I strongly disagree with the author. This is not a case underscoring the challenges of public safety and public health. It’s much bigger than that. This incident represents the breakdown of the social contract between citizens and state. The state refuses to create a safe environment for the community, and is now considering the possibility of prosecuting a citizens who dares to protect himself and other citizens. It’s the beginning of full-blown anarchy.
I backpacked across the US a long time ago, the big cities were full of homeless crazies then and to be honest they were terrifying. It’s much worse now however with the array of powerful drugs they use. But as you suggest, this is why there is a two tiered culture with the wealthy living in private gated communities with their own security. Reminds me of South Africa.
Isn’t anarchy rather more represented by allowing any level of violence applied against anyone deemed to be endangering others, whether they are or not as defined by further other people? Are you saying that it’s OK to kill someone shouting in an aggressive manner if you want to?
I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.
In the UK the problems of mental health issues in public places were massively increased by the Thatcher government deciding to save money by the turfing out of mentally ill people from institutional help into ‘Care inThe Community’. Exacerbated further by the underfunding of mental health services over the past decade. I suspect that the awful US healthcare system is not well set up to help ‘homeless crazies’.
The state has the resources to create a safe environment on the subway. It chooses not to. The state has the resources to treat people suffering mental health issues. It chooses not to.
We give up some rights in society in exchange for protection by the state. In this case, the state has chosen not fulfill its part of the agreement.
The state wholly created the circumstances where this citizen felt it necessary to intervene to protect himself and others.
You say this; “ I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.”
By failing its obligations under the social contract, the state in New York has created the very conditions you would not want to live in.
Being British it’s tricky for me to comment on the USA, and especially on whatever happens on the NY subway, but as I understand it, it is the Federal state, rather than that of NY, which has decided that the provision of health care, including that for mental health, is so restricted.
It’s a little bit of both. MH services can be covered via private insurance and/or by Medicaid (I say and/or because you can have both, for example, if you are a dependent you can be on your parents insurance but also qualify for Medicaid if you are disabled, so your primary – your private insurance – may cover some care and medicaid – your secondary insurance – would pick up the tab or potentially cover it all if your primary denied it). Medicaid is part funded by state and federal monies and regulated by both. It is then also overseen at the county level, usually by something called a Community Service Board.
You can also pay privately (out of pocket) for services, but if you are taking about a placement, that would be ruinously expensive for most people.
Part of the reason MH services are so relatively restricted right now is that we have combination of post pandemic rise in the need for services combined with a decades long, mostly bipartisan, drive to move from a situation where those with serious needs were institutionalized to one of care in the community. It can be extremely difficult to have someone placed and treated and if they then released back into the community it can be very difficult to make sure they keep taking the medication they need.
It’s a little bit of both. MH services can be covered via private insurance and/or by Medicaid (I say and/or because you can have both, for example, if you are a dependent you can be on your parents insurance but also qualify for Medicaid if you are disabled, so your primary – your private insurance – may cover some care and medicaid – your secondary insurance – would pick up the tab or potentially cover it all if your primary denied it). Medicaid is part funded by state and federal monies and regulated by both. It is then also overseen at the county level, usually by something called a Community Service Board.
You can also pay privately (out of pocket) for services, but if you are taking about a placement, that would be ruinously expensive for most people.
Part of the reason MH services are so relatively restricted right now is that we have combination of post pandemic rise in the need for services combined with a decades long, mostly bipartisan, drive to move from a situation where those with serious needs were institutionalized to one of care in the community. It can be extremely difficult to have someone placed and treated and if they then released back into the community it can be very difficult to make sure they keep taking the medication they need.
Being British it’s tricky for me to comment on the USA, and especially on whatever happens on the NY subway, but as I understand it, it is the Federal state, rather than that of NY, which has decided that the provision of health care, including that for mental health, is so restricted.
The state has the resources to create a safe environment on the subway. It chooses not to. The state has the resources to treat people suffering mental health issues. It chooses not to.
