Perceptions of Violence

Looking at legal standards for intervention.

By
89

Damon Preston, public advocate for the commonwealth of Kentucky, joins Guest-Host David French to break down the Jordan Neely incident. While some New Yorkers view it as the result of growing violence in New York, others as mere vigilantism… but what are the legal elements? This special one-topic episode will try to make some sense of the available reporting.

Show Notes:

-Watch: David French and Damon Preston give a legal analysis of the Jordan Neely incident

-Subscribe to The Dispatch and watch an exclusive live Remnant with Jonah, Steve Hayes, and Chris Stirewalt

By
Comments (89)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mrjsfisher

    I do want to (again) take issue with a lot of the priors and assumptions going into all of this.

    It might be useful to think about this in terms of what would happen if Petty was a law enforcement officer. Basically what he did is effectuate a citizens arrest- he is committing a seizure of a person. A person can do no more than a law enforcement officer, and usually can only do quite a bit less. For example a citizen cannot typically effectuate an arrest for a misdemeanor, a police officer can.

    The question then becomes whether or not Petty was perceiving any sort of felony crime. If not, the seizure is unlawful, and he would be held liable as a police officer for the ensuing death in both civil and criminal contexts. To take a well known example, in the George Floyd situation, police actually had probable cause to arrest him for a lower level felony offense. Here, no one has publicly claimed that Neely was engaged in assaultive conduct, let alone felonious assaultive conduct. You would basically need specific threatening words combined with display of a weapon or felonious contact for this to occur. Absent evidence of that, you have words. And words alone without any attempt at conveying a threat aren’t enough to arrest someone, let alone to kill them.

    I am a defense attorney like your guest, and believe this is a “winnable” defense case. But it isn’t winnable on the law. This case is 100% about the feels that it generates, and whether or not the jury wants to impose punishment for what appears to be facially illegal but understandable conduct.

    I continue to be dismayed at how The Dispatch is handling this case and the other examples of egregious violent over reach by people appearing to be acting out of vague “fear.” Whether it’s Fox News or whatever cultivating this atmosphere of persistent threat in some people’s minds, we have repeated examples of people taking the law into their own hands with deadly consequences based on unreasonable perceptions. This needs to be loudly and vociferously condemned, not given tacit approval.

    Collapse
  2. Sunilsaha2

    I trained in Brazilian Jujitsu (BJJ) for many years and have done this choke hundreds of times. I have seen people pass out from the choke in class and it's obvious when it happens. BJJ training involves "rolling" where you go against your classmate at near 100% and try to submit them. Someone getting submitted "taps out" before serious damage is done such as a broken arm or passing out from a rear naked choke like what happened here. But sometimes a person, especially if they are new to BJJ, doesn't know their limits and doesn't tap in time and ... passes out from a choke. I have never seen someone keep the choke in for more than even two or three seconds after their opponent passes out. That is crazy. It's like holding someone down under water after they are motionless. If he kept the choke in for several minutes after Neely passed out then I think manslaughter is the right charge. That can't be allowed. Training isn't needed to understand this but a Marine likely has "rolled" with opponents in their training and should know this in any case or they would be a danger to their fellow Marines.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This was good. I appreciate the measured approach to this fraught case about which so many people have already made up their minds vociferously in one direction or the other.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Dougherbert

    I apologize for being off-topic here, but I can't find an email address for either Sarah or David. I feel sure there used to be a way to communicate privately with them, but maybe that got to be overwhelming? Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right place.

    In any event, I'd like to suggest a discussion of whether the verdict against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case might overturned on appeal. The judge admitted the testimony of two other women who claimed Trump had also assaulted them. Under New York law (and the Federal Rules of Evidence) such testimony is generally not admissible to show propensity to commit a crime. My assumption is that the judge admitted the highly prejudicial evidence under the "common scheme or plan" exception, which requires a showing that the other crimes are "so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others." On first blush, the testimony of the two women does not seem to meet this standard, but I'd be interested in hearing Sarah and David discuss this.

    I hasten to add that I am not a Trump supporter (I'd rather cut off my arm than vote for him), but I do want him to receive the same treatment as all other parties before the New York courts. I'm not sure that happened here.

    I know Sarah recently explained that she and David don't usually discuss trial court decisions, but surely cases involving Trump are an exception (as shown by David's NYT column today).


