Breakdown In Civil Order

[Derec]

Virtually every one of us is closer to being in Neely’s shoes than we think.

She should speak for herself.
As for myself, I do not ride MARTA while assaulting 67 year old women and throwing thrash at other riders.

Our country criminalizes poverty and homelessness while making it impossible to afford rent on a minimum wage job. Our system is built for arresting the poor.

Poverty is not criminalized. Rents depend on where you are. If you can't afford Manhattan move to Queens. Or Jersey.

When the wealthy break the law, they rarely get records.

That's just nonsense.

They can afford to be treated favorably.

Jordan Neely was treated very favorably given his ample rap sheet and paucity of well-deserved incarceration.

Most of us cannot.

What does she mean "us"? Does she really think we do not know how much she is making?

Jordan Neely was murdered.

No he wasn't. At most he was manslaughtered. But probably just negligently homicided.

But bc Jordan was houseless

Houseless? That's the new PC term for "homeless"? What's the point of this particular rebrand?
Hell, I am technically "houseless" since I only have a condo.

and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents

He did a lot more than that, and she knows it.

and stripping services to militarize itself

That's AOC speak for NYPD funding being restored after BdB partially defunded it.

while many in power demonize the poor, the murderer gets protected w/ passive headlines + no charges.

Perry was charged. Wtf is she babbling about? Also, calling him "murderer" is libel. Maybe he should sue her.

 

[Derec]

"There is nothing, nothing, nothing that can justify killing a person, especially if they are unarmed and not a physical threat to anyone." and "All of these responses are acting as though Neely was the aggressor here, when he was the one who was murdered."

He was the primary aggressor. Perry did not engage him out of the blue.

"All of this has to do with race and class.

Indeed. To people like AOC, black + poor means that he should not be held accountable for his actions.

His mother was killed herself in an incident of domestic violence. He was killed by our continued collective failure to invest our public resources to public ends.

No, he was accidentally killed because he was threatening other passengers.

In a statement, Neely’s family said, “Mayor Eric Adams please give us a call. The family wants you to know that Jordan matters.” Have you been in touch with them?

Why didn't he matter to them before his death? I guess he is much more valuable to them dead than alive.

 

[Derec]

The NYPD Is Greeting Vigils for Jordan Neely With Brute Force - Hell Gate - "And arresting journalists and activists documenting the crackdown."

Those creeps have been doing much more than vigils. Things like blockading subway traffic. And some of them had incendiary devices (like #BLM terrorists and former lawyers Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman). Why should NYPD not crack down on that?

Some protesters even climbed down into a subway-train track at a station, I must note.

And that is not acceptable, no matter what their message might be.

DeSantis And Gaetz Applaud ‘Hero’ Daniel Penny—Charged With Manslaughter For Killing Jordan Neely - Forbes

They have a point. Perry did not intend to kill anybody - just to help his fellow straphangers. Did he go too far? Perhaps. But I think his intentions were good.

Ron DeSantis on Twitter: "We must defeat the Soros-Funded DAs, stop the Left's pro-criminal agenda, and take back the streets for law abiding citizens. We stand with Good Samaritans like Daniel Penny. Let’s show this Marine... America’s got his back. (pic link)" / Twitter

He has a point about Bragg. Had he done his job, Neely would not be on the subway to begin with.

The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent.

Including for Neely himself.

 

[Derec]

Fundraiser by Carolyn Neely : Jordan Neely we love you - $147,096 of $75,000 goal

So what is this fundraiser for? The funeral expense one is separate, and Neely will have no legal expenses (unlike Perry).
Is this just a basic shameless grift by the family that ignored Neely while he was living? It sure looks that way.

 

[Derec]

I marvel at those who take the side of a murderous vigilante -- people who brag about how law-and-order they are and how tough on crime they are.

1. Not a murder
2. Vigilante yes. But it was (similar to Bernie Goetz) a response to the system failing to keep law and order. Neely was arrested many times, including for serious crimes, and basically kept getting away with slaps on the wrist. Such environments are breeding grounds for vigilantes.

Is that something that they want to encourage?

No. And for that purpose, the DA needs to start doing his job. Which is prosecute violent criminals even when they are black and homeless.

