the Penny lunacy.

[NiftyNiblick]

"That he didn't attack anyone only means he was stopped before he could, given his history of violent crimes."

"Exactly."

Really, TOP?

Is this the level of logic that we're going to accept?
It wouldn't work well on the SAT exams, would it?

Lethal force is justified based on the assumption that the victim was about to commit a crime?
Interesting concept.

You can't imagine the number of people I would have liked to have clocked on the assumption that they were going to annoy me.
My lack of a felony record must mean that I somehow suppressed the urge.
Such wasted frustration, then.

 

[Yakuda]

"That he didn't attack anyone only means he was stopped before he could, given his history of violent crimes."

"Exactly."

Really, TOP?

Is this the level of logic that we're going to accept?
It wouldn't work well on the SAT exams, would it?

Lethal force is justified based on the assumption that the victim was about to commit a crime?
Interesting concept.

You can't imagine the number of people I would have liked to have clocked on the assumption that they were going to annoy me.
My lack of a felony record must mean that I somehow suppressed the urge.
Such wasted frustration, then.

The guy had threatened and physically assaulted people in the subway for some time. He was well known to the riders. The system REFUSED to do their fucking job and lock the crazy bastard up.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The guy had threatened and physically assaulted people in the subway for some time. He was well known to the riders. The system REFUSED to do their fucking job and lock the crazy bastard up.

I will agree on the latter part if the former part is true.
Whether lethal force was justifiable can only be known, however, by seeing all the evidence that the jury, not we, will see.

On principle, however, I cannot condone the concept of killing somebody
who's not precipitating the execution of a crime but is merely suspected of contemplating one.

As a matter of conscience, I would be cool with killing at least 74,000,000 Americans--you know who they are by the number--
but I attempt no justification for it on legal grounds,
nor do I actually attempt to do it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

He was threatening to kill people and said he didn’t care if the police shot him.

How is that not a direct threat?

 

[Yakuda]

I will agree on the latter part if the former part is true.
Whether lethal force was justifiable can only be known, however, by seeing all the evidence that the jury, not we, will see.

On principle, however, I cannot condone the concept of killing somebody
who's not precipitating the execution of a crime but is merely suspected of contemplating one.

As a matter of conscience, I would be cool with killing at least 74,000,000 Americans--you know who they are by the number--
but I attempt no justification for it on legal grounds,
nor do I actually attempt to do it.

The former part is true. It's public knowledge and your lack of it is precisely the reason you should be shat upon at every opportunity. Your post is a perfect example why leftists should be treated as animals.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

He was threatening to kill people and said he didn’t care if the police shot him.

How is that not a direct threat?

It sounds like maniacal ranting to me, and killing him before he physically assaulted anybody--he wasn't brandishing a gun, right?--
sounds to me like a tough case for the defense attorney.

Again, I won't see all the necessary evidence--that's for the jurors--
but from what I think happened, it was just another idiot playing superhero deciding to kill someone.

 

[TOP]

"That he didn't attack anyone only means he was stopped before he could, given his history of violent crimes."

"Exactly."

Really, TOP?

Is this the level of logic that we're going to accept?
It wouldn't work well on the SAT exams, would it?

Lethal force is justified based on the assumption that the victim was about to commit a crime?
Interesting concept.

You can't imagine the number of people I would have liked to have clocked on the assumption that they were going to annoy me.
My lack of a felony record must mean that I somehow suppressed the urge.
Such wasted frustration, then.

Yes...really... (I'm happy that you were able to suppress the urge to smack someone who you thought might be getting ready to annoy you...)

 

[Yakuda]

Yes...really... (I'm happy that you were able to suppress the urge to smack someone who you thought might be getting ready to annoy you...)

Neely was a daily menace in the subway and the system REFUSED to do anything to protect people. His death in on their heads.

 

[TOP]

Neely was a daily menace in the subway and the system REFUSED to do anything to protect people. His death in on their heads.

He was on their top "50 list"... He should not have been on the subway that day...or any day...

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Yes...really... (I'm happy that you were able to suppress the urge to smack someone who you thought might be getting ready to annoy you...)

Ah, but by your apparent principles, did I frustrate myself without need?
Just a rhetorical question: no need to reply.
I lack energy for spirited discussions today.
I've only been up for a couple of hours, and I see a nap coming on.

 

[TOP]

Ah, but by your apparent principles, did I frustrate myself without need?
Just a rhetorical question: no need to reply.
I lack energy for spirited discussions today.
I've only been up for a couple of hours, and I see a nap coming on.