We give up some rights in society in exchange for protection by the state. In this case, the state has chosen not fulfill its part of the agreement.
The state wholly created the circumstances where this citizen felt it necessary to intervene to protect himself and others.
You say this; “ I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.”
By failing its obligations under the social contract, the state in New York has created the very conditions you would not want to live in.
I backpacked across the US a long time ago, the big cities were full of homeless crazies then and to be honest they were terrifying. It’s much worse now however with the array of powerful drugs they use. But as you suggest, this is why there is a two tiered culture with the wealthy living in private gated communities with their own security. Reminds me of South Africa.
Isn’t anarchy rather more represented by allowing any level of violence applied against anyone deemed to be endangering others, whether they are or not as defined by further other people? Are you saying that it’s OK to kill someone shouting in an aggressive manner if you want to?
I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.
In the UK the problems of mental health issues in public places were massively increased by the Thatcher government deciding to save money by the turfing out of mentally ill people from institutional help into ‘Care inThe Community’. Exacerbated further by the underfunding of mental health services over the past decade. I suspect that the awful US healthcare system is not well set up to help ‘homeless crazies’.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
I strongly disagree with the author. This is not a case underscoring the challenges of public safety and public health. It’s much bigger than that. This incident represents the breakdown of the social contract between citizens and state. The state refuses to create a safe environment for the community, and is now considering the possibility of prosecuting a citizens who dares to protect himself and other citizens. It’s the beginning of full-blown anarchy.
Jen Segal
1 year ago
If you can screech about racism you don’t have to confront the abject failure to institutionalize mentally incompetent and/or addicted individuals who create havoc in the streets. Much, much easier to cry ‘race’ than address the more difficult, but germane issues.
The outrage has nothing to do with the mentally ill person who died, or mentally ill people in general. He’s incidental. It’s political theatre for politicians like OAC, just another prop to attack political opponents. They have very little interest in the human being that died. For activists, he’s a prop to justify their existence and advance their careers. It’s gross. It’s icky. It’s a breakdown of society.
The outrage has nothing to do with the mentally ill person who died, or mentally ill people in general. He’s incidental. It’s political theatre for politicians like OAC, just another prop to attack political opponents. They have very little interest in the human being that died. For activists, he’s a prop to justify their existence and advance their careers. It’s gross. It’s icky. It’s a breakdown of society.
Jen Segal
1 year ago
If you can screech about racism you don’t have to confront the abject failure to institutionalize mentally incompetent and/or addicted individuals who create havoc in the streets. Much, much easier to cry ‘race’ than address the more difficult, but germane issues.
Robert Pruger
1 year ago
To echo Ben Shapiro, Daniel Petty may need a criminal defense/constitutional attorney, hopefully pro-bono. As a strap-hanger, Mr. Petty is unlikely to have the funds to pay for his defense, if the Manhattan DA decides to pursue criminal charges.
If not this incident, then sometime soon, a case will make its way to the Supreme Court, to determine a citizen’s constitutional right to self-defense and the constitutional right to protect others. This issue needs to be decided decisively with very bright lines.
Self defence, as well as the defence of others, is a God given, natural right which should not need to be reconfirmed or codified by any supreme court, in the US or anywhere else. The fact that this concept should even be up for discussion shows what an insane workd we are living in, not only in the US.
Citizens should certainly have the right to self defence, but – and always in the event that another citizen had died in the process – these actions will need to be decided in the courts
Self defence, as well as the defence of others, is a God given, natural right which should not need to be reconfirmed or codified by any supreme court, in the US or anywhere else. The fact that this concept should even be up for discussion shows what an insane workd we are living in, not only in the US.
Citizens should certainly have the right to self defence, but – and always in the event that another citizen had died in the process – these actions will need to be decided in the courts
Robert Pruger
1 year ago
To echo Ben Shapiro, Daniel Petty may need a criminal defense/constitutional attorney, hopefully pro-bono. As a strap-hanger, Mr. Petty is unlikely to have the funds to pay for his defense, if the Manhattan DA decides to pursue criminal charges.
