Breakdown In Civil Order

[Derec]

Bilby, what's your actual point here? That Neely attacking that woman and breaking her nose is not a big deal because there are a lot of far less violent things that could theoretically be considered battery?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

Pretty ironic coming from someone who thinks a couple of hours of community service is sufficient for choking a black man to death.

 

[Politesse]

Just curious: why do you think that was?

Because most Los Angelenos do not agree with you that they live in a blighted hellhole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

I don't think his being white means much. Rather, it's the left doesn't want to face the ugly reality of self-defense situations.

 

[bilby]

Bilby, what's your actual point here?

Same as it has always been. You didn't need to make a stupid and incorrect rhetorical guess; You could have just scrolled back and taken a look.

Since we do not have a video of what happened before the choke hold itself, and there are conflicting claims of just how threatening Neely was, his history of violent crime helps us figure out whom we should believe here.

No, it doesn't.

An absence of direct evidence of what happened implies that we don't know what happened, not that your biases (or mine, or anyone else's) are justified.

His history of violent crime, as indicated by his criminal record, is necessarily a biased account. Criminal records only record the occasions on which he was violent, and was called to account for his violence. They don't record any occasions on which he showed restraint, politeness, or kindness, because none of those are crimes.

The only way that his criminal record could possibly be relevant, is in a world in which people are consistent, and can therefore be categorised into "good guys" or "bad guys". But that categorisation is nonsense. People are just "guys". They're rarely consistent, and are under no obligation to conform with your belief that they will be.

Real people are inconsistent. Only computer and role-playing game 'non-player characters' are consistent. The problem many conservatives have is that they genuinely believe that anyone outside their immediate circle are non-player characters, and don't have the same complex and inconsistent behaviours as real human beings.

The only thing that Neely's history tells us with any confidence is that he got caught.

I doubt there's a single human being in history who has never once engaged in unlawful violence.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

I don't think his being white means much. Rather, it's the left doesn't want to face the ugly reality of self-defense situations.

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

 

[Gospel]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

I don't think his being white means much. Rather, it's the left doesn't want to face the ugly reality of self-defense situations.

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

Nope, you've got it all wrong. The suggestion is that there is justification in taking fatal action against individuals with a history of violent behavior. This history could encompass a range of offenses, from drug-related charges, domestic disputes to an incident stemming from a traffic stop. As long as the police have it on record Americans are authorized to use lethal force.

Edit: My suggestion to everyone is to first check with the police department because you just might be dealing with someone who doesn't have a criminal record.

Edit2: Like Ahmaud Arbery. Despite what some folks might tell you on this forum.

Edit 3: Clarity for the fool. Because most don't have prior knowledge of who they are dealing with, you just might not be able to rely on someone's criminal past to defend you in the courtroom.

 

[Gospel]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

Maybe not. But I can read, and I understand the law.

If you imagine that "not enforced" is synonymous with "not illegal", then you're flat out wrong no matter what country you inhabit.

It's not illegal to make physical contact with someone unintentionally, or with benign intent, in a way that does not cause harm or that would not cause offense to a reasonable person.

That depends on your jurisdiction. But it's irrelevant anyway; If you make intentional contact with someone, you are guilty of battery, (even in Indiana).

And most people do that fairly frequently, without even being particularly aware of having done so.

It's an ancient quirk of English law, that is replicated in pretty much every jurisdiction that had English law as its basis - including as far as I am aware, all fifty of the United States of America. Certainly it's present in the codes I cited for California and Indiana.

They are too busy singing Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah in that tranquil oasis to be aware of this aspect of the law. I have personally seen a substantial number of people get arrested for assault and battery against an officer due to what the law would classify as entrapment. However my mentioning this just makes me Anti white.

 

[TomC]

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

No.
The ugly reality is that when violent psychos are left to their own devices the responders might not be well trained.

The results might be fatally bad.

I feel sorry for Neely. He was clearly and demonstrably mentally ill and violent. He didn't get much help, not enough obviously. He got himself killed.

