This doesn't seem right to me. This guy is going nuts on the train, threatening other folks and gets taken down in a choke hold. Video shows him continuing to fight but eventually he gets choked out and then dies. The ex-marine that choked him out is now criminally charged.

This kind of thing brings to mind Clint Smith's admonition that unless it's you or someone dear to you that is at risk from a threat, stay the hell out of it.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/atto...yc/story?id=99167728

No jury will convict him.

America The Stupid!

In the absence of evidence of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or others where is the need to kill the guy coming from?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
In the absence of evidence of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or others where is the need to kill the guy coming from?

Pretty well in line with my way of thinking. I have ridden the NYC subway a fair bit and encountered more than one nutter during that time. It never occured to me that I should subdue one of them.

Equally disturbing is how no one else stepped in to stop this when it was clear the guy was going out.

What is he charged with?

The article said it went to a grand jury?

I tend to agree that the situation should be thouroughly investigated but a civilian being confronted by a violently mentally ill guy shouldn’t have to be second guessed when he tries to use the least force necessary to stop the attacks. He’s on a subway car, so he can’t just leave, and he’s not trained in restraint like law enforcement. It’s not quite the same as the whole Floyd issue.

The guy was not treated (probably he refused to be) and had a violent history.

If you want to blame someone, blame the judge who refused to imprison or commit him to care.

Again, that’s assuming the ex marine didn’t deliberately try to kill the guy.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
What is he charged with?

The article said it went to a grand jury?

I tend to agree that the situation should be thouroughly investigated but a civilian being confronted by a violently mentally ill guy shouldn’t have to be second guessed when he tries to use the least force necessary to stop the attacks. He’s on a subway car, so he can’t just leave, and he’s not trained in restraint like law enforcement. It’s not quite the same as the whole Floyd issue.

The guy was not treated (probably he refused to be) and had a violent history.

If you want to blame someone, blame the judge who refused to imprison or commit him to care.

Again, that’s assuming the ex marine didn’t deliberately try to kill the guy.

How do we define an attack? From my understanding, the dead guy was loud and threatening but not violent. I believe that the former marine took the first physical action.

I blame the guy who throws the first punch or in this case a choke out maneuver.

The definition is if a reasonable person feels that they are in imminent risk of death or grave bodily harm.

I’ve read he attacked a woman at one point, and now that he just was threatening.

Given the prevalence of guns, I’m not convinced that one should wait until attacked.

I’d want to see all the evidence before making a call. The Media reports are unlikely to be fully accurate.

Charged with manslaughter which seems appropriate given what we know.

There were two other men helping hold him down, while he was in a chokehold. Several people felt threatened.
I find it strange the family is all up in arms about it, yet, they had done nothing, by the sounds, to help him with his mental struggles. Only when there might be a dollar to be made in a law suite do they do anything.
According to the lawyers, what counts is if the guy himself felt threatened into action. Not whether a bunch of internet experts felt threatened.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
In the absence of evidence of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or others where is the need to kill the guy coming from?

Pretty well in line with my way of thinking. I have ridden the NYC subway a fair bit and encountered more than one nutter during that time. It never occured to me that I should subdue one of them.

That is pretty much the legal standard. Another way to think about it is a choke is the use of deadly force, so where is the objective risk of serious physical injury or death to tigger the use of deadly force being the choke.

When using deadly force for the protection of others, not only must the actor have been responsible in choosing to use deadly force. That choice must have also been correct. One can act responsibly. However, that reason choice can be incorrect. When defense of others you must be both.

Another way to defeat a self defense claim is when the defendant claims he was not in fear of serious physical injury or death?

Using a choke hold is no different than pulling a gun. The jury will decide the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

He remains cloaked in the presumption of innocence.

Serious question - does the law differentiate if I act in defensive response to a threat to MY life, or if I act in defensive response to a threat to someone else’s life?

i.e. Does it matter who the bad guy is pointing the gun at if I’m convinced there’s a lethal threat and take him down?

Yes it does

Your life you must only have the subjective and objective belief that you are being threatened with serious physical injury or death.

To use self defense for someone else, you must also be correct in that choice. Aldo, the person you used force for must have been justified in using deadly force as well.