If not this incident, then sometime soon, a case will make its way to the Supreme Court, to determine a citizen’s constitutional right to self-defense and the constitutional right to protect others. This issue needs to be decided decisively with very bright lines.
j watson
1 year ago
Without more details on exactly what happened those commenting, both Left and Right, are just displaying their innate prejudices.
Defending oneself has to be a ‘right’. Judging the degree of danger one is in not always clear-cut but will no doubt have a ‘reasonableness’ test in a Court. I have no idea how long the choke hold was in place or what anyone adjacent was saying or indicating, but to make a judgment I’d want to know.
One has to look at this – what if the victim was my brother who had a mental health condition? What if the assailant was my brother scared he was in danger?
Hmmm assailant is an interesting word, because means attacker and carries with it certain assumptions. Maybe you could use the word ‘defender’, because Neely was threatening innocent people before the incident.
Hmmm assailant is an interesting word, because means attacker and carries with it certain assumptions. Maybe you could use the word ‘defender’, because Neely was threatening innocent people before the incident.
j watson
1 year ago
Without more details on exactly what happened those commenting, both Left and Right, are just displaying their innate prejudices.
Defending oneself has to be a ‘right’. Judging the degree of danger one is in not always clear-cut but will no doubt have a ‘reasonableness’ test in a Court. I have no idea how long the choke hold was in place or what anyone adjacent was saying or indicating, but to make a judgment I’d want to know.
One has to look at this – what if the victim was my brother who had a mental health condition? What if the assailant was my brother scared he was in danger?
Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Steven Carr
1 year ago
In any event, both critiques miss the bigger point: America is, and perhaps always will be, a settler society with higher rates of violence, particularly urban violence, than what is encountered in more homogeneous first-world cities in Western Europe.
This word ‘homogenous’. Is that the opposite of diversity?
Canada is as much a “settler society” and as “diverse” (though with a different ethnic mix) as the United States. Our rates of violence, though growing, are much lower than the US. This complicates any one-sided analysis of the situation.
That really isn’t relevant to what happened here, up until 50 years ago America had mental institutions to house severely mentally ill people like Neely who are now living untreated on the streets. Leftist groups like the ACLU sue the government every time they attempt to treat and stabilize these folks, and our courts often side with them, thus these poor souls live miserable and often short lives on the streets.
Yes! Wasn’t it the guardians of civil liberties that wanted to close down the mental hospitals in the UK for ‘care in the community?’ The rights of people with poor mental health are often in conflict with their actual needs.
Yes! Wasn’t it the guardians of civil liberties that wanted to close down the mental hospitals in the UK for ‘care in the community?’ The rights of people with poor mental health are often in conflict with their actual needs.
Canada is as much a “settler society” and as “diverse” (though with a different ethnic mix) as the United States. Our rates of violence, though growing, are much lower than the US. This complicates any one-sided analysis of the situation.
That really isn’t relevant to what happened here, up until 50 years ago America had mental institutions to house severely mentally ill people like Neely who are now living untreated on the streets. Leftist groups like the ACLU sue the government every time they attempt to treat and stabilize these folks, and our courts often side with them, thus these poor souls live miserable and often short lives on the streets.
Steven Carr
1 year ago
In any event, both critiques miss the bigger point: America is, and perhaps always will be, a settler society with higher rates of violence, particularly urban violence, than what is encountered in more homogeneous first-world cities in Western Europe.
This word ‘homogenous’. Is that the opposite of diversity?
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago
The key issue, which Bateman doesn’t address, and (in his preference for the weaselly euphemism “violent incident”) can’t even bring himself to say, is that one man *killed* another man. It may have been justified self-defence, or it may not, but ignoring it completely is shockingly inhumane, and fobbing it off as a consequence of America’s frontier tradition is breathtakingly stupid.
Indeed. And the man causing the disturbance was just shouting, not doing anything violent. OK, shouting his head off and upsetting people, but still, just words. It’s supposed to be only the loony left that thinks that words are violent.