    Here is how the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) described the rule in People v. Denson (2015):

    "[T]he familiar Molineux rule states that evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” (People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]). Where, however, “the proffered Molineux evidence is relevant to some material fact in the case, other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, it is not to be excluded merely because it shows that the defendant had committed other crimes” (id. at 560). Although it is not an exhaustive list, evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admitted to prove the crime charged when the evidence tends to establish:

    “(1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the [*4]crime on trial.

    In assessing whether evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal acts should be admitted at trial, a trial court is required to engage in a two-step analysis. First, the trial court must determine whether the People have “identif[ied] some material issue, other than the defendant’s criminal propensity, to which the evidence is directly relevant” (Cass, 18 NY3d at 560). If the People have met that burden, the trial court must then “weigh the evidence’s probative value against its potential for undue prejudice to the defendant. The decision whether to admit evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts rests upon the trial court’s discretionary balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dougherbert

      I know no one will ever read this, but in the interest of full disclosure, (a) I had not realized the E. Jean Carroll case was in federal court, not New York state court and (b) I had forgotten the exception for civil cases involving sexual assault under Rule 415 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

      A lesson for this retired lawyer to be more careful and not shoot from the hip.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Witt Case

    We need to do more for our mental health but as someone working in the sphere, who's going to do the work, and where are the beds to place them? That's the problem. We have skilled people and more people who want to work. But I took a paycut to work in my capacity compared to continue working as a first responder. I keep hearing we need to do more to help out and give more to mental health. But where are the people we need to facilitate it? We're burning out.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Kurt

    This is a fascinating conversation. I'm in Chicago, have been that guy sitting there wondering if the raving lunatic was going to get violent, and have pondered the possible legal implications if I act. I love (or used to love) taking the El downtown, but I wouldn't get on the Red Line for a hundo nowadays.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      That’s sad. Europeans are pretty comfortable with taking the metro (and letting their older kids take the metro alone) in pretty much any city in Europe at any time of day or night, including Kiev. My daughter lives in Sofia, Bulgaria, and my nieces and nephew grew up in Kiev. The metros in these cities are quite beautiful as well as safe (marble and chandeliers in some stations).

      Collapse
  7. Lee Rone

    In hearing the media's references to the "perception" of rising crime, I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

    Here in Memphis, we already had the nation's highest murder rate, (by far), among large metropolitan areas. And in the last couple of years our murder rate has doubled. No one is lifting a finger to help us.

    In neighboring Jackson, Mississippi, their murder rate has also doubled and is now among the 5 most murderous cities in the world, according to Wikipedia's list of cities with the highest murder rates.

    For those of us living in Memphis and Jackson, the rise in the murder rate is not merely a perception, nor are the rapes, carjackings, and armed robberies which have skyrocketed along side all the murders.

    I am elated, however, that Mississippi's governor and legislature developed a new state-run police (officially known as the Capitol Police) which is now protecting a large district within Jackson (known as the Capitol Complex Improvement District or CCID), where virtually all the major public institutions serving the entire metro area and state are located, including state government offices, hospitals, universities, museums, and prime shopping and entertainment districts.

    The State of Mississippi has also hired enough officers for the CCID to deliver maximal safety in the same way that New York did between 1995 and 2015, during which time New York reduced the murder rate by some 90%. The State of Mississippi also has added new judges and other resources to ensure that criminals are not only arrested but also convicted.

    The state has freed up the city police and added resources to the county police to focus on the remaining parts of the city, which is getting smaller by the day, as the population is declining by some 4,000 people per year presumably due to the utter lack of police protection.

    Jackson, with this added level of safety, is actually a charming, vibrant city and in a great location near New Orleans and Florida. The city now awaits federal approval of a new 10-mile lake and the opening of an adjacent 3,000 acre park in the heart of the city.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      I have always loved Jackson, a smallish city, but charming. I used to spend quite a bit of time there at the historical archives downtown. Back when the Sun and Sand was still open, and when all the state legislators stayed there. I met the writer Willie Morris there, who had a crotchety old cat named Spit. We had many a nice conversation over drinks, regarding Mississippi history and characters.