Where are those who say something like this? "Jordan Neely was a disgusting degenerate, but Daniel Penny should not have murdered him, because accepting such a murder is a dangerous precedent."

At least we agree that Neely was a disgusting degenerate. And I do not think Perry meant to kill him. Should he have stopped his chokehold sooner? Probably. Should he be charged with some kind of crime? Also probably. And probably negligent homicide. He certainly does not deserve 15 years which is maximum for 2nd degree manslaughter.

 

[laughing dog]

The NYPD is known to leak criminal records of defendants, but JN is the first homicide victim whose criminal record they leaked.

Why shouldn't they? It paints a more comprehensive, more accurate picture of the decedent.

Why is that important in determining legal guilt or innocence? I agree it may be relevant for moral decisions, but then all relevant records of those directly involved in the incident should be released.

 

[Derec]

Why is that important in determining legal guilt or innocence?

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. I.e. his history of violence makes it much more likely that he was threatening violence rather than just being annoying or a nuisance as his apologists claim.

I agree it may be relevant for moral decisions, but then all relevant records of those directly involved in the incident should be released.

Well, the discussions on here, in the media and the wider culture involve the moral, and not just strictly legal, judgments. Again, I think those who complain that his criminal record was released do so because they prefer people being kept in the dark so false narratives can take hold unchallenged. Remember how they tried to paint strongarm robber Michael Brown as a "gentle giant" before that narrative collapsed?

And if Perry had a criminal record, don't you think the left would be shouting from the rooftops by now?

 

[Derec]

The funeral was another disgusting spectacle, with the race huckster Irreverend Al Sharpton playing the lead role. They played some of the audio on the radio. He was giving a political speech and the audience was hooting, hollering and carrying on.

A Grauniad article about the funeral that illustrates the one-sided treatment of this case by left-wing media.
Jordan Neely was ‘screaming for help’, Al Sharpton says in funeral eulogy

Jordan Neely was “screaming for help”, the Rev Al Sharpton told friends, family members and civil rights leaders gathered to mourn the former Michael Jackson impersonator who died on the New York subway system.

No, he was threatening straphangers and throwing trash at them.

On Friday morning in Harlem, the majority Black neighborhood steeped in civil rights history, Sharpton told mourners Neely’s life should be celebrated “but we should not ignore how he died”.

Celebrated? Is this "Prince of Brooklyn Center" BS all over again? He has several assaults to his name, including where he broke a 67 year old's woman's nose and orbital socket. And yet Al "race pimp" Sharpton wants us to "celebrate" this pos.

Sharpton, who delivered the eulogy at Harlem’s Mount Neboh Baptist church, said Neely died “not because of natural causes but because of unnatural policies”.

Like Alvin Bragg's policy to offer "alternatives to incarceration" to some people committing felony assault?

Sharpton said the parable of the good Samaritan is about coming to the aid of someone in need.
“A good Samaritan helps those in trouble,” Sharpton said. “They don’t choke him out.”

Jordan Neely is not the guy in trouble in that story. He is the trouble. He is the equivalent of the robbers in the Good Samaritan parable.

While Neely had a history of disruptive behavior, friends said they don’t believe he would have harmed anyone if Penny had let him be.

Typical of Guardian to mislead like that. Neely had a lot more than "history of disruptive behavior". He had a history of violent crime. He seriously injured people. It is very journalistically irresponsible to downplay his past like this.

“People keep criminalizing people that need help,” Sharpton said. “They don’t need abuse, they need help.”

Neely criminalized himself by engaging in repeated acts of violent crime. And yet Sharpton et al blame everybody else but Neely.

Local elected officials including congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the New York lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, were among the hundreds attending the funeral,

Typical. They will attend the funeral of a thug. Did they ever attend a funeral of somebody deserving of that honor? Say a police officer who was killed in the line of duty?

 

[lpetrich]

]Where are those who say something like this? "Jordan Neely was a disgusting degenerate, but Daniel Penny should not have murdered him, because accepting such a murder is a dangerous precedent."

At least we agree that Neely was a disgusting degenerate.

That's not what I was saying. I was imagining what a right-winger with even a tiny sense of responsibility might say.

 

[bilby]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is that important in determining legal guilt or innocence?

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. I.e. his history of violence makes it much more likely that he was threatening violence rather than just being annoying or a nuisance as his apologists claim.