What we do know is the man who died was acting in a threatening manner and saying he’s not afraid to kill someone today. We don’t know if he was saying this to someone in particular, or how close he was to someone when he said it. We don’t know the exact threat level, which can be interpreted differently by different people.
What we do know is the person who was killed has assaulted and injured multiple elderly people in the past and was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including schizophrenia.
The state failed to treat this person in the past, and take the necessary measures to protect him and society. We also know the state used to have measures in place to make the subway system safe in the past, and has now neglected these duties.
The state can’t be everywhere all the time, and we don’t want it to be, but this is clearly a case where state neglect led to the circumstances that created this incident.
Having been on public transport and witness to a similar scene, I was terrified the large, aggressive and drunk man would escalate to pulling a weapon – and thoroughly relieved when he was literally kicked off the train by one brave soul. You have to ‘be there’.
What we do know is the man who died was acting in a threatening manner and saying he’s not afraid to kill someone today. We don’t know if he was saying this to someone in particular, or how close he was to someone when he said it. We don’t know the exact threat level, which can be interpreted differently by different people.
What we do know is the person who was killed has assaulted and injured multiple elderly people in the past and was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including schizophrenia.
The state failed to treat this person in the past, and take the necessary measures to protect him and society. We also know the state used to have measures in place to make the subway system safe in the past, and has now neglected these duties.
The state can’t be everywhere all the time, and we don’t want it to be, but this is clearly a case where state neglect led to the circumstances that created this incident.
Having been on public transport and witness to a similar scene, I was terrified the large, aggressive and drunk man would escalate to pulling a weapon – and thoroughly relieved when he was literally kicked off the train by one brave soul. You have to ‘be there’.
Indeed. And the man causing the disturbance was just shouting, not doing anything violent. OK, shouting his head off and upsetting people, but still, just words. It’s supposed to be only the loony left that thinks that words are violent.
Geoff Wilkes
1 year ago
The key issue, which Bateman doesn’t address, and (in his preference for the weaselly euphemism “violent incident”) can’t even bring himself to say, is that one man *killed* another man. It may have been justified self-defence, or it may not, but ignoring it completely is shockingly inhumane, and fobbing it off as a consequence of America’s frontier tradition is breathtakingly stupid.
Charles Boespflug
1 year ago
I’m all for maintaining the right to self-defense and that of defending fellow citizens as sacrosanct. But as in all things, when you go too far, (Did Neely need to be in a chokehold for that long? We’ll see what the authorities decide, we obviously don’t know all of the facts of the case), there are and should be consequences.
Of course it is a tragedy that somebody died. But Neely should not have threatened the public in the subway – a confined space with no possibility of running away to deescalate the situation. i.e. Neely brought this upon himself and NYC is responsible by not appropriately policing the subway and enforcing the laws. You sow what you reap. i.e. chaos and violence.
Of course it is a tragedy that somebody died. But Neely should not have threatened the public in the subway – a confined space with no possibility of running away to deescalate the situation. i.e. Neely brought this upon himself and NYC is responsible by not appropriately policing the subway and enforcing the laws. You sow what you reap. i.e. chaos and violence.
Charles Boespflug
1 year ago
I’m all for maintaining the right to self-defense and that of defending fellow citizens as sacrosanct. But as in all things, when you go too far, (Did Neely need to be in a chokehold for that long? We’ll see what the authorities decide, we obviously don’t know all of the facts of the case), there are and should be consequences.
I strongly disagree with the author. This is not a case underscoring the challenges of public safety and public health. It’s much bigger than that. This incident represents the breakdown of the social contract between citizens and state. The state refuses to create a safe environment for the community, and is now considering the possibility of prosecuting a citizens who dares to protect himself and other citizens. It’s the beginning of full-blown anarchy.
I backpacked across the US a long time ago, the big cities were full of homeless crazies then and to be honest they were terrifying. It’s much worse now however with the array of powerful drugs they use. But as you suggest, this is why there is a two tiered culture with the wealthy living in private gated communities with their own security. Reminds me of South Africa.