OK I won't answer ...but I think you know what I would say... I don't think this was a super hero looking for a kill in any way, shape, or form... I think that there was a sincere concern that others might very well be harmed... and that's why Daniel Penny stepped up.....we shall see...its a tragedy for all concerned... Grab a nap...Chat with you later...

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

"That he didn't attack anyone only means he was stopped before he could, given his history of violent crimes."

"Exactly."

Really, TOP?

Is this the level of logic that we're going to accept?
It wouldn't work well on the SAT exams, would it?

Lethal force is justified based on the assumption that the victim was about to commit a crime?
Interesting concept.

You can't imagine the number of people I would have liked to have clocked on the assumption that they were going to annoy me.
My lack of a felony record must mean that I somehow suppressed the urge.
Such wasted frustration, then.

Strangers on a subway have no way of knowing whether a person acting up has a "history of violent crimes." I doubt if the choke-hold applied by the "good guy" had anything to do with racism; I think that the guy thought he was really helping to subdue -- along with others present -- an erratic-behaving guy. Maybe they thought the guy was on drugs, or about to hit someone. IMO they were right to subdue him, but not to use a hold that is known to cause death.

Our JPP racists here, Toxic Top included, frequently excuse the death of unarmed non-white men with the b.s. that "they had a criminal record." Even our courts don't allow that as a prosecution tool.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

He was threatening to kill people and said he didn’t care if the police shot him.

How is that not a direct threat?

Link?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

It sounds like maniacal ranting to me, and killing him before he physically assaulted anybody--he wasn't brandishing a gun, right?--
sounds to me like a tough case for the defense attorney.

Again, I won't see all the necessary evidence--that's for the jurors--
but from what I think happened, it was just another idiot playing superhero deciding to kill someone.

I suspect that the ex-Marine likely did not intend to kill him, hence the manslaughter charge, rather than murder.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yes...really... (I'm happy that you were able to suppress the urge to smack someone who you thought might be getting ready to annoy you...)

So he deserved to die because, unknown to the other riders, he allegedly "had a history of violent crimes"?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I suspect that the ex-Marine likely did not intend to kill him, hence the manslaughter charge, rather than murder.

I fully admit to not knowing enough about the specific incident to offer an opinion specifically about said specific incident.

If what I think happened actually happened, then the manslaughter charge would certainly be appropriate.

I'm not sure why it's a national story.
To me, it's a local story that didn't occur in Boston,
so I may not follow it as closely as some others might.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

It sounds like maniacal ranting to me, and killing him before he physically assaulted anybody--he wasn't brandishing a gun, right?--
sounds to me like a tough case for the defense attorney.

Again, I won't see all the necessary evidence--that's for the jurors--
but from what I think happened, it was just another idiot playing superhero deciding to kill someone.

Three people had to hold him down, you think they did that if there wasn’t a threat?

If a guy walks up to your kid and says he’s going to kill your child are you simply going to wait until he begins the actual assault?

This man had been arrested 43 times and 4 of those were assault charges.

He beat two women so bad that he broke the bones in their face

 

[TOP]

This young man was extremely disturbed... And should have been held accountable long before this Last attack... For his safety and for the safety of others.... And it was an attack... a very violent verbal attack... People stepping up to help protect others in the car did not have a prior knowledge of his criminal past... They were reacting to what was happening in real time to what was a very dangerous situation... that being said...We do know that he did have a very long record...and which included physical violence... Would his very violent verbal attack have escalated if it had not been addressed? Very possibly...and that's the only reason that we're mentioning his record here... He should have not have been on the streets...he should not have been in the subway that day or any day...

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Three people had to hold him down, you think they did that if there wasn’t a threat?

If a guy walks up to your kid and says he’s going to kill your child are you simply going to wait until he begins the actual assault?

This man had been arrested 43 times and 4 of those were assault charges.

He beat two women so bad that he broke the bones in their face

Maybe.
I wasn't there,
and neither were any of us.

The jury will see and hear the evidence and decide based on the actual facts.

 

[Yakuda]

This young man was extremely disturbed... And should have been held accountable long before this Last attack... For his safety and for the safety of others.... And it was an attack... a very violent verbal attack... People stepping up to help protect others in the car did not have a prior knowledge of his criminal past... They were reacting to what was happening in real time to what was a very dangerous situation... that being said...We do know that he did have a very long record...and which included physical violence... Would his very violent verbal attack have escalated if it had not been addressed? Very possibly...and that's the only reason that we're mentioning his record here... He should have not have been on the streets...he should not have been in the subway that day or any day...

They REFUSED to do anything and we have leftists to thank for it. His death is on their heads.