      He took me on a walking tour of the old black neighborhood that had been the epicenter of black life before integration, we went to Medgar Evers house, which was before it was restored, and we discussed the enormous white flight out of Jackson, all centered on Mississippi's agony of race. Race. Race.

      I was never afraid walking Jackson's streets. Maybe I was naive, but, as a native of New Orleans, the fact that Jackson was a majority black city, and had been for years, did not bother me. I never felt in danger.

      Jackson had 138 homicides in 2022, down from 160 in 2023. So per Capita, yes, that's high. But the average age tells us something too. The average age of the victims is 29.

      I have not been to Jackson in many years, as I now live in Texas. But I understand it has been put under a rather paternalistic commission. I also understand that the citizens voted on a tax that was written to be for "roads, bridges and other infrastructure", but that the commission is not allowing the city to spend it for that and amended it after the fact. I think that is wrong. People voted for it thinking it was for that. That seems to be a violation of their rights of self determination.

      I hope that the state and city can resolve that toward a more beneficial outcome for the citizens of the city.

      Collapse
      1. Snoopyboobs

        The average age surprises me, I'd expect it to be younger.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    SeanM76

    I really enjoyed this episode even without Sarah. As a person who would hopefully be considered normal learned a lot.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    John McWhorter, in his NYT OPINION, with whom I disagree more than agree, wrote an excellent essay on Jordan Neelys death.

    "We must be able to keep in our minds two things. One is that Neely was unjustifiably killed. The other is that the episode, in all of its horror, highlights what New York City subway riders are being asked to endure daily — and that this, too, is not just."

    "I am going to venture an idea that may be unpopular: Jordan Neely, in all of his innocence, did deserve restraint. Only that. He deserved neither injury nor any more discomfort than necessary, and certainly not death. Where precisely Penny’s actions and intentions fall on this spectrum is a question for the legal system to interrogate aggressively. But society has a problem on its hands when mentally ill people are terrifying innocent citizens trying to get to work or back to their homes. The system needs to help both the Jordan Neelys and the rest of us. And this means there should be an honest discussion about the role of cops and subway officers in confronting and even detaining the mentally ill more frequently"

    Collapse
    1. Snoopyboobs

      McWhorters takes are so subtle how can you muster much disagreement? I mean I disagree sometimes but often I'm just meh...

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      BillAZ

      Appreciate the emphasis. I saw McWhorter's piece and John, as usual, is pretty even-handed in his treatment. I was heartened by the fact that he described the sense of anxiety the public felt about riding the subway and a description of a threat that is real. I also appreciated that he noticed and alluded to the way in which Neely quite disappears in these competing narratives and both he and the public are replaced with symbols.

      I'm not unsympathetic to Neeley but I am increasingly more concerned with a public that is increasingly being terrorized and what that will mean in social and political terms. Whether it is gun violence and mass shootings, stochastic terrorism, flash mobs, street crime or random acts of road rage the sense that things are out of of control or tipping over into chaos seems overwhelming at times.

      What emerges from that, for me personally, is a real sense of offense that people cannot go about a normal day without these kinds of confrontations or the fear of violence. Those people on the subway and that young Marine were just going about their day; going to work, shopping, doctors appointments, etc. They didn't asked to be terrorized. And then Neeley appears as an unwitting and deluded "diabolus ex machina" dropped into their midst to ensure that what was a simple and uncomplicated journey now becomes so much more fraught. That the public is unprepared or unequipped or limited in their response to these incidents should be no great surprise.

      What I am most exercised by is the predictable performative outrage and the ideological sorting. It is such grotesque Kabuki theater.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        I'm personally more impacted by white pickup drivers at 100mph, crossing double lines and tail gating me angry that I'm going 75 in a 70.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BillAZ

          Hwy 10?

          Interesting you mention that. I was going to allude to Arizona's relatively law-enforcement free highways and how one can travel that fatally lethal strip of Hwy 10 near Tucson and never see a highway patrol car or sheriff vehicle.

          That's simply another line item under the Chaos Category.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            I travel all over the US. The worst is in Texas imho. San Antonio to Austin to Dallas metro. From there driving back to Tucson. But better past Midland Odessa. 10 from Tucson to Phoenix as well. But just along Tucson roads.

            I feel 100% of all traffic laws should be enforced 100$ maximum.

            Why?