Whether something is more likely is not relevant in determining legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Derec]

That's not what I was saying. I was imagining what a right-winger with even a tiny sense of responsibility might say.

You don't think Neely was a degenerate?
What is your opinion of him?

 

[Derec]

No, it doesn't.

Of course it does.

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.

It's not about biases; it's about what is likely to have happened.

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.

A criminal record records only crimes - duh. It still tells us a lot about his propensity to get criminally violent.

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".

No, your idea that there is no difference between people is nonsense. Jordan Neely was a bad guy who attacked people for no reason. He broke an older woman's nose and orbital socket. Regular people don't do that.
I get what point you are trying to make, and it does have some validity. But only some.
Yes, human beings are complex. Yes, we are not 100% consistent. And yet, there are major differences in character between different people. And while prior behavior does not guarantee future behavior, it is still a good predictor for it, and the best one we have.

They're rarely consistent, and are under no obligation to conform with your belief that they will be.

They may be "under no obligation" but a person with a history of violence is still far more likely to get violent than somebody without.

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.

I do not know what "conservatives" think, but you seem to view them as NPCs yourself. I.e. you are doing what you are alleging them to be doing.
As for myself, I understand that real people are complex and not "NPCs". That said, we all make judgments about people based on what they have done in the past. How do you decide who you put and keep in your circle? By their behavior. If a friend is consistently flakey, you will end the friendship. If they are consistently reliable, you will trust them more. You will not pretend that past behavior does not matter because real people are "inconsistent".

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

Because all people break random straphangers' noses and orbital sockets, but just never get caught? Is that your point?

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

There is a difference between maybe showing somebody during an argument, or having a fight on the schoolyard and breaking an older woman's bones in an unprovoked attack on the subway when you are pushing 30.
While nobody is perfect, people are not all the same either.

 

[Derec]

Whether something is more likely is not relevant in determining legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course it matters. Given contradictory witness statements, the jury will have to make judgments whom to trust. And Neely's history of violence makes the version of him being threatening much more likely. Which is why Bragg and his minions will no doubt want to exclude Neely's criminal record from the trial. They need the jury kept in the dark.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether something is more likely is not relevant in determining legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course it matters. Given contradictory witness statements, the jury will have to make judgments whom to trust. And Neely's history of violence makes the version of him being threatening much more likely.

Not any more than Mr. Perry being an ex-marine.

Which is why Bragg and his minions will no doubt want to exclude Neely's criminal record from the trial. They need the jury kept in the dark.

Projection is not analysis. You are not fooling anyone with that crapola.

 

[steve_bank]

Here in Wa progressives oppose banning doing drugs in public. A compromise bill was reached, but that the issue was open to debate goes to an inability to govern and maintain order and safety.

Armed teens male and female stealling a car and robbing a convenience store or smashing the car into a store has become routine.

Drive by shootings on and off highways are becoming routine.

Twice a young NBA player was on video waving a gun, the recent time waving a gun to music in a car.

It is across demographics.

But hey, there is really nothing wrong with the way culture has gone.

A few weeks ago I watched a white teen on a streetcar verbaly bullying a fat person talking and acting like he was a TV-movie thug.

Progresses in Wa seem to think people have a right to hang out anywhere during the day drinking and getting high when business has trouble finding workers. Our current paradigm is there can be no social or government pressure to support yourself and avoid drugs.

Homelessness is being institutionalized.

When you walk out the door of your bulding or home and somebody is nodding you might have a new perspctive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This makes no sense.

Most people never commit a meaningful assault in adulthood. The fact that he has multiple times is very telling. The fact that he didn't always commit assault means nothing.

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.

To the point of breaking bones???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is that important in determining legal guilt or innocence?

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. I.e. his history of violence makes it much more likely that he was threatening violence rather than just being annoying or a nuisance as his apologists claim.

Whether something is more likely is not relevant in determining legal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But it is relevant to claims of self defense. Self defense claims are handled either by a preponderance of the evidence, or by requiring the prosecution to prove it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt (which is almost certainly why Rittenhouse walked.)

 

[repoman]

 

[Derec]

If the races were reversed, Anderson Cooper et al would not be able to shut up about it for six months.