By far the bulk of monied people and indeed the bulk of wealthy people in South Africa do not live in private gated communities.
By far the bulk of monied people and indeed the bulk of wealthy people in South Africa do not live in private gated communities.
Isn’t anarchy rather more represented by allowing any level of violence applied against anyone deemed to be endangering others, whether they are or not as defined by further other people? Are you saying that it’s OK to kill someone shouting in an aggressive manner if you want to?
I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.
In the UK the problems of mental health issues in public places were massively increased by the Thatcher government deciding to save money by the turfing out of mentally ill people from institutional help into ‘Care inThe Community’. Exacerbated further by the underfunding of mental health services over the past decade. I suspect that the awful US healthcare system is not well set up to help ‘homeless crazies’.
The state has the resources to create a safe environment on the subway. It chooses not to. The state has the resources to treat people suffering mental health issues. It chooses not to.
We give up some rights in society in exchange for protection by the state. In this case, the state has chosen not fulfill its part of the agreement.
The state wholly created the circumstances where this citizen felt it necessary to intervene to protect himself and others.
You say this; “ I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.”
By failing its obligations under the social contract, the state in New York has created the very conditions you would not want to live in.
Brilliantly, and succinctly, stated.
Being British it’s tricky for me to comment on the USA, and especially on whatever happens on the NY subway, but as I understand it, it is the Federal state, rather than that of NY, which has decided that the provision of health care, including that for mental health, is so restricted.
Individual states are responsible for the delivery of mental health services. The feds play an indirect role through funding and regulations.
It’s a little bit of both. MH services can be covered via private insurance and/or by Medicaid (I say and/or because you can have both, for example, if you are a dependent you can be on your parents insurance but also qualify for Medicaid if you are disabled, so your primary – your private insurance – may cover some care and medicaid – your secondary insurance – would pick up the tab or potentially cover it all if your primary denied it). Medicaid is part funded by state and federal monies and regulated by both. It is then also overseen at the county level, usually by something called a Community Service Board.
You can also pay privately (out of pocket) for services, but if you are taking about a placement, that would be ruinously expensive for most people.
Part of the reason MH services are so relatively restricted right now is that we have combination of post pandemic rise in the need for services combined with a decades long, mostly bipartisan, drive to move from a situation where those with serious needs were institutionalized to one of care in the community. It can be extremely difficult to have someone placed and treated and if they then released back into the community it can be very difficult to make sure they keep taking the medication they need.
Individual states are responsible for the delivery of mental health services. The feds play an indirect role through funding and regulations.
It’s a little bit of both. MH services can be covered via private insurance and/or by Medicaid (I say and/or because you can have both, for example, if you are a dependent you can be on your parents insurance but also qualify for Medicaid if you are disabled, so your primary – your private insurance – may cover some care and medicaid – your secondary insurance – would pick up the tab or potentially cover it all if your primary denied it). Medicaid is part funded by state and federal monies and regulated by both. It is then also overseen at the county level, usually by something called a Community Service Board.
You can also pay privately (out of pocket) for services, but if you are taking about a placement, that would be ruinously expensive for most people.
Part of the reason MH services are so relatively restricted right now is that we have combination of post pandemic rise in the need for services combined with a decades long, mostly bipartisan, drive to move from a situation where those with serious needs were institutionalized to one of care in the community. It can be extremely difficult to have someone placed and treated and if they then released back into the community it can be very difficult to make sure they keep taking the medication they need.
Brilliantly, and succinctly, stated.
Being British it’s tricky for me to comment on the USA, and especially on whatever happens on the NY subway, but as I understand it, it is the Federal state, rather than that of NY, which has decided that the provision of health care, including that for mental health, is so restricted.
The state has the resources to create a safe environment on the subway. It chooses not to. The state has the resources to treat people suffering mental health issues. It chooses not to.
