervenes is thinking “I don’t know what’s going to happen but I can’t sit by and do nothing.”
Obviously the ideal is that civilians aren't encouraged or required to perform violent acts in defense of other civilians. Ideally there'd be some governing structures that maintain safety, and both the 'murderer' and the transit authority that displayed negligence are held accountable.
|
Quite frankly, reading some posts about Neely situation, I wonder (not really though) if any of you guys was in actual fight?
( I am pretty sure most weren't, given their opinions). And I don't mean like in the ring with judges and rules and so on. Hindsight is great thing to indulge in, from the safety of your house, behind the screen of computer. Truth to be told though, it has f...k all to do with the real life.
Edit: some comas
|
On December 13 2024 10:53 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, reading some posts about Neely situation, I wonder (not really though) if any of you guys was in actual fight?
( I am pretty sure most weren't, given their opinions). And I don't mean like in the ring with judges and rules and so on. Hindsight is great thing to indulge in, from the safety of your house, behind the screen of computer. Truth to be told though, it has f...k all to do with the real life.
Edit: some comas
What opinion on the Neely case is consistent with having been in a fight?
|
On December 13 2024 10:35 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 07:10 BlackJack wrote:On December 13 2024 06:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote:
Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments.
The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman.
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
How is this a strawman of your argument? Its exactly what your argument (at least, the deterrent angle of it) is. When you say I'm am strawmanning you you claim that i said ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman. That's not what I said though is it, shall I put it in quotes for the second time in this post?
Let's say this situation comes up again tomorrow, and what blackjack says will happen, happens.
A guy wants to intervene, but he thinks to himself "I'd better not, because if I end up killing the guy I might get charged."
Blackjack thinks that this is a BAD result. A person who is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone doesn't intervene. Disaster.
Okay let's move on: Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute. So your argument is that not charging people will deter people from acting in the future, but simultaneously that even the idea that not charging will deter people from acting in the future is ridiculous. Got it. My point here is, we WANT to deter people from engaging in potentially lethal combat on the subway. That is a good thing. I just think it’s naive to believe you can divide it up into the subway vigilantes that “murder people” and the subway vigilantes that don’t “murder people.” It’s the same group of people. You can’t just deter the people that “aren’t confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone.” Everyone that intervenes is thinking “I don’t know what’s going to happen but I can’t sit by and do nothing.” Obviously the ideal is that civilians aren't encouraged or required to perform violent acts in defense of other civilians. Ideally there'd be some governing structures that maintain safety, and both the 'murderer' and the transit authority that displayed negligence are held accountable.
The way the system works now is someone that is high on drugs and behaving psychotically, either throwing rocks at cars, attack pedestrians, starting fires, running into traffic or any other antisocial behavior, they get placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, paramedics come and inject them with versed, ketamine or some other sedative. They get taken to the emergency room where they sleep for many hours. When they wake up they get a psychiatric professional to talk to them. “Do you want to kill yourself?” No. “Do you want to kill anyone else?” No. The hold gets dropped, they are released into the community and the cycle repeats. The next unsuspecting victim takes their turn. Neely had a history of 3 unprovoked assaults on women, including punching a 67 year old woman in the face, breaking her nose and her eye socket. Jock’s advice is that women should just ignore him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
