Crime Guy RNCed on NY subway dies.

[Limbo Pete]

I've been making the argument that there is always the chance of getting badly injured or worse in a fight. I never denied you could die from a choke, you retard <45>

Now, about those questions I asked (you avoided the second part of the first one, again)

1. Is a RNC always considered deadly force or do we have to take into consideration things like context/intent? Also, if you do always consider it deadly force, is it unreasonable force seeing as it's an unarmed man grappling another unarmed, yet threatening, person?

2. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

3. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?

Again, choking seems like something that is generally going to be considered deadly force but it's unclear how that state makes the distinction (if they do).
Ok so how exactly was the choke misapplied? Surely a choke that kills someone, eh, unintentionally is being misapplied. So if it wasn't held too long, then what was it? How exactly do you kill someone with a choke if you only hold it as long as needed?

 

[Rod1]

Crazy bum was yelling and chasing people to the other end of the train, threatened everyone on the train and took his jacket off like he wanted to fight. You don't have to wait for him to strike you before he is considered a threat of bodily harm.

Don't twist my words man, i said "great bodily harm" unless the crazy hobo was Pai Mei or the One Punch Man, you can't argue he was about to seriously injure someone (AKA GREAT bodily arm) out of nowhere .

Elaborate more on why choking someone out who is threat is unreasonable. He's fighting and trying to get loose which would definitely lead to him attacking people. Choking him unconscious would be a reasonable way to neutralize his threat.

3 to 1 advantage, much younger marine that also got the jump on him.

if instead of an RNC he would had gone for a full nelson or half nelso, this wouldn't even be news, even so, when the other guy was on the ground and the 2 other guys came to assist he could had released the choke or transitioned into a nelson and flip the guy down.

the marine probably thought it was going to be easy and he would look cool, but instead found out that choking a resisting opponent isn't as easy as the movies make it to be.

Also remember, we don't know how long he was squeezing. It was noted by witnesses that there were times he wasn't squeezing but still held onto him.

Except we do based on the coroner report we know he was choked long enough to die that requires quite a bit of time.

 

[Horse Style]

Again, choking seems like something that is generally going to be considered deadly force but it's unclear how that state makes the distinction (if they do).
Ok so how exactly was the choke misapplied? Surely a choke that kills someone, eh, unintentionally is being misapplied. So if it wasn't held too long, then what was it? How exactly do you kill someone with a choke if you only hold it as long as needed?

You keep replying only to give the same non-answer to half of the first question. There is another half of the first question and 2 other questions.

1. Also, if you do always consider it deadly force, is it unreasonable force seeing as it's an unarmed man grappling another unarmed, yet threatening, person?

2. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

3. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?

There, little guy. I cut off the first half of the first question since it's likely dangling keys that distract you from the other questions. Think you can manage to think of an answer now?

 

[Rod1]

1. Is a RNC always considered deadly force or do we have to take into consideration things like context/intent? Also, if you do always consider it deadly force, is it unreasonable force seeing as it's an unarmed man grappling another unarmed, yet threatening, person?

A choke is always going to be considered deadly force.

2. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

No, its a case of someone being stupid.

3. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?

The cue they ignored is the fact that the choke was not really on (as in not properly stopping blood flow), so he proceeded to crush his trachea until he died.

 

[Horse Style]

Don't twist my words man, i said "great bodily harm" unless the crazy hobo was Pai Mei or the One Punch Man, you can't argue he was about to seriously injure someone (AKA GREAT bodily arm) out of nowhere .



3 to 1 advantage, much younger marine that also got the jump on him.

if instead of an RNC he would had gone for a full nelson or half nelso, this wouldn't even be news, even so, when the other guy was on the ground and the 2 other guys came to assist he could had released the choke or transitioned into a nelson and flip the guy down.

the marine probably thought it was going to be easy and he would look cool, but instead found out that choking a resisting opponent isn't as easy as the movies make it to be.



Except we do based on the coroner report we know he was choked long enough to die that requires quite a bit of time.

A gun is deadly force that would be unreasonable and an escalation. Not everything that is considered deadly force is the same. How is grappling an unarmed, threatening man unreasonable deadly force?

No one cares about your little psychoanalysis of this marine.

 

[Poatan Power]

I believe it falls under deadly physical force.


DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.

[Serious physical injury means impairment of a person’s physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.]

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...deadly-physical-force-in-defense-of-a-person/

I think we agree. "Under the circumstances in which it is used," which is essentially what I said.

 

[Horse Style]

A choke is always going to be considered deadly force.



No, its a case of someone being stupid.



The cue they ignored is the fact that the choke was not really on (as in not properly stopping blood flow), so he proceeded to crush his trachea until he died.

1. You want to answer the second part of this question?
2. Yes, the crazy bum was stupid and it's a good thing the people on the train defended themselves
3. So when looking to neutralize a threat so he's no longer a threat, you think a cue to these laymen that the threat was stopped is the choke not being on properly? Is it even reasonable to think the average, untrained person even knows the proper way or for them to even know the difference between blood choke and air choke?

 

[Spetsnaz77]

Because in a training environment most people will be able to understand when you are going limp also in a training environment everyone will tap to an airway choke.

For sure

 

[Limbo Pete]

You keep replying only to give the same non-answer to half of the first question. There is another half of the first question and 2 other questions.

1. Also, if you do always consider it deadly force, is it unreasonable force seeing as it's an unarmed man grappling another unarmed, yet threatening, person?

2. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

3. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?

There, little guy. I cut off the first half of the first question since it's likely dangling keys that distract you from the other questions. Think you can manage to think of an answer now?

Horseman: "Do you think choking someone is always deadly force?"
Limbo: "Seems like it is most of the time, but I'm not sure precisely how this works in New York."
Horseman: "ANSWER ME GOD DAMN YOU!"

