Jump to content

Another scumbag the dimnuts love.....


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Never called his nephew a hero and don't consider him one. Questioned why it was okay to strangle him to death when he hadn't harmed anyone else and didn't have a weapon. Why wasn't he restrained and not killed? I know the vigilante desire is strong in many of you. I am more of a fan of justice and law, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Never called his nephew a hero and don't consider him one. Questioned why it was okay to strangle him to death when he hadn't harmed anyone else and didn't have a weapon. Why wasn't he restrained and not killed? I know the vigilante desire is strong in many of you. I am more of a fan of justice and law, I guess. 

Once again, you seem to have things incorrect. He was subdued via a MMA-style choke hold (likely learned in the Military). He was then placed in the "recovery" position, and died later. He was literally verbally threatening people on the bus (he threatened to kill at least one person). There are even witnesses (including a black woman) that said Daniel Perry did the right thing.

And "he didn't have a weapon" is hindsight. He could have had a knife. We know now that he didn't, but he could have. And what, exactly, were they going to restrain him with? And what would have happened if he died while they were restraining him? You'd complain about that, too. You know you would. Don't deny it.

Quote

I am more of a fan of justice and law, I guess. 

Unless it's someone you don't like...then just an accusation is enough, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

Once again, you seem to have things incorrect. He was subdued via a MMA-style choke hold (likely learned in the Military). He was then placed in the "recovery" position, and died later. He was literally verbally threatening people on the bus (he threatened to kill at least one person). There are even witnesses (including a black woman) that said Daniel Perry did the right thing.

And "he didn't have a weapon" is hindsight. He could have had a knife. We know now that he didn't, but he could have. And what, exactly, were they going to restrain him with? And what would have happened if he died while they were restraining him? You'd complain about that, too. You know you would. Don't deny it.

Unless it's someone you don't like...then just an accusation is enough, right?

Let's look at your jumping to the 'recovery' position a bit. This is an accounting on Wikipedia of what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jordan_Neely

The incident took place on the New York City Subway in Manhattan.[23] According to Vázquez, Neely boarded a northbound F train at the Second Avenue station just before the doors closed and started "to make a speech", yelling "I don't have food, I don't have a drink, I'm fed up. I don't mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I'm ready to die."[4][24][25] He then "took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground."[26] Police sources said that witnesses reported Neely throwing trash at passengers.[7][8] After Neely threw his jacket down, Penny walked up to Neely from behind and placed him into a chokehold.[27][26] Vázquez said that Neely did not interact with Penny prior to the chokehold.[28]

Vázquez stated that he "heard a thump" and saw the men on the floor.[2] The train stopped at the Broadway–Lafayette Street station, where it remained after other riders held open the train doors, preventing the train from moving on.[2][25] Penny wrapped his arms around Neely's neck and his legs around Neely's waist. Neely struggled against the chokehold by kicking and trying to free his arms, which were being pinned by two other men.[29] Vázquez said that Penny asked other riders to call the police during the chokehold.[25] Another rider, Johnny Grima, said that he put water on Neely's forehead, but was told to stop by Penny.[30] A witness stated that at some point during the chokehold, Penny relaxed his grip on Neely, and Neely coughed up a wad of blood and mucus.[31] The same witness noted that nobody on the train car was telling Penny to stop his chokehold, and that some passengers expressed hostile statements towards Neely and expressed support for Penny's actions.[31] At 2:29 p.m., a passerby on the train warned that Neely had defecated on himself, a sign that he may be dying, saying, "You don't want to catch a murder charge. You got a hell of a chokehold, man."[2][14] One of the other men restraining Neely responded, claiming that what appeared to be new excrement was just old excrement.[32] One of the men also responded to the warning by saying that Penny had stopped "squeezing" Neely's neck.[14] About 50 seconds after Neely became motionless, Penny and one man who was still restraining Neely's arms released their hold on him.[29][33] After Neely became motionless, Grima can be seen in the video saying, "Don't put him on his back though, man. He might choke on his own spit."[34] Penny then placed Neely on his side, into a recovery position.[14] Other passengers also checked on him and the passerby who warned before said, "He's all right. He ain't gonna die."[2]

The New York Police Department received a call about a fight on the train at 2:27 p.m., and arrived before 2:30 p.m., administering first aid to an unconscious Neely.[2][35][36] The New York City Fire Department received its call for help at 2:39 p.m., arriving at 2:46 p.m.. At least five 9-1-1 calls were made, with some initial reports describing a homeless man that some found to be threatening in his mannerisms and volume.[37]

Neely was pronounced dead after being transported to Lenox Hill Hospital.[26] According to some sources, when attempts were made to resuscitate him inside the subway car, Neely was already dead.[38]

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while he was being 'restrained' he coughed up blood and mucus...he defecated on himself...he became motionless. THEN...after 50 seconds of being motionless, he was put in the 'recovery' position. He never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead, but he was more than likely already dead before anyone rendered him aid. Did I miss anything? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

So, while he was being 'restrained' he coughed up blood and mucus...he defecated on himself...he became motionless. THEN...after 50 seconds of being motionless, he was put in the 'recovery' position. He never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead, but he was more than likely already dead before anyone rendered him aid. Did I miss anything? 