We give up some rights in society in exchange for protection by the state. In this case, the state has chosen not fulfill its part of the agreement.
The state wholly created the circumstances where this citizen felt it necessary to intervene to protect himself and others.
You say this; “ I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.”
By failing its obligations under the social contract, the state in New York has created the very conditions you would not want to live in.
I backpacked across the US a long time ago, the big cities were full of homeless crazies then and to be honest they were terrifying. It’s much worse now however with the array of powerful drugs they use. But as you suggest, this is why there is a two tiered culture with the wealthy living in private gated communities with their own security. Reminds me of South Africa.
Isn’t anarchy rather more represented by allowing any level of violence applied against anyone deemed to be endangering others, whether they are or not as defined by further other people? Are you saying that it’s OK to kill someone shouting in an aggressive manner if you want to?
I would certainly not want to live in a society where the acceptable level of violence applied in any situation was defined by the person applying that violence.
In the UK the problems of mental health issues in public places were massively increased by the Thatcher government deciding to save money by the turfing out of mentally ill people from institutional help into ‘Care inThe Community’. Exacerbated further by the underfunding of mental health services over the past decade. I suspect that the awful US healthcare system is not well set up to help ‘homeless crazies’.
I strongly disagree with the author. This is not a case underscoring the challenges of public safety and public health. It’s much bigger than that. This incident represents the breakdown of the social contract between citizens and state. The state refuses to create a safe environment for the community, and is now considering the possibility of prosecuting a citizens who dares to protect himself and other citizens. It’s the beginning of full-blown anarchy.
If you can screech about racism you don’t have to confront the abject failure to institutionalize mentally incompetent and/or addicted individuals who create havoc in the streets. Much, much easier to cry ‘race’ than address the more difficult, but germane issues.
The outrage has nothing to do with the mentally ill person who died, or mentally ill people in general. He’s incidental. It’s political theatre for politicians like OAC, just another prop to attack political opponents. They have very little interest in the human being that died. For activists, he’s a prop to justify their existence and advance their careers. It’s gross. It’s icky. It’s a breakdown of society.
The outrage has nothing to do with the mentally ill person who died, or mentally ill people in general. He’s incidental. It’s political theatre for politicians like OAC, just another prop to attack political opponents. They have very little interest in the human being that died. For activists, he’s a prop to justify their existence and advance their careers. It’s gross. It’s icky. It’s a breakdown of society.
If you can screech about racism you don’t have to confront the abject failure to institutionalize mentally incompetent and/or addicted individuals who create havoc in the streets. Much, much easier to cry ‘race’ than address the more difficult, but germane issues.
To echo Ben Shapiro, Daniel Petty may need a criminal defense/constitutional attorney, hopefully pro-bono. As a strap-hanger, Mr. Petty is unlikely to have the funds to pay for his defense, if the Manhattan DA decides to pursue criminal charges.
If not this incident, then sometime soon, a case will make its way to the Supreme Court, to determine a citizen’s constitutional right to self-defense and the constitutional right to protect others. This issue needs to be decided decisively with very bright lines.
Self defence, as well as the defence of others, is a God given, natural right which should not need to be reconfirmed or codified by any supreme court, in the US or anywhere else. The fact that this concept should even be up for discussion shows what an insane workd we are living in, not only in the US.
Funny how there is no charge on the black guy who was with Daniel helping him hold the guy down. Hmm..
Citizens should certainly have the right to self defence, but – and always in the event that another citizen had died in the process – these actions will need to be decided in the courts
Self defence, as well as the defence of others, is a God given, natural right which should not need to be reconfirmed or codified by any supreme court, in the US or anywhere else. The fact that this concept should even be up for discussion shows what an insane workd we are living in, not only in the US.
Funny how there is no charge on the black guy who was with Daniel helping him hold the guy down. Hmm..
Citizens should certainly have the right to self defence, but – and always in the event that another citizen had died in the process – these actions will need to be decided in the courts
To echo Ben Shapiro, Daniel Petty may need a criminal defense/constitutional attorney, hopefully pro-bono. As a strap-hanger, Mr. Petty is unlikely to have the funds to pay for his defense, if the Manhattan DA decides to pursue criminal charges.