A choice can be reasonable, but incorrect. When you are using deadly force for someone else, you must be both correct and meet the objective standard bring a reasonable belief force of serious physical injury or death was at hand.

He is charged w manslaughter because the Theory of Prosecution is the self defense was imperfect meaning an element to the deadly use of force is missing, but he had a subjective belief. In the alternative, that he was reckless in applying the choke hold and did not have the intent to kill.

You must be correct that the gun is an operable gun, and what you are seeing is not something else; like a training exercise. Read a case where self defense of another was imperfect because the guy saw a gun pointed at person x, but it was a dummy gun in a training exercise. Guy went to prison for imperfect self defense manslaughter.

Good point!
I suppose no one on board the train thought the "victim" (LOL) was worth reviving..
He could have been ressitated.
Might ask the doctors but don't you have 6 minutes prior to brain damage W/O oxygen?
I guess everyone on board is guilty of failing to assist?
More $$ opportunity for dirt bag lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
There were two other men helping hold him down, while he was in a chokehold. Several people felt threatened.
I find it strange the family is all up in arms about it, yet, they had done nothing, by the sounds, to help him with his mental struggles. Only when there might be a dollar to be made in a law suite do they do anything.
According to the lawyers, what counts is if the guy himself felt threatened into action. Not whether a bunch of internet experts felt threatened.

Simply feeling threatened is not enough. You must specifically have a reasonable fear you are threatened with serious physical injury or death.

That is why I say, you are not to pull a gun (deadly force) to deescalate an otherwise non deadly force aggression.

One does not have a duty to rescue unless one starts to rescue or cause the condition of harm as the general rule. So, no to those who did not engage having liability.

He may have been able to be revived. Why wasn't he?
Either no one cared and good riddance and know our legal system is failing people or They were too busy playing on their phones.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Simply feeling threatened is not enough. You must specifically have a reasonable fear you are threatened with serious physical injury or death.

That is why I say, you are not to pull a gun (deadly force) to deescalate an otherwise non deadly force aggression.

One does not have a duty to rescue unless one starts to rescue or cause the condition of harm as the general rule. So, no to those who did not engage having liability.

For liability it does not matter. Common law in most jurisdictions is I have no duty to rescue someone unless I caused the condition or start to rescue.

Otherwise, you are free to say not my problem.

Statutes that create duty based on professional class (doctors, emts, etc) notwithstanding.

Get off the bench Jr.
What does this tell you about the sentiment of the general public.
Anyone could have rendered aid. They chose not too.
They know YOUR COURTS will just put these people back on the street.
Generally anyone having a heart attack or choking issue would have been assisted.
As you stated: It is not my problem (WRONG).
It is good riddance.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
For liability it does not matter. Common law in most jurisdictions is I have no duty to rescue someone unless I caused the condition or start to rescue.

Otherwise, you are free to say not my problem.

Statutes that create duty based on professional class (doctors, emts, etc) notwithstanding.

Why no word on the other two men holding the mans arms and legs while Penny had the choke hold?
In the video released, you can see the man take a deep breath when Penny released him.
The man had priors, including slugging a 67 yr old woman, of course the court just let him right back out.
He's no loss to society.

Because I am focusing the use of deadly force.

You will have to ask the grand jury and prosecutor about the other two.

Complicity to strangulation seems like an appropriate charge on the surface.


Certainly, civil liability for those two.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
Get off the bench Jr.
What does this tell you about the sentiment of the general public.
Anyone could have rendered aid. They chose not too.
They know YOUR COURTS will just put these people back on the street.
Generally anyone having a heart attack or choking issue would have been assisted.
As you stated: It is not my problem (WRONG).
It is good riddance.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
For liability it does not matter. Common law in most jurisdictions is I have no duty to rescue someone unless I caused the condition or start to rescue.

Otherwise, you are free to say not my problem.

Statutes that create duty based on professional class (doctors, emts, etc) notwithstanding.

You asked about liability for not rescuing. I gave you the answer. It is an English Common Law principle. It is your problem you do not like the answer.

Also, you assume there was some there who had the skill to revive.

I will say it again. Those observing had no duty to rescue absent some statutory duty created by status (doctors, police, emts).

Their duty has nothing to do with what someone else is doing.

You spout nonsense and get angry when you are told the status of the law. I will keep my responses anchored in the law.

