|
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 |
It's a borderline scenario.
If Neely really would have started assaulting people.. or had a weapon.. taking him down, killing him by accident.. wouldn't be questioned at all
But the onlookers were confronted with a deraged man yelling at them, wearing shitstained pants, and probably drugged, drunk, tired and in highly emotional stress.
Nobody did anything ...because it's sadly not an unusual sight in big cities. Usually the guy has his drama.. and if nobody reacts.. will leave.
And so the formal crimes of neely at that time might be:
Jumping the turnstyle, and public disturbance ... which do not justify action that could kill the person.
But he was killed, and it was investigated, and solved.
We don't need pre-cog vigilantes choking homeless people because "they might assault somebody someday"
|
On December 13 2024 19:01 KwarK 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.
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.
All laws are intended to punish people who stuck their neck out to act. The fact that an action was performed does not provide any legal coverage. Not sure why it would.
It seems you are unfamiliar with Good Samaritan laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Those are laws not intended to punish people who stick their necks out but instead to offer them legal protection.
The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.
|
On December 13 2024 19:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 18:31 oBlade wrote:On December 13 2024 17:41 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 17:30 oBlade wrote:On December 13 2024 05:18 Jockmcplop wrote: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. Your entire presumption is that you simply tacitly assume killing is necessarily the intended result. My God this argument is like wading through wet tar. You people are so good at taking something incredibly easy and simple and deliberately misinterpreting it as much as you possibly can. I have never assumed, tacitly or otherwise, that anyone has intended to kill anyone. None of my arguments suggest that at all. In fact if you read the very post you're replying to the most basic reading comprehension should tell you otherwise. When I say :
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'.
I'm not actually talking about deliberately killing people or that being the intended result. Absolutely shocking. Sometimes things are accidents, but people have to take legal responsibility for the fact that they happened. Sometimes, people don't intend to kill someone, but act so irresponsibly that death was the inevitable result. This case falls into one of these brackets, probably the second but its a grey area. A court proceeding is the best way to find out. The guy needed to be charged with a crime for that to happen. I'm constantly shocked how people of all political persuasions on here think that killing people is fine. That its something you can just shrug your shoulders at and go 'eh it happens', or even celebrate. The cops can't watch a video of someone killing a guy from behind and then write up their report saying 'We should just leave him alone the poor guy didn't mean to'. EDIT: Remember I'm not, nor have I ever said that the guy should be found guilty of something. Blackjack says he shouldn't have even been prosecuted. 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. I find this position to be absolutely ridiculous. The guy is on video literally killing someone and blackjack thinks that we as a society should just wave it away. You're correct that I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I'll make it extremely simple: If someone is on video killing someone in a violent incident on a subway, they should be investigated, and if there is enough evidence that the death was result of negligence then they should be charged with a crime. You and Blackjack seem to think that if they say that they didn't intend to kill the guy, we should just pat them on the back, say 'that's an oopsie!' and let them go home without bothering to figure out what happened or why. I can't speak for BlackJack but I think we just lie on different sides of a line of what "enough evidence" means. Since you seem to accept there would be a case where someone's death is just unavoidable, or a tragic accident, then it wouldn't make sense to bring charges against a person in those cases. Obviously the police always investigate. There are cases where police don't want to do anything, and the DA insists on bringing charges. And then loses. And then you find out it's the same DA who is lenient on criminals in general - like Alvin Bragg who downgrades 60% of felonies. The observation is that this larger pattern has issues with how it steers society. Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote:
This would be a better way to clarify:
Do you think there's any conceivable situation someone would get killed by another that SHOULDN'T be prosecuted?
Yes, if there isn't enough evidence to take it to court or charge the person with a crime. This seems to make sense unless you're saying every death is fundamentally the result of negligence (because everyone should be able to act in nonlethal self-defense or just take it), and it's just that in some cases the evidence isn't sufficient for the standard you need to prosecute, which I have an inkling might be close to what you do think.
Okay I think we're reaching an agreement here.
We do lie on different sides of a line of what enough evidence means. There should be very strict guidelines for the DA to go by here and they should follow those guidelines. However, there's always going to be cases where the question MUST be asked as to whether the person committed a serious crime resulting in death, and the guidelines are not sufficient. Its my opinion that in those cases a court proceeding is simply the best way to figure out how to go forward, and because of the way precedent works its even more important that these edge cases are tried in court.