If not this incident, then sometime soon, a case will make its way to the Supreme Court, to determine a citizen’s constitutional right to self-defense and the constitutional right to protect others. This issue needs to be decided decisively with very bright lines.
Without more details on exactly what happened those commenting, both Left and Right, are just displaying their innate prejudices.
Defending oneself has to be a ‘right’. Judging the degree of danger one is in not always clear-cut but will no doubt have a ‘reasonableness’ test in a Court. I have no idea how long the choke hold was in place or what anyone adjacent was saying or indicating, but to make a judgment I’d want to know.
One has to look at this – what if the victim was my brother who had a mental health condition? What if the assailant was my brother scared he was in danger?
The choke hold was for 2 min 55 secs. I understand. We seem to know this accurately because someone filmed it on their phone.
He was shouting for people to phone 911.
He was shouting for people to phone 911.
Hmmm assailant is an interesting word, because means attacker and carries with it certain assumptions. Maybe you could use the word ‘defender’, because Neely was threatening innocent people before the incident.
‘defence’ would mean appropriate force. Killing someone who was clearly in distress doesn’t sound appropriate to me.
‘defence’ would mean appropriate force. Killing someone who was clearly in distress doesn’t sound appropriate to me.
The choke hold was for 2 min 55 secs. I understand. We seem to know this accurately because someone filmed it on their phone.
Hmmm assailant is an interesting word, because means attacker and carries with it certain assumptions. Maybe you could use the word ‘defender’, because Neely was threatening innocent people before the incident.
Without more details on exactly what happened those commenting, both Left and Right, are just displaying their innate prejudices.
Defending oneself has to be a ‘right’. Judging the degree of danger one is in not always clear-cut but will no doubt have a ‘reasonableness’ test in a Court. I have no idea how long the choke hold was in place or what anyone adjacent was saying or indicating, but to make a judgment I’d want to know.
One has to look at this – what if the victim was my brother who had a mental health condition? What if the assailant was my brother scared he was in danger?
In any event, both critiques miss the bigger point: America is, and perhaps always will be, a settler society with higher rates of violence, particularly urban violence, than what is encountered in more homogeneous first-world cities in Western Europe.
This word ‘homogenous’. Is that the opposite of diversity?
Canada is as much a “settler society” and as “diverse” (though with a different ethnic mix) as the United States. Our rates of violence, though growing, are much lower than the US. This complicates any one-sided analysis of the situation.
Canada is seen as increasingly authoritarian though….
Canada is seen as increasingly authoritarian though….
That really isn’t relevant to what happened here, up until 50 years ago America had mental institutions to house severely mentally ill people like Neely who are now living untreated on the streets. Leftist groups like the ACLU sue the government every time they attempt to treat and stabilize these folks, and our courts often side with them, thus these poor souls live miserable and often short lives on the streets.
Yes! Wasn’t it the guardians of civil liberties that wanted to close down the mental hospitals in the UK for ‘care in the community?’ The rights of people with poor mental health are often in conflict with their actual needs.
Yes! Wasn’t it the guardians of civil liberties that wanted to close down the mental hospitals in the UK for ‘care in the community?’ The rights of people with poor mental health are often in conflict with their actual needs.
Canada is as much a “settler society” and as “diverse” (though with a different ethnic mix) as the United States. Our rates of violence, though growing, are much lower than the US. This complicates any one-sided analysis of the situation.
That really isn’t relevant to what happened here, up until 50 years ago America had mental institutions to house severely mentally ill people like Neely who are now living untreated on the streets. Leftist groups like the ACLU sue the government every time they attempt to treat and stabilize these folks, and our courts often side with them, thus these poor souls live miserable and often short lives on the streets.
In any event, both critiques miss the bigger point: America is, and perhaps always will be, a settler society with higher rates of violence, particularly urban violence, than what is encountered in more homogeneous first-world cities in Western Europe.