You're making assumptions. You're assuming the blood, mucus, and feces were a direct result of the choke hold. You have ZERO evidence of that. Also, I don't think you understand that there are different types of choke holds. There are blood chokes, and air chokes.

And you don't have to put restrained in quotes. He was being restrained.

In your eyes, is anyone allowed to defend themselves?

Would your stance be the same if a black man did that to a white man?

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Monte1076 said:

You're assuming the blood, mucus, and feces were a direct result of the choke hold. You have ZERO evidence of that.

Really???? 

 

1 minute ago, Monte1076 said:

In your eyes, is anyone allowed to defend themselves?

Well, in this case, it would seem that since he was put in the chokehold from behind, no one was directly defending themself. You could make a case that he was defending others, but I wouldn't say this called for killing anyone, who didn't have a weapon and hadn't laid hands on anyone. You might. Of course, we don't want to get too specific. We just want to be able to justify a response, right? Even if it was perhaps unduly murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarryLaverty said:

Really???? 

 

Well, in this case, it would seem that since he was put in the chokehold from behind, no one was directly defending themself. You could make a case that he was defending others, but I wouldn't say this called for killing anyone, who didn't have a weapon and hadn't laid hands on anyone. You might. Of course, we don't want to get too specific. We just want to be able to justify a response, right? Even if it was perhaps unduly murder. 

Yes, really. You're making assumptions.

Further, that choke hold is called a "rear naked choke", and it's fairly common in Mixed Martial Arts. I'll give you TWO guesses as to direction of the application of said choke hold.

Do you believe he intended to kill Jordan Neely? I think I know the answer, but I want you to say it.

So should Alec Baldwin have been charged with murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

So, while he was being 'restrained' he coughed up blood and mucus...he defecated on himself...he became motionless. THEN...after 50 seconds of being motionless, he was put in the 'recovery' position. He never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead, but he was more than likely already dead before anyone rendered him aid. Did I miss anything? 

Sounds awful.  If anything good came out of that tragic dealio his 6 page long wrapsheet quit growing instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I think at one point he ceased to be concerned if he was initially. 

Nice dodge. That wasn't the question, though. I'm sure you'd count off if one of your students answered a question you didn't ask.

And how about a little education, Mr. Educator:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_naked_choke

1280px-USMC-101106-M-8012P-090.jpg

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Monte1076 said:

Nice dodge. That wasn't the question, though. I'm sure you'd count off if one of your students answered a question you didn't ask.

Can't read his mind, and I would venture he didn't plan on killing him, but he had opportunities and physical signs that he may have gone too far throughout the time he had him in a chokehold, and he continued to do so. Is that intent? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I think at one point he ceased to be concerned if he was initially. 

Thug had been arrested 42 times in less than 10 years.  NY must have put the 43 strike rule in place.  Hard to believe he made it through 42 arrests without being killed by all the "racist" cops, the way the media and your type make it out like every other minority is killed during an arrest.  Guess we can all see that ain't the case.  He messed around and found out..all be it by accident.  But Karma don't care about accidents....it finally catches up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Can't read his mind, and I would venture he didn't plan on killing him, but he had opportunities and physical signs that he may have gone too far throughout the time he had him in a chokehold, and he continued to do so. Is that intent? 

You've assumed intent with others before. I was just wondering if this was the same. You said he should have been restrained. He was. And again, if they restrained him some way else, my question is: How? Did anyone have zip cuffs? Duct tape? something to secure him to a seat with?

And Alec Baldwin didn't intend to kill that videographer. Do you think he should be charged with murder? Manslaughter? What?

Edited by Monte1076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

You've assumed intent with others before. I was just wondering if this was the same. You said he should have been restrained. He was. And again, if they restrained him some way else, my question is: How? Did anyone have zip cuffs? Duct tape? something to secure him to a seat with?

And Alec Baldwin didn't intend to kill that videographer. Do you think he should be charged with murder? Manslaughter? What?

Don't think the two are remotely apt comparisons, because in the first case, he made a decision to put someone in a chokehold, while Baldwin didn't seek to shoot anyone, but that would be for the courts to decide, or at least the law enforcement or lawyers involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Don't think the two are remotely apt comparisons, because in the first case, he made a decision to put someone in a chokehold, while Baldwin didn't seek to shoot anyone, but that would be for the courts to decide, or at least the law enforcement or lawyers involved. 

I'm asking what YOU think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...