The DA lost this case, they prosecuted and were unsuccessful. That is a black mark against their name. They HATE that, so I would assume that if a case like this comes up again, they will be less likely to charge. That is the justice system functioning approximately as intended imo.
On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think the following are things most people can agree with:
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do.
Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action.
Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know.
Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play.
So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me.
2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate.
So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though.
I think there's a fair amount of principle at work here as well as some interpretation of facts AND it is a borderline scenario.
Without wishing to sound judgey or condescending I feel like there are cultural issues at play here as well. In Europe attitudes tend to lean towards public safety over personal liberty and in the USA they tend to lean the other way (at least relative to each other). The difference isn't usually huge but in a case like this the way the public would react to this in Europe is likely to be extremely different.
|
On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think the following are things most people can agree with:
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do.
Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action.
Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know.
Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play.
So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me.
2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate.
So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though.
I agree it’s a borderline scenario. If he strangled the guy with the intent to extinguish his life or if he walked up behind him and shot him in the head then obviously he should go to prison. The dishonest framing people keep repeating is “what Neely did doesn’t justify someone killing him.” If someone flees from police in a vehicle and police put spike strips that puncture the persons tire and they lose control of their vehicle and hit a tree and die it’s ridiculous to say “fleeing from police doesn’t justify being killed.” It’s results-oriented thinking used by people with the benefit of hindsight to justify the idea that because someone died someone needs to go to prison for it.
Also just want to point out that the reason this annoys me is because I think this is a pattern with progressive DAs to prosecute law abiding citizens for things like this. In Oakland a 77 year old man was arrested for shooting 1 of 3 home intruders a few months ago. In Antioch CA a gas station clerk was arrested after “winning” a gun fight against someone trying to rob him. In Canada a store clerk was arrested after striking a thief with a baseball bat. He got the baseball bat by wresting it from the thief who came in to rob the place or bash the clerks head in. It’s a pattern. (All of these cases are from memory but I can find details if anyone is interested).
Or the best example is one I posted some months ago. Jose Alba. The same DA, Alvin Bragg attempted to prosecute a 61 year old store clerk who while being beaten by a stronger younger man pulled out a knife and used it to defend himself. The charges were eventually dropped because of public backlash, but of course not before complicating his life a bit by arresting him and asking for a $500,000 bail. I think on borderline cases DAs should use their discretion to err on the side of not trying to imprison law abiding citizens confronting criminals. Ironically it’s the DAs that believe in criminal justice reform and decarceration that seem to want to imprison them the most. I wonder about that.
|
On December 13 2024 21:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think the following are things most people can agree with:
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do.
Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action.
Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know.
Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play.
So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me.
2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate.
So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though. I agree it’s a borderline scenario. If he strangled the guy with the intent to extinguish his life or if he walked up behind him and shot him in the head then obviously he should go to prison. The dishonest framing people keep repeating is “what Neely did doesn’t justify someone killing him.” If someone flees from police in a vehicle and police put spike strips that puncture the persons tire and they lose control of their vehicle and hit a tree and die it’s ridiculous to say “fleeing from police doesn’t justify being killed.” It’s results-oriented thinking used by people with the benefit of hindsight to justify the idea that because someone died someone needs to go to prison for it.
Do you think manslaughter is not a crime?
|
After reading through all the comments again, I have to say BJ is completely on the money. People are either ignorant of some/all the facts about the Penny/Neely case or they're framing the facts incorrectly.
|
Norway28781 Posts
On December 13 2024 20:10 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think the following are things most people can agree with:
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do.
Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action.
Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know.
Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play.
So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me.
2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate.
So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though. I think there's a fair amount of principle at work here as well as some interpretation of facts AND it is a borderline scenario. Without wishing to sound judgey or condescending I feel like there are cultural issues at play here as well. In Europe attitudes tend to lean towards public safety over personal liberty and in the USA they tend to lean the other way (at least relative to each other). The difference isn't usually huge but in a case like this the way the public would react to this in Europe is likely to be extremely different.
I think there are mostly two cultural issues that differentiate the continents. Firstly - in the US, more acceptance for violence towards criminals, as a group. Secondly, that people are more likely to consider threatening people threatening, perhaps because they are.