I would like to see the makeup of the population on that train car. Black, white, hispanic, asian, indian, christian, jewish, buhdist, muslim, atheist, professional, labor, woke, liberal, conservative.
No one stepped in to render aid.
Could not be a racial, political, religious issue.
Apparently he was threatening people.
I believe people have tired of this violence.
I am not in your court.
This forum is not your court room.
I do know what people feel about our society.

Question: Do you believe the laws you reference reflect the will of the people in these circumstances?

Legally they do not have to render aid.

All your inquiries are irrelevant.

In fact, when one renders aid, but does so negligently, or begins to render aid and stops then liability attaches.

You are mad about something that the law does not, and has never from our English Common Law tradition required.

It also does not bare into the analysis of this man’s criminal liability that those who had no duty to render aid, did not render aid.

You asked a legal question. What about those who did not render aid? The dirt bag lawyers etc.

You are wrong. The lawyers are not going to make money off those who did not render because there is no legal obligation to render.

This is a topic about a crime and liability.

The only responses of value are those that agrees what the law is.


You can be mad about that. Your immature problem,

This is a topic about a legal situation. I will keep my responses anchored in law.

Again, what deadly violence was the man subjected to? Can you tell us?

Not, he was being violent. That is a conclusion.

The jury will tell us.

It is these legal principles that will decide this case. Not how you feel.

Yes, I do. These legal principles are general across jurisdictions and have existed for over 100 hundred years.

The No duty to render aid goes back to Colonial America. That is what English Common Law Tradition means.

We do not want yo punish or erode force people to do something that makes things worse who have not caused the condition.

Render sue if you wish. If you do, you have a legal obligation to do so without negligence, wantonly, or reckless. Otherwise, you create liability for yourself. If you start to render aid, you create liability if you stop.

I will tell you, I do not have the skills to revive that man.

I am not mad. It does not affect me directly.
I do not get mad easily. You are the one mad as you have no common sense to see anything other than what you see in a text book.
There is a problem here and when a problem people should look for a solution rather than attempting to go through a locked door time and again.
Just do not see this individual being rightly judged.
Perhaps we should all just look away when a negative event transpires.
Perhaps we should all just evolve into cowards.

If you say so. I accept that.

The bottom line is simple out legal system has never recognized a duty to render aid unless you start to render aid, more recently created the condition, or have a statutory obligation to render sue based on your status (police, med people).

Lawyers are not going to get paid during those who watched.

Now, those that participated; maybe assuming no one is judgement proof and their actions were not justified. That is what trials are for.

Your approach of creating liability for failure to render aid would see folks held liable for harms they had no hand in committing. In addition, to forcing people who are not qualified giving sue creating more liability.

Your approach would thus be beneficial to lawyer’s getting paid.

Another aspect:

Let’s say I used justifiable deadly force against person X. The use was clear cut, no questions to ask justified use of deadly force.

Person is bleeding out on the ground. I have my self defense first aid kit. Yes, I keep one. If there was a duty to render aid. I now have a duty to render aid to person x, or I become liable.

That is not what we want. That sounds highly inequitable.

This is exactly why people have such a poor opinion of certain types of lawyers.
They make their living off the misfortunes and in many cases the correographed misfortune of others.
Not all lawyers, many are corporate, family, estate, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Your approach of creating liability for failure to render aid would see folks held liable for harms they had no hand in committing. In addition, to forcing people who are not qualified giving sue creating more liability.

Your approach would thus be beneficial to lawyer’s getting paid.

I started out as a Plaintiff’s attorney and admin law.

I am very proud folks who are harmed by other people snd big companies had representation and a legal framework to recover only what we can. That being money.

When someone causes you to break your neck, and leave you paralyzed, you will too.

Obviously, I hope something like that never happens to you or anyone you care about.

It is hard enough to win, when the law and facts are in your side.

May I add that we have about 150 people local at the facility I have oversite and another 50 offsite.
All, are trained in first aid and resisitation. Rubber dummies and shock instruments. Retrained every 6 months.
We address safety topics daily in our facility in the warehouses.
There are no written certifications. Call EMT's immediately
We are part of a $18 billion company.
I believe if we did not respond to an event we would be at great risk for a legal issue being the stature of company we are.
Much less all the OSHA guidelines we adhere too.
Plaintiff Attorney's would have big $$$ signs in their eyes.
Believe me we have a shit load of attorneys.
They would suggest we respond to an event in some manner unless it was a critical issue.