            In no other part of our lives, do we grant absolute faith and trust to complete strangers. To not swerve and hit us. To stop at signs and lights. To no kill us by recklessness.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      An honest discussion of mental illness, and the treatments needed and what the cost of that is, is very much needed.

      We all know what happened was wrong, we all know it was wrong all around.

      But we need to address mental illness. More so even than guns. Yes, it's hard. Yes, they have rights we must protect, but so do the rest of us.

      We are all of us confronted with the mentally ill, as shooters, as homeless, as vets, as school children, as our coworkers. Mental illness varies in degrees just like body illness, from mild to severe. 1 in 4 Americans suffer some form of it, from phobias, to depression, to schizophrenia. So it's time we freaking look at it head on, and make laws and regulations around it and PAY for it. Yep, it's expensive. But so is just letting them slip thru our very big cracks.

      We are, all of us, the mentally ill and the rest of us bearing an enormous cost of doing nothing. Jordan Neely has born the cost. The Marine is bearing the cost.

      When are we going to address it?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kurt

        We aren't going to address it.

        As I have been informed by friends working in social service, one of the least advertised outcomes of the Reagan revolution was the removal of Federal funding for mental health care.

        When did things seem to start going seriously off the rails? My recollection is right around the time of Reagan. I'm not blaming Reagan, but... All the stuff that used to (sort of) deal with mental illness got axed in the Reagan revolution.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        We won't with the Conservative politicians we have today. They care not a whit about the facr that more kids die by guns than adults died on 9/11 or Iraq. Every year. Heartless people with meaningless faux prayers

        Collapse
        1. MathewA

          "They care not a whit about the facr that more kids die by guns than adults died on 9/11 or Iraq."

          BS

          It's possible to both care very deeply about the issue and not support policies that you don't think will do anything to solve the issue while greatly infringing on law abiding citizens rights.

          Imputing motives and that the other side MUST be EVIL because they don't support your policy prescriptions is the root of many of our political problems. If the other side is EVIL then you can't compromise. The only alternative then is endless partisan war, which will eventually turn into real Civil War.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            2A intransigent absolutists are the only ones carrying the moral weight of dead children by guns.

            Facts:
            Zero guns - 2800 alive kids a year
            Restrictive gun laws - proven lower gun deaths

            There is no getting around the facts, logic and responsibility. It lies totally on the 2A absolutes. Otherwise we'd change it.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          You are correct, Doug. We won't, at least not until it affects them, personally.

          And I hate to wish violence like that on anyone.

          But perhaps Americans of all political stripes could put aside their partisan differences on just this issue, and stand together and shout at Congress...do something for our mentally ill! Because if you do, you are doing something for us!

          I suspect that I could work with conservatives on this issue, as long as we kept it strictly on improving services and access to services for the mentally ill, and they didn't try to bring god into the budget.

          If we would leave the "prayers" to the closet, in private, then we could work the actual problem.

          Their "thoughts and prayers" are only helping themselves. So keep them for themselves. Yay, they help them. Meanwhile...Neely and the Marine happens, or Parkland happens.

          It's time we get serious and we need everyone to start pushing their Congress critters and statehouse critter about this.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougAz

            It will require conservatives to change their "small government"; "government is the problem" Reaganesque views towards the simple fact that government solves a ton of problems and always has.

            Praying for a better culture, while genuine for those folks, is meaningless because their god, is not everyone's god, and is an absent non-causal god by all evidence. IF their god granted them freedom and free will, then he also granted them the means and wherewithal to determine they can and morally should, take actions.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Driven away by the bigots

      I agree with almost all of this except that you don't consider that the mentally ill terrifying people are also innocent in a way... Nobody asks for mental illness, we (all sides) do a piss poor job helping them, and it's regularly and routinely stigmatized.

      This is an all around tragedy.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Of course the mentally ill are innocent. Like Neely. He had no weapon that was reported.

        I agree with your comment 100%

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      I usually find that McWhorter is worth listening to. Thanks for the quote!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        He's grown on me.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kurt

          Me too.

          Collapse
  10. Francislyo

    The death of Mr Neely, a young man who was mentally ill since his mother’s brutal death in 2007, is a tragedy.

    The Post and NY Times articles were eye-opening. His uncle says Neely was self-medicating with K2 and was homeless. He decried the “gang killing” of Neely, calling for the arrests of all 3 men involved in subduing him.