However, I don't think there's any substantial difference if you look at answers to the question 'is it okay to use violence to stop an individual who is about to hurt innocent bystanders?' I honestly think Europeans also overwhelmingly answer yes to that question. Maybe it's been asked and I'm wrong, it's just my inclination. Now, if there was a property crime that caused this rather than a threat of violence, then I think the US would see more support for a violent reaction. Now, the only real way I can picture there being a cultural difference is that more americans believe Neely was a threat while more Europeans think well he was just a loud crazy guy on public transport he probably wasn't going to hurt anyone. If operating under the belief that he was highly likely to hurt someone unless violently stopped, then I think Europeans generally support using violence to stop him.
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On December 13 2024 23:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2024 20:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think the following are things most people can agree with:
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do.
Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action.
Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know.
Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play.
So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me.
2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate.
So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though. I think there's a fair amount of principle at work here as well as some interpretation of facts AND it is a borderline scenario. Without wishing to sound judgey or condescending I feel like there are cultural issues at play here as well. In Europe attitudes tend to lean towards public safety over personal liberty and in the USA they tend to lean the other way (at least relative to each other). The difference isn't usually huge but in a case like this the way the public would react to this in Europe is likely to be extremely different. I think there are mostly two cultural issues that differentiate the continents. Firstly - in the US, more acceptance for violence towards criminals, as a group. Secondly, that people are more likely to consider threatening people threatening, perhaps because they are. However, I don't think there's any substantial difference if you look at answers to the question 'is it okay to use violence to stop an individual who is about to hurt innocent bystanders?' I honestly think Europeans also overwhelmingly answer yes to that question. Maybe it's been asked and I'm wrong, it's just my inclination. Now, if there was a property crime that caused this rather than a threat of violence, then I think the US would see more support for a violent reaction. Now, the only real way I can picture there being a cultural difference is that more americans believe Neely was a threat while more Europeans think well he was just a loud crazy guy on public transport he probably wasn't going to hurt anyone. If operating under the belief that he was highly likely to hurt someone unless violently stopped, then I think Europeans generally support using violence to stop him.
The legitimacy of violence to protect property rather than person is, I suspect the pertinent cultural difference (generally) as you outline here. Some will still support the former but it feels far less. Many Europeans will still support beating the shit out of someone, although largely I imagine in defence of one’s own property, less say, a shoplifter in some giant retail outlet. And I think, although don’t have numbers to hand that there’s less appetite for lethal violence in protecting of property.
I think in terms of public safety, intervening to protect others from harm, there probably isn’t all that much difference.
Think you’re on the money here
|
Physical violence isn‘t legitimate for crimes against property here. You just let them rob you and call the police.
That‘s just the theory though. If you assault them first when they come to you who‘s going to be able to prove that it wasn‘t their intention for you ? Should avoid being lethal anyways.
In the US taking lives to defend your property is completely legitimate instead. They generally attribute more value to capital than to life.
Worth mentioning that here the density of the population is much lower so you can‘t just replace people easily. Makes getting along almost mandatory. We don‘t have rows of homes housing people who hardly know each other.
|
On December 14 2024 02:02 Vivax wrote:
Physical violence isn‘t legitimate for crimes against property here. You just let them rob you and call the police.
That‘s just the theory though. If you assault them first when they come to you who‘s going to be able to prove that it wasn‘t their intention for you ? Should avoid being lethal anyways.
In the US taking lives to defend your property is completely legitimate instead. They generally attribute more value to capital than to life.
Worth mentioning that here the density of the population is much lower so you can‘t just replace people easily. Makes getting along almost mandatory. We don‘t have rows of homes housing people who hardly know each other.
Physical violence for self-defense (including defense of property such as one's home) is explicitly allowed in Germany and Austria. The key factor is that it has to be proportionate to the threat, meaning if a simple punch would be sufficient, then a gun is not allowed. Unfortunately it's not defined or otherwise explained how proportionality can be determined in the heat of the moment.
|
On December 14 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 02:02 Vivax wrote:
Physical violence isn‘t legitimate for crimes against property here. You just let them rob you and call the police.
That‘s just the theory though. If you assault them first when they come to you who‘s going to be able to prove that it wasn‘t their intention for you ? Should avoid being lethal anyways.