The video is only a couple minutes Look at it, this bozo was squeezing with all his might. I understand that he maintained the chokehold for 15 months minutes. He murdered the man, plain and simple.

I highly doubt it unless your company cause the condition. The facts would determine. Also, someone may take a flyer, and your carrier payout if the damages to liability cost benefit analysis played that way. That would not happen until a Judge ruled on a Motion for Summary Judgment from the Defense based in the failure to render aid principle applied to the facts.

When I worked on open pit mines, I had no duty to to render aid to those who got in a car wreck on the way or adjacent to the mine site.

If I let someone on the site who was not supposed to be who got injured then yes. That is because I took an affirmative action to place them there.

Again, statutory requirements to render aid based on status notwithstanding.

Ask your lawyer about there being no liability to render aid unless statute has specifically created one. Mining regs and statutes have in that limited scope. I am not assuming you are in mining.

If your employee gets injured, and you have aid requirements as a company that are not followed, then yes. You have created more liability.

The wood turns on one’s duty which created in either Common Law, Statute/Regulation, or Contract.

No, those simply observing in the Subway had no duty to render aid. This, they had no liability. Notwithstanding statutory duty created by their unique status. I believe for the reasons I have done stated that is a good and correct general legal principle.

I hope the Marine is found not guilty. He acted appropriately in my book.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I hope the Marine is found not guilty. He acted appropriately in my book.

Exctly!

If you commit a crime, as this sorry character has been doing or sometime, he bloody well deserves what he gets!

One report says he has tried to abduct a child!

If true, I am so happy he got clobbered!

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone committing crimes against children!

Cat, how could that guy squeeze "with all his might" for 15 min, and have him be struggling?
I've choked out and been choked out in training, and it happens in a min. or less.

You fellows ever watch an MMA event?
A choke out is about the easiest way to win the bout.
All would engage the hold if lent the opportunity.
Opponents tap out pretty quick. I bet in less than 30 seconds.
Action ceases.

The marine had no right to be judge, jury and executioner. We are a society built upon laws. Just because some nut job is yelling and screaming, even if he is screaming for money, does not mean you have the right to squeeze the life out of him.

This is vigilante justice and it is just plain wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I hope the Marine is found not guilty. He acted appropriately in my book.

Exctly!

If you commit a crime, as this sorry character has been doing or sometime, he bloody well deserves what he gets!

One report says he has tried to abduct a child!

If true, I am so happy he got clobbered!

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone committing crimes against children!

No, he took the law in to his own hands. The Marine could have and should have kept his hands to himself. Had the dead guy escalated to violence then anything he may have received in return would have been just but he did not, he was simply yelling and demanding money. Crazy as a shit house rat I'm sure but that does not mean he should have been choked to death.

I still say defunding inpatient mental health care facilitates during the Reagan administration was a huge mistake and the lefties were right there helping Reagan shut them down. The results are plain to see, we should amend our civil liberties laws and open inpatient care up again for the mentally ill.

I could agree with this statement. open inpatient care up again for the mentally ill.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I hope the Marine is found not guilty. He acted appropriately in my book.

Exctly!

If you commit a crime, as this sorry character has been doing or sometime, he bloody well deserves what he gets!

One report says he has tried to abduct a child!

If true, I am so happy he got clobbered!

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone committing crimes against children!

No, he took the law in to his own hands. The Marine could have and should have kept his hands to himself. Had the dead guy escalated to violence then anything he may have received in return would have been just but he did not, he was simply yelling and demanding money. Crazy as a shit house rat I'm sure but that does not mean he should have been choked to death.

I still say defunding inpatient mental health care facilitates during the Reagan administration was a huge mistake and the lefties were right there helping Reagan shut them down. The results are plain to see, we should amend our civil liberties laws and open inpatient care up again for the mentally ill.

So we have a fellow with some screws loose, with horns and paint on. He goes into the capitol, and should be mowed down, "every one of them".
But a nut on a subway making threats should not be subdued.
I swear, some of you guys must have a sign in the bathroom to tell you to wipe, after you shit, not before.