    One might ask: Why didn’t the uncle provide food and/or shelter for Neely, whose behavior was seemingly motivated by hunger and homelessness? It *is* pertinent that Neely was a violent man. He was arrested 44 times, including for multiple assaults, an attempted child abduction, drugs and indecent exposure. At least 4 arrests were on charges of punching people, 2 of these in the subway system. He reportedly threatened to kill a booth agent. He had hundreds of encounters with the social workers for homeless people on subways, and was on the “Top 50” list of NYC homeless most urgently in need of treatment.

    The day before his death Neely was under investigation for pushing someone on the track. At the time of his death there was a warrant out for his arrest for the Nov 2021 punching of a 67-year old woman who suffered severe facial injuries. He had pled guilty, agreed to an Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) therapy program, but skipped out after 15 days.

    Some people say that Neely's violent history is not at all pertinent. I disagree. Had he been less violent, he may have been fed and nurtured more by his family, and by shelters in NY. Skipping out on his plea agreement to take residential treatment instead of prison not only resulted in his arrest warrant, but also curtailed the support to turn his life around that his lawyers had argued he needed, and got NYC to provide. Many people are homeless, hungry, and/or mentally ill. But very few build up a rap sheet like Neely’s. Did he feel remorse? A desire to change? These are pertinent questions, particularly to our many fellow citizens who rank safety is a top issue.

    Neely’s tragic death could have been averted if outreach workers and police who repeatedly interacted with him over his aggressive behavior had taken him into treatment over his outstanding warrant. As recently as April 9th officers had been called by social workers and ejected Neely from a subway train. Had he been taken into custody on the arrest warrant, he would be alive today. And citizens would be safer.

    Many working-class folks would see themselves, their sons, or their brothers in the place of the marine and other 2 men, intervening to defend others from a man of remorseless violent character. Demonizing these men as intentionally murdering, motivated by extreme racism, would be seen by many as the elitism of the Progressive, out of touch with the common person. Many would also deem it naïve to think that Neely’s history of violence has nothing to do with the response of the 3 men, feeling instead that people can sense the character of a repeatedly violent person even if they don’t know all the underlying history. This kind of instant demonization will woo some fence-sitters to vote Republican (for Trump) as president. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, they are good caring people who are afraid you will throw them under the bus when they protect others from a repeat violent offender.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      They probably did not take him in BECAUSE THERE WAS NO AVAILABILITY IN THE SYSTEM.

      You yourself said he was on the list of top 50 needing help. Yes, a wait list. Because we do not spend enough public dollars on mental health care.

      Yep, it's expensive. But no one can do anything about it unless there are resources available. NY City and state has people waiting, sometimes for years, for help. It's that way everywhere.

      And I am sure no family member wanted to take him in, as protection for their own families. They probably don't have the funds to treat him either.

      If I was Biden, or any president, it would commission a task force to look at all the ways we could improve mental health services in this country, how much it would cost, and I would put it straight to Americans. I would bypass Congress and get Americans on my side and force Congress and statehouses hands.

      It's way, way past time we decided as a nation to address this issue.

      Collapse
      1. Dlnevins

        "They probably did not take him in BECAUSE THERE WAS NO AVAILABILITY IN THE SYSTEM."

        There's more to it than that. Due to changes in the laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it has become all but impossible to commit a mentally ill person to an inpatient psychiatric hospital long-term and forcibly medicate him/her against his/her will. This has created a situation where a violent mentally ill person either winds up in prison(where they often don't receive any real treatment) or are hospitalized for a very short term (often as little as 72 hours) and medicated, but then are released before they have been truly stabilized on medications, often with little follow-up. Since the medications can have unpleasant side effects and many mentally ill people don't recognize that they ae sick, they of course stop taking the medication, rapidly decompensate, and then the whole merry-go-round starts all over again.

        While we hate to think of confining and forcibly medicating a non-criminal, the reality is that not all adults are mentally competent, and absent such institutionalization they WILL wind up on the streets, to the detriment of all (especially themselves).