In the US taking lives to defend your property is completely legitimate instead. They generally attribute more value to capital than to life.
Worth mentioning that here the density of the population is much lower so you can‘t just replace people easily. Makes getting along almost mandatory. We don‘t have rows of homes housing people who hardly know each other. Physical violence for self-defense (including defense of property such as one's home) is explicitly allowed in Germany and Austria. The key factor is that it has to be proportionate to the threat, meaning if a simple punch would be sufficient, then a gun is not allowed. Unfortunately it's not defined or otherwise explained how proportionality can be determined in the heat of the moment.
I don‘t think you are allowed to exert violence on someone who‘s on your property just to steal stuff.
At most you can try to hold him up until help arrives without trying to cause physical harm. It‘s allowed in public transport for example.
This isn‘t Texas where you can start gunning down strangers on your turf.
If you have a guard dog, a rabid pitbull or similar on the other hand, you shift the responsibility to the burglar because he‘d have had to ignore the sign.
|
On December 14 2024 03:18 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:On December 14 2024 02:02 Vivax wrote:
Physical violence isn‘t legitimate for crimes against property here. You just let them rob you and call the police.
That‘s just the theory though. If you assault them first when they come to you who‘s going to be able to prove that it wasn‘t their intention for you ? Should avoid being lethal anyways.
In the US taking lives to defend your property is completely legitimate instead. They generally attribute more value to capital than to life.
Worth mentioning that here the density of the population is much lower so you can‘t just replace people easily. Makes getting along almost mandatory. We don‘t have rows of homes housing people who hardly know each other. Physical violence for self-defense (including defense of property such as one's home) is explicitly allowed in Germany and Austria. The key factor is that it has to be proportionate to the threat, meaning if a simple punch would be sufficient, then a gun is not allowed. Unfortunately it's not defined or otherwise explained how proportionality can be determined in the heat of the moment. I don‘t think you are allowed to exert violence on someone who‘s on your property just to steal stuff. At most you can try to hold him up until help arrives without trying to cause physical harm. It‘s allowed in public transport for example. This isn‘t Texas where you can start gunning down strangers on your turf. If you have a guard dog, a rabid pitbull or similar on the other hand, you shift the responsibility to the burglar because he‘d have had to ignore the sign.
From what I've read in Germany and Austria people are allowed to use physical violence in the case of an ongoing home robbery. If they just entered without taking your stuff and your presence alone scares them off, then you're not allowed to use any violence.
|
On December 14 2024 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 03:18 Vivax wrote:On December 14 2024 02:48 Magic Powers wrote:On December 14 2024 02:02 Vivax wrote:
Physical violence isn‘t legitimate for crimes against property here. You just let them rob you and call the police.
That‘s just the theory though. If you assault them first when they come to you who‘s going to be able to prove that it wasn‘t their intention for you ? Should avoid being lethal anyways.
In the US taking lives to defend your property is completely legitimate instead. They generally attribute more value to capital than to life.
Worth mentioning that here the density of the population is much lower so you can‘t just replace people easily. Makes getting along almost mandatory. We don‘t have rows of homes housing people who hardly know each other. Physical violence for self-defense (including defense of property such as one's home) is explicitly allowed in Germany and Austria. The key factor is that it has to be proportionate to the threat, meaning if a simple punch would be sufficient, then a gun is not allowed. Unfortunately it's not defined or otherwise explained how proportionality can be determined in the heat of the moment. I don‘t think you are allowed to exert violence on someone who‘s on your property just to steal stuff. At most you can try to hold him up until help arrives without trying to cause physical harm. It‘s allowed in public transport for example. This isn‘t Texas where you can start gunning down strangers on your turf. If you have a guard dog, a rabid pitbull or similar on the other hand, you shift the responsibility to the burglar because he‘d have had to ignore the sign. From what I've read in Germany and Austria people are allowed to use physical violence in the case of an ongoing home robbery. If they just entered without taking your stuff and your presence alone scares them off, then you're not allowed to use any violence.
Up to a certain degree. Like keeping you pinned down after dialing an emergency number.
The law here always needs violence to be proportional to the threat. If they are visibly armed you are obviously allowed to act accordingly. But you can‘t stab a pickpocket. You can restrict his movement and call for help though.
|
I think a key thing that confuses people with self defence is that the outcome (ie, person died) matters less than many other factors. Key things in most countries seem to be.