 

[Rod1]

A gun is deadly force that would be unreasonable and an escalation.

Not everything that is considered deadly force is the same. How is grappling an unarmed, threatening man unreasonable deadly force?

Dude you are twisting yourself into knots here, if grappling and punching isn't deadly force then why the fuck are you saying that the hobo was about to use deadly force when he was unarmed?

If unarmed combat isn't deadly force then the hobo was not going to use deadly force.

BTW grappling wasn't the issue here, as i said, a half or a full nelson would had worked better in this case, but your grappling experience seems to be about zero, so you may not even know what that means.

 

[the ambush]

 

[Limbo Pete]

@Horse Style we've established you don't think the choke was held too long, so how did it kill him? Crushing as opposed to blood restriction?

 

[Horse Style]

Eh? Seems pretty clear that, in the state of New York at least, you have to match deadly force to deadly force. @emefer posted the relevant portions of their law earlier in the thread. You gotta read posts, man, instead of just firing off nonsense like Yosemite Sam trying to blast Bugs Bunny.

What?
This one fell a few yards away from the goal line.

How is engaging an unarmed threat with unarmed self-defense not an appropriate use of force?

Also you seem to have edited out the questions in my post. Here they are so you don't get confused:

1. Also, if you do always consider it deadly force, is it unreasonable force seeing as it's an unarmed man grappling another unarmed, yet threatening, person?

2. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

3. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?

 

[mkess101]

Eh? Seems pretty clear that, in the state of New York at least, you have to match deadly force to deadly force. @emefer posted the relevant portions of their law earlier in the thread. You gotta read posts, man, instead of just firing off nonsense like Yosemite Sam trying to blast Bugs Bunny.

This part also can be hazy. Meaning, are there small kids nearby? A grown man could absolutely kill a child with one blow, easily. Neely said he would "hurt anyone on the train". Connecting dots, if there's someone much smaller or a child and the rationale of the Marine is that he's defending the safety of others, we're now talking about a situation where Neely's threats--even without a weapon--COULD potentially be deadly.

I'm not saying they ARE necessarily, or how the courts/prosecutors/a judge/jury would see it. I'm just saying it could very well be more complex than just "no weapon so deadly force wasn't threatened".

 

[Rod1]

1. You want to answer the second part of this question?

The second part of that question talks about grappling, grappling isn't a synonym of choking, its perfectly reasonable to use grappling to subdue an individual.

2. Yes, the crazy bum was stupid and it's a good thing the people on the train defended themselves

Yup, and if the response had been proportional it wouldn't even be news.

3. So when looking to neutralize a threat so he's no longer a threat, you think a cue to these laymen that the threat was stopped is the choke not being on properly?

You are changing your point now, your initial argument was that they didn't held the choke for too long because they released it once the guy became unresponsive.

You are not allowed to use deadly force in response to non-deadly force, you can't simply hold a choke to neutralize someone who is not presenting a deadly threat, just like you can't just walk up from behind to him and slit his throat of put a bullet in his head because "he is a threat".

Is it even reasonable to think the average, untrained person even knows the proper way or for them to even know the difference between blood choke and air choke?

Maybe the average, untrained person shouldn't go for strangulation as the first option if he already has a big age, numbers and opportunity advantage over the other guy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

This part also can be hazy. Meaning, are there small kids nearby? A grown man could absolutely kill a child with one blow, easily. Neely said he would "hurt anyone on the train". Connecting dots, if there's someone much smaller or a child and the rationale of the Marine is that he's defending the safety of others, we're now talking about a situation where Neely's threats--even without a weapon--COULD potentially be deadly.

I'm not saying they ARE necessarily, or how the courts/prosecutors/a judge/jury would see it. I'm just saying it could very well be more complex than just "no weapon so deadly force wasn't threatened".

Well you I can have a reasonable, nuanced discussion with lol
Horse fella is having a mighty struggle

 

[Rod1]

This part also can be hazy. Meaning, are there small kids nearby? A grown man could absolutely kill a child with one blow, easily. Neely said he would "hurt anyone on the train".

Do you think it would be acceptable to walk up to him with a knife from behind and cut his throat or putting a bullet in his head? if no, then its also not acceptable to choke him to death either.

 

[Limbo Pete]

How is engaging an unarmed threat with unarmed self-defense not an appropriate use of force?

But deadly force isn't a proportionate response to aggressive shouting, and it seems like choking is going to fall under deadly force most if the time (although any relevant New York specifics, particularly regarding choking, remain less than 100% clear)

 

[mkess101]

Do you think it would be acceptable to walk up to him with a knife from behind and cut his throat or putting a bullet in his head? if no, then its also not acceptable to choke him to death either.

I think there are degrees. I would agree, not "acceptable". I'd say it's much easier to argue that he was attempting to restrain but fucked up, whereas slitting a throat or shooting him that cannot be reasonably argued.

So kind of "how" much is the Marine culpable type of question. There are so many factors at play. I'm just throwing them in there when they pop into my head.

 

[Horse Style]

But deadly force isn't a proportionate response to aggressive shouting, and it seems like choking is going to fall under deadly force most if the time (although any relevant New York specifics, particularly regarding choking, remain less than 100% clear)

Is this the 10th time or so you've dodged the questions I asked? I'll keep a counter and I'll even add another question.

Limbo_Pete Avoiding Simple Questions Count: 10

1. Do you think you have to wait until a strike is thrown before you can defend yourself?

2. How is unarmed grappling disproportionate force to an unarmed threat?

3. Do you actually think this self-defense incident is vigilantism?

4. Considering they let go once he stopped moving and stopped responding to their questions, what cue do you think they ignored or should have noticed before the point they let him go?