        Collapse
      2. Francislyo

        Scarlette, I think you missed part of my post:
        "He had pled guilty, agreed to an Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) therapy program, but skipped out after 15 days. ... Skipping out on his plea agreement to take residential treatment instead of prison not only resulted in his arrest warrant, but also curtailed the support to turn his life around that his lawyers had argued he needed, and got NYC to provide. "

        Do we need to provide more funding for mental health, yes, of course. But I do not agree that none is available. More specifically, we know that when Neely was placed in a mental health therapy facility and provided with food and housing, he defied a court order and walked away.

        BTW, Two of my family members work in mental health therapy with violent offenders. Other people I know work in mental health therapy with homeless people, some of whom decline housing. (Why is a whole other conversation).

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          Sure, that's another issue. You can't make them take their meds. Severely mentally ill people basically need a caretaker, 24/7. And rich people can afford to get that for their lives ones...people who live with them and make sure to monitor medication taking and where they are going and decision making etc.

          But illness does not negate rights...should you lose your rights if you get a severe illness like cancer, and decide you don't want to take chemo?

          No. So how do we accommodate the mentally ill and their rights? We don't abrogate their rights, especially if they have not caused harm to anyone. So caretakers? What's the answer?

          And as for Neely, he may have walked away, but that does not mean his spot was still open. It went right to the next on the waiting list.

          And the cops, in general, don't have anywhere to take these people. 72 hours in a hospital, if a bed is available. Then it's back on a wait list for services. Neely doesn't get to skip over that, just because he was in the system before.

          People drop out, people lose their therapy. That's how it is for people reliant on public services.

          Collapse
          1. Francislyo

            Ok, Scarlette - to answer your question: let’s say someone with cancer loses so much hope that he begins to punch out random people, seriously injuring elderly women, among others. He gets caught, pleads guilty, agrees to take a wonder cancer drug and anger counseling at the city’s expense. But he skips out of the plea agreement. Should he lose his rights because he doesn’t want to take the wonder drug? Absolutely Not.

            But if he continues to violate other people who are going about their day, does everyone else lose their right to peacefully use the subway and/or defend themselves and others? If progressives answer “Yes” they will lose elections, and working class people will think them elite and unable to empathize with those who have to use the subway on a daily basis.

            Whether you agree or not, most citizens feel that when a person is repeatedly violating many others, they do run a risk of being unintentionally harmed by those who seek to restrain them. It’s a tragedy when this happens, but other people’s rights don’t disappear just because a violent person is mentally ill (or has cancer).

            Collapse
      3. MathewA

        He lived in a blue city inside of a blue state.

        If you want us to give liberal policies a chance at a federal level then make your blue cities and states work. Have effective and efficient local government that keeps citizens safe and secure and provides quality education and health services.

        Actually do that for a decade or two and then I'll be willing to look at those proven policies and taking them nationally.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          How is it any different in a red state? Have you seen the homeless in Austin or Dallas? Where is their mental health care?

          Collapse
          1. MathewA

            Austin and Dallas are still blue cities, but that's not really my point. My point is that in blue cities inside of blue states, where Dems run the show they still haven't demonstrated they can make effective government work, instead it seems to go the other way. The problems are getting worse.

            Note I am NOT saying Republicans are great. Though they seem to tend to avoid the worst of Democrat stupid mistakes. In particular on law and order.

            Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Kurt

        We were addressing it, about 5 decades ago. Federal funding for mental health issues is one of those line items that got axed during the Reagan revolution.

        Collapse
    2. Francislyo

      Part of the tragedy is that many combat techniques are *not* suitable for use with civilians. With any intervention it’s a guess how much force it would take to subdue a particular person, but this chokehold seems suitable only for warfare, yet this may not be clear to all marines returning home.

      One of the most salient points made on the pod was that once there was no threat of lethal force by Neely, the choke hold should have been released. With Neely down and 3 guys on hand, this would have been the time to talk, empathize, de-escalate, and call police so as to release him to an officer. Could have, should have – hind sight is everything. I’m sure they now wish they’d done that.

      I call this a tragedy because lethal mistakes were made and a young man who could have turned his life around is now dead. Also, such mistakes could sour people on protecting others, such that people stop rendering assistance to those in danger.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kurt

        I also see some amount of a guy playing MMA/Hero On Parade. Kind of the Taxi Driver thing except with MMA tactical ground game as the weapon. The problem is, this isn't a movie and the guy forgot that.

        Collapse
Load More