1) Is there a clear threat to yourself, others (or property if that's in the law) that warrants self defence.
2) Is the actions taken proportional to the threat.
3) Is the intent self defence.
If it is self defence under the law the outcome of the violence used doesn't matter that much. If it's not self defence it matters a lot. It's just that cases where the perpetrator doesn't get hurt or only has mild injuries tend to pretty clear.
As an example: A person is kicking an old lady who's on the ground. You push them in order to get them away from the lady so you can position yourself between them. The person has a bad fall, hits their head and dies. Obviously self defence. There's a clear threat, your actions were proportional (you just pushed them) and your intent was not to cause any more harm than necessary. That the person happened to die doesn't matter because it was unintentional.
But if the person insults you and you push them your looking at manslaughter charges.
|
The cultural difference also lies in the assessment of threat and outcome.
American cops shoot 3-4 people every day (US ~ 330-335 Million people)
German cops shoot 3-19 people a year. (Ger ~ 85-90 Million people)
So if your law enforcement, and "vibe" basicly says, that situations are "kill or get killed".. you may tend to see an overreaction more favourable, than waiting too long and suffer the consequences.
Whenever there is yet another "bad cop shoots person" video.. I always ask myself why the doctrine of police in the US allows this.
Pointing a gun, and yelling orders.. to persons that are OBVIOUSLY having a hard time at the moment to make sane decisions.
And with german police there has been seemlingly a change after two officers were shot by poachers.. and one officer got lethaly stabbed by an islamist, news make it look like they no longer take chances with people wielding knives (19 people shot so far, this year)
|
It‘s Austria, 2025. You catch a whiff of a scoundrel sneaking around in your garden, run out with your snarling pitbull on a leash to bodycheck him after dialing the equivalent of 911 and frantically scream for help while keeping him in a chokehold, while your dog begins to viciously dismember him in self-defense.
|
Got a better chance filling the jails and prisons to the brim (the few that aren't already) than discouraging people from expressing their contempt with health insurance CEOs if they plan on jailing everyone that says something like this.
Briana Boston, 42, had reportedly placed a call to BlueCross BlueShield regarding recent medical insurance claims she was denied. The entire phone call was recorded, according to the affidavit.
Near the end of the call, investigators said Boston could be heard stating, “Delay, deny, depose. You people are next.”
Police contacted Boston at her home in Lakeland, where she reportedly admitted to using those words during the call, telling detectives that “healthcare companies played games and deserved karma from the world because they are evil.”
Boston reportedly told detectives she used the phrase “because it’s what is in the news right now” and that she had learned of the phrase after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Boston said, however, that she does not own any firearms and “was not a danger to anyone,” police said.
Boston was charged with threats to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, according to the affidavit.
A judge set her bond at $100,000, stating, “I do find that the bond of $100,000 is appropriate considering the status of our country at this point.”
thehill.com
|
On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I haven't watched the video
Why even engage in the topic if you are not going to take 2 minutes to watch the video?
The saddest part about this thing is that by simply charging him it makes people way less likely to protect others, it already takes a lot of courage to stand up to crazy aggro people, but now you'd be an idiot to step in if you see a hobo grope a girl or something like that.
I guarantee that we will see many videos of people doing nothing while somebody is being harmed or harassed, and the damage that they are doing to society by incentivizing this meek compliance instead of selfless heroic actions will be much worse than a thousand choked-to-death hobos.
|
On December 14 2024 18:26 baal wrote:Why even engage in the topic if you are not going to take 2 minutes to watch the video?
Because some people don't want to watch people dying on video? But still care about stuff?
It's not about the time, it is about the content that you put in your brain that you cannot get out of it afterwards.
|
On December 14 2024 18:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2024 18:26 baal wrote:On December 13 2024 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I haven't watched the video
Why even engage in the topic if you are not going to take 2 minutes to watch the video? Because some people don't want to watch people dying on video? But still care about stuff? It's not about the time, it is about the content that you put in your brain that you cannot get out of it afterwards.
He did not die on video, he was alive and moving when Daniel and the other passengers let him go and the cops took over.
If you can't handle watching it then your opinion should be taken with a huge grain of salt since you are missing a massive chunk of information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