Had someone better trained in restraint and resolution and such been on the subway Penny would not have needed to get involved at all. If people better trained in mental health care had been involved Neely wouldn't have been on the subway at all, much less having a violent psychotic episode leaving random strangers to deal with him.

I see Neely as a victim of the system, not a victim of Penny.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I can respect that. But lets not leave that ugly statement "victim of the system" laying out there. Some might think you're a BLM member or something. You mean to say Neely was partially a victim of circumstances right? It's not entirely an external blame as Neely does indeed hold some personal responsibility.

We have to say these things every time so that we won't get jumped on for supporting criminals.

 

[Politesse]

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

No.
The ugly reality is that when violent psychos are left to their own devices the responders might not be well trained.

The results might be fatally bad.

I feel sorry for Neely. He was clearly and demonstrably mentally ill and violent. He didn't get much help, not enough obviously. He got himself killed.

Had someone better trained in restraint and resolution and such been on the subway Penny would not have needed to get involved at all. If people better trained in mental health care had been involved Neely wouldn't have been on the subway at all, much less having a violent psychotic episode leaving random strangers to deal with him.

I see Neely as a victim of the system, not a victim of Penny.
Tom

We are all both agents and objects of our social systems; does it really mean anything to say that either individuals are responsible for crimes to the exclusion of the other?

 

[TomC]

We are all both agents and objects of our social systems; does it really mean anything to say that either individuals are responsible for crimes to the exclusion of the other?

We are not all agents to the same degree.

Apparently, Neely's mental illness goes back many years. Penny's involvement lasted a couple of minutes.

I'm not saying anybody's involvement is
"responsible for crimes to the exclusion of the other?".
I'm saying there's plenty of blame to spread around here, in this particular incident.
Making Penny the scapegoat for failures by everyone from Neely's family, to the NYPD, to the local mental health care, because Penny was the person stuck dealing with a violent psycho on a subway car is just that. Making Penny a scapegoat for systemic failures over many years.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

No.
The ugly reality is that when violent psychos are left to their own devices the responders might not be well trained.

The results might be fatally bad.

I feel sorry for Neely. He was clearly and demonstrably mentally ill and violent. He didn't get much help, not enough obviously. He got himself killed.

Had someone better trained in restraint and resolution and such been on the subway Penny would not have needed to get involved at all. If people better trained in mental health care had been involved Neely wouldn't have been on the subway at all, much less having a violent psychotic episode leaving random strangers to deal with him.

I see Neely as a victim of the system, not a victim of Penny.
Tom

Who said anyone had to get involved in the first place.

And Penny was trained, in the Marines, specifically on choke holds and when to release. I posted it up thread.

 

[Politesse]

Apparently, Neely's mental illness goes back many years. Penny's involvement lasted a couple of minutes.

An involvement that ended his life, a decision with consequences that will last for a very long time. I hope you never find yourself in the position of killing someone, but I also hope that you will submit your case to the consideration of the law and accept the outcome, if you do, not blame "the system" for choking a man to death with your hands.

"The system" is certainly to blame for putting them both in the situations they were in, but "the system" is a nebulous concept that is difficult to change and impossible to hold accountable; while we certainly should work to better "the system", we also have to accept the measure of responsibility that is ours.

 

[TSwizzle]

Worse than Afghanistan;

A San Francisco store owner has slammed the Dem-led city's officials for failing to control its out-of-control crime wave, after a gang of thieves smashed into his tobacco shop and stole $100,000 in goods and cash. Storeowner Zaid, an immigrant from Afghanistan, said lawmakers 'need to get a grip' on the city, feeling it has become 'worse than Afghanistan or Iraq'. His remarks come as the West Coast metro continues to spiral into lawlessness, with homicides and robberies up 25 and 17 percent on last year respectively according to official crime statistics. Shocking footage of the attack on Zaid's store saw a mob of thieves emerge from two vehicles on the street outside and begin smashing through his shop window. After making their way inside, Zaid said it took the thugs just 20 minutes to 'ransack' his business, where they made off with around $80,000 in merchandise and $20,000 in cash in the Tuesday evening spree. No arrests have yet been made following the incident, leading Zaid to hit out at soft-on-crime policies implemented by Democrat lawmakers. 'They know the police won't do anything,' he added, claiming the officers told him they are short-staffed when he reported the incident. 'We have a drugs issue, we have a homeless issue, and on top of this these idiots come in here and take whatever they want,' he said.