This word ‘homogenous’. Is that the opposite of diversity?
The key issue, which Bateman doesn’t address, and (in his preference for the weaselly euphemism “violent incident”) can’t even bring himself to say, is that one man *killed* another man. It may have been justified self-defence, or it may not, but ignoring it completely is shockingly inhumane, and fobbing it off as a consequence of America’s frontier tradition is breathtakingly stupid.
Indeed. And the man causing the disturbance was just shouting, not doing anything violent. OK, shouting his head off and upsetting people, but still, just words. It’s supposed to be only the loony left that thinks that words are violent.
What we do know is the man who died was acting in a threatening manner and saying he’s not afraid to kill someone today. We don’t know if he was saying this to someone in particular, or how close he was to someone when he said it. We don’t know the exact threat level, which can be interpreted differently by different people.
What we do know is the person who was killed has assaulted and injured multiple elderly people in the past and was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including schizophrenia.
The state failed to treat this person in the past, and take the necessary measures to protect him and society. We also know the state used to have measures in place to make the subway system safe in the past, and has now neglected these duties.
The state can’t be everywhere all the time, and we don’t want it to be, but this is clearly a case where state neglect led to the circumstances that created this incident.
Having been on public transport and witness to a similar scene, I was terrified the large, aggressive and drunk man would escalate to pulling a weapon – and thoroughly relieved when he was literally kicked off the train by one brave soul. You have to ‘be there’.
What we do know is the man who died was acting in a threatening manner and saying he’s not afraid to kill someone today. We don’t know if he was saying this to someone in particular, or how close he was to someone when he said it. We don’t know the exact threat level, which can be interpreted differently by different people.
What we do know is the person who was killed has assaulted and injured multiple elderly people in the past and was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including schizophrenia.
The state failed to treat this person in the past, and take the necessary measures to protect him and society. We also know the state used to have measures in place to make the subway system safe in the past, and has now neglected these duties.
The state can’t be everywhere all the time, and we don’t want it to be, but this is clearly a case where state neglect led to the circumstances that created this incident.
Having been on public transport and witness to a similar scene, I was terrified the large, aggressive and drunk man would escalate to pulling a weapon – and thoroughly relieved when he was literally kicked off the train by one brave soul. You have to ‘be there’.
Indeed. And the man causing the disturbance was just shouting, not doing anything violent. OK, shouting his head off and upsetting people, but still, just words. It’s supposed to be only the loony left that thinks that words are violent.
The key issue, which Bateman doesn’t address, and (in his preference for the weaselly euphemism “violent incident”) can’t even bring himself to say, is that one man *killed* another man. It may have been justified self-defence, or it may not, but ignoring it completely is shockingly inhumane, and fobbing it off as a consequence of America’s frontier tradition is breathtakingly stupid.
I’m all for maintaining the right to self-defense and that of defending fellow citizens as sacrosanct. But as in all things, when you go too far, (Did Neely need to be in a chokehold for that long? We’ll see what the authorities decide, we obviously don’t know all of the facts of the case), there are and should be consequences.
Of course it is a tragedy that somebody died. But Neely should not have threatened the public in the subway – a confined space with no possibility of running away to deescalate the situation. i.e. Neely brought this upon himself and NYC is responsible by not appropriately policing the subway and enforcing the laws. You sow what you reap. i.e. chaos and violence.
Of course it is a tragedy that somebody died. But Neely should not have threatened the public in the subway – a confined space with no possibility of running away to deescalate the situation. i.e. Neely brought this upon himself and NYC is responsible by not appropriately policing the subway and enforcing the laws. You sow what you reap. i.e. chaos and violence.
I’m all for maintaining the right to self-defense and that of defending fellow citizens as sacrosanct. But as in all things, when you go too far, (Did Neely need to be in a chokehold for that long? We’ll see what the authorities decide, we obviously don’t know all of the facts of the case), there are and should be consequences.