Hero Marine Charged With manslaughter

[seer]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-subwa...s-clash-police

The Marine veteran allegedly held Neely in a chokehold for 15 minutes, according to Vazquez.

OK, was he resisting all that time? And if he wasn't we can't assume that pressure was still being applied after he went limp...

[CivilDiscourse]

OK, was he resisting all that time? And if he wasn't we can't assume that pressure was still being applied after he went limp...

That would be where the trial deals with the facts, correct?

[seer]

To be frank, this is entirely irrelevant. The veteran (probably) didn't know Neely from Adam. Whatever Neely did in the past, has no bearing on the veteran's decisions in that moment. The only information that truly matters is the scenario immediately surrounding the chokehold.

It is not irrelevant to the fact that he was a violent man, and those passengers were rightly afraid of his threats, even if they did not know his background.

[seanD]

Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge. While he did good, he kept force up well after the threat had passed. It's clear he wasn't intending to kill, and the death was unintended. My expectation is that he pleads down to something that results in short (or no) jail time.

And you actually believe he's going to get a fair trial in NY when he's already been convicted by public opinion and political social media manipulators?

[seer]

That would be where the trial deals with the facts, correct?

But you said: If I remember clearly, he held him in the hold for around 15 minutes, well after he had stopped struggling.

[seer]

And you actually believe he's going to get a fair trial in NY when he's already been convicted by public opinion and political social media manipulators?

He can't, like I said NYC will burn if he is found not guilty - and everyone knows that...

[rogue06]

It was a standard 'sleep hold' we learned in the Corps, it can be deadly, but not necessarily. I suspect that this guy had drugs in his system...

Sleeper holds are deadly. That's why when we trained, the target had to raise his arm before it was applied. The moment his arm dropped we had to let go instantly. Even a few seconds can be lethal.

[Sparko]

Manslaughter seems to be an appropriate charge. While he did good, he kept force up well after the threat had passed. It's clear he wasn't intending to kill, and the death was unintended. My expectation is that he pleads down to something that results in short (or no) jail time.

I read that he only kept up the hold as long as the guy tried to fight him and when he stopped he immediately put in in the recovery position on his side. This homeless guy was extremely violent and had been arrested multiple times for attacking people. He was mentally ill. The Marine was defending someone else who the guy attacked. You are allowed to use even deadly force to protect someone else from what you perceive as a thread of serious bodily injury or death. This was self defense.

Basically if you see a violent guy beating up on an old woman, you can use any force necessary to stop him. You could legally shoot him if you thought the woman was in danger of serious bodily harm or death.

[Gondwanaland]

To be frank, this is entirely irrelevant. The veteran (probably) didn't know Neely from Adam. Whatever Neely did in the past, has no bearing on the veteran's decisions in that moment. The only information that truly matters is the scenario immediately surrounding the chokehold.

It's perfectly relevant to his violent and aberrant behavior and his long history of behaving in such a matter.

Whether the vet knew about the history or not is secondary, as it establishes a long history of behavior much like that described as what was going on in the subway that day. It also hoses the claim the MSM had been making that he wasn't violent and attempts to paint him as simply a "Michael Jackson impersonator" as I saw several outlets declare.

[seanD]

I read that he only kept up the hold as long as the guy tried to fight him and when he stopped he immediately put in in the recovery position on his side. This homeless guy was extremely violent and had been arrested multiple times for attacking people. He was mentally ill. The Marine was defending someone else who the guy attacked. You are allowed to use even deadly force to protect someone else from what you perceive as a thread of serious bodily injury or death. This was self defense.

Basically if you see a violent guy beating up on an old woman, you can use any force necessary to stop him. You could legally shoot him if you thought the woman was in danger of serious bodily harm or death.

I would question the bold only because I don't think this is a universal principle applied equally in all cities and states. In fact, I would be surprised if this was applied in blue states. I would assume an imaginary "hate crime" would easily trump that principle in most blue states. Though, not being a legal expert, I could be wrong.

[Sparko]

I would question the bold only because I don't think this is a universal principle applied equally in all cities and states. In fact, I would be surprised if this was applied in blue states. I would assume an imaginary "hate crime" would easily trump that principle in most blue states. Though, not being a legal expert, I could be wrong.

OK in NY you can only use deadly force if you think the attacker is going to use deadly force. But in this case I think he is still covered. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, just subdue him. But you are right, he wouldn't have been allowed to shoot him unless the guy was attacking someone with deadly force.

---

SECTION 35.15
Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 1, TITLE C, ARTICLE 35



§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.



https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15

[seer]

Sleeper holds are deadly. That's why when we trained, the target had to raise his arm before it was applied. The moment his arm dropped we had to let go instantly. Even a few seconds can be lethal.

I know how they work, I was trained the same way. And sorry, death just did not follow that fast...

[seanD]

OK in NY you can only use deadly force if you think the attacker is going to use deadly force. But in this case I think he is still covered. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, just subdue him. But you are right, he wouldn't have been allowed to shoot him unless the guy was attacking someone with deadly force.

---

SECTION 35.15
Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 1, TITLE C, ARTICLE 35



§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.



https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15

I'm pretty sure "hate crime" is the ace card that trumps all that though. The narrative has already been shaped in the media and society as a racial one and thus racially motivated, so I think that's what's going to drive the case against him and make it a "hate crime." They're likely going to scour his social media activity looking for anything they can misconstrue as racist to justify it.

[Sparko]

I'm pretty sure "hate crime" is the ace card that trumps all that though. The narrative has already been shaped in the media and society as a racial one and thus racially motivated, so I think that's what's going to drive the case against him and make it a "hate crime." They're likely going to scour his social media activity looking for anything they can misconstrue as racist to justify it.

Yeah. This guy will be sacrificed because the authorities are afraid of the crowds. Maybe if they can drag it out long enough for people to forget about it, he can then get a fair trial or charges dropped.

[Starlight]

As far as I can determine from the known facts, the person killed wasn't being violent, just annoying and loud. And the killer was warned by onlookers that he was killing the person, even aside from whatever his training told him about the lethal danger of chokeholds.

So seems a fairly straightforward case of unjustified killing. Obviously the killer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a result.

It would be nice if people who were "pro-life" could indeed condemn the person who killed someone.