Daily Mail

Poor store owner pines to be back in Kabul than the shit hole SF.

 

[Emily Lake]

in direct contradiction to the definitions that I actually provided

Not in contradiction to them at all - you posted definitions which exactly match my claim, but only defined assault, which we are not currently discussing; Something you probably missed when you laser focused on the irrelevant "assault" part of the phrase "assault and battery".

There are two kinds of violence in law: Assault, which is verbal; And Battery, which is physical. As the two are typically covered by a single "Assault and battery" statute, it's very common for non-lawyers to simply refer to all unlawful violence as "assault", but that's technically wrong (and technicalities are the lifeblood of law).

I stuck with assaults because it is the broader term, and includes threats and intimidation where a person might reasonably fear actual harm. If I had focused on battery, your argument would be considerably weakened.

You've argued that most people have engaged in unlawful violence pretty regularly, it just hasn't been enforced. I very strongly disagree. So fine, let's look at the definition of battery:

In both civil and criminal law, the definition of battery is the intentional touching of, or application of force to, the body of another person in a harmful or offensive manner (and without consent).

Again, I think that MOST people don't go around committing battery once they're past middle school. Most people do NOT intentionally touch other people in a harmful or offensive fashion. I think it's quite a rare thing for most adults to do.

 

[Emily Lake]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

Maybe not. But I can read, and I understand the law.

If you imagine that "not enforced" is synonymous with "not illegal", then you're flat out wrong no matter what country you inhabit.

It's not illegal to make physical contact with someone unintentionally, or with benign intent, in a way that does not cause harm or that would not cause offense to a reasonable person.

That depends on your jurisdiction. But it's irrelevant anyway; If you make intentional contact with someone, you are guilty of battery, (even in Indiana).

And most people do that fairly frequently, without even being particularly aware of having done so.

It's an ancient quirk of English law, that is replicated in pretty much every jurisdiction that had English law as its basis - including as far as I am aware, all fifty of the United States of America. Certainly it's present in the codes I cited for California and Indiana.

Intentional contact with someone is not batter if it is not harmful or if it would not cause offense to a reasonable person.

By your definition, shaking someone's hand or touching their shoulder to get their attention would be considered battery... and that is absolutely NOT the case. Battery requires that the contact be harmful or that it would cause offense to a reasonable person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

I don't think his being white means much. Rather, it's the left doesn't want to face the ugly reality of self-defense situations.

What is the ugly reality here? That it's okay to kill someone for throwing trash at people?

You're doing the same thing.

The ugly reality is that it's an unknown situation with no good outcome. Saying "that's bad therefore it's wrong" is meaningless in a situation where good can't happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can respect that. But lets not leave that ugly statement "victim of the system" laying out there. Some might think you're a BLM member or something. You mean to say Neely was partially a victim of circumstances right? It's not entirely an external blame as Neely does indeed hold some personal responsibility.

We have to say these things every time so that we won't get jumped on for supporting criminals.

I think he's mostly a victim of the system for it allowing him to wander in public rather than be in a closed psychiatric facility.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can respect that. But lets not leave that ugly statement "victim of the system" laying out there. Some might think you're a BLM member or something. You mean to say Neely was partially a victim of circumstances right? It's not entirely an external blame as Neely does indeed hold some personal responsibility.

We have to say these things every time so that we won't get jumped on for supporting criminals.

How about "victim of the lack of system"? The circumstance in question here are the lack of sufficient mental health services to appropriately deal with Neely and prevent him from being a danger to himself or others.