Brave Hero Steps Up And Takes Out Homeless Thug On NYC Subway

[Superbadbrutha]

He was shouting this to EVERYONE on the train, so they put his loser ass down before he could hurt anyone.

Who did he attack or harm?

 

[Godboy]

Who did he attack or harm?

Several people. He attacked an old woman once, he attacked an old man, he tried to kidnap a 7 year old girl, etc. This guy had like 40 arrests!!

 

[Muhammed]

It was a direct threat to EVERYONE.

It's not a threat at all, dumbass.

 

[krichton]

So anyone you see as a threat you can just automatically murder them.

If they’re actively terrorizing people then yes you are allowed to immobilize them and arrest. If they die in the process that’s another story that needs to figured out by the police. Now back to my question.

 

[Curried Goats]

If they’re actively terrorizing people then yes you are allowed to immobilize them.

Wrong dipshit. I don't know what actively terrorizing people means but your fear isn't a justification for violence against others.

 

[krichton]

Wrong dipshit. I don't know what actively terrorizing people means but your fear isn't a justification for violence against others.

Anyone terrorizing ppl would automatically be arrested without question. This is the law. Even a normal citizen can place you under arrest. You’re the biggest buffoon if you support terror tactics on the train platform or inside a closed train car. These things nearly always leads to violence on the victim.

 

[braalian]

Wrong dipshit. I don't know what actively terrorizing people means but your fear isn't a justification for violence against others.

Yes, it is.

Being on drugs and/or having a mental illness isn’t justification for shouting at and frightening innocent subway riders.

Everyone should have just sat their and ignored the crazy homeless man yelling in their faces?

 

[Curried Goats]

Anyone terrorizing ppl would automatically be arrested without question. This is the law.

Just because you can be arrested for something doesn't mean it's okay for regular citizens to assault you over it.

Even a normal citizen can place you under arrest.

That's a bit of a misnomer. You can detain someone for the police and they will determine whether or not to arrest the individual and they might decide to arrest you depending on the circumstances. If you roughed someone up to detain them and it turns out they weren't doing anything wrong for instance. It's also a good way to catch lawsuit. All in all no lawyer would recommend you attempting one.

You’re the biggest buffoon if you support terror tactics on the train platform or inside a closed train car. These things nearly always leads to violence on the victim.

There's a lot of acreage between supporting terror tactics.... ... and thinking it's okay to come up behind someone not physically harming you and choking them to death.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, it is.

Being on drugs and/or having a mental illness isn’t justification for shouting at and frightening innocent subway riders.

I'm not saying it is. Try arguing without a strawman.

Everyone should have just sat their and ignored the crazy homeless man yelling in their faces?

They had every right to be concerned. They would of been within the rights to notify the authorities at the next stop. They had no right to choke him to death. This really isn't that complicated.

 

[braalian]

I'm not saying it is. Try arguing without a strawman.

They had every right to be concerned. They would of been within the rights to notify the authorities at the next stop. They had no right to choke him to death. This really isn't that complicated.

He didn’t intend to choke him to death

 

[Curried Goats]

He didn’t intend to choke him to death

His intent is why he's facing manslaughter rather than murder. Taking someone's life isn't excused with an "oops, my bad".

 

[krichton]

Just because you can be arrested for something doesn't mean it's okay for regular citizens to assault you over it.

That's a bit of a misnomer. You can detain someone for the police and they will determine whether or not to arrest the individual and they might decide to arrest you depending on the circumstances. If you roughed someone up to detain them and it turns out they weren't doing anything wrong for instance. It's also a good way to catch lawsuit. All in all no lawyer would recommend you attempting one.

There's a lot of acreage between supporting terror tactics.... ... and thinking it's okay to come up behind someone not physically harming you and choking them to death.

Menacing is a crime. You can make a citizen's arrest in such a situation, and use force. That is within the law. Another man was in a subway car and being extremely aggressive. He didn't touch anyone, someone came from behind, applied a chokehold and it was over in 12 seconds. Police didn't do anything to him, no charges. He was hailed a hero. So yes, you absolutely can use force.

 

[Curried Goats]

Menacing is a crime. You can make a citizen's arrest in such a situation, and use force. That is within the law. Another man was in a subway car and being extremely aggressive. He didn't touch anyone, someone came from behind, applied a chokehold and it was over in 12 seconds. Police didn't do anything to him, no charges. He was hailed a hero. So yes, you absolutely can use force.

Nope. Physical force is only justified to fend off a physical attack. Your made up story doesn't change that. That doesn't mean they specifically have to touch you, then can threaten you and then walk towards you and the two can be seen as the threatening enough to warrant physical self defense but even that's iffy there are no other witnesses around to back up your story. Simply yelling however while making no move to attack anyone does not rise to that level.

 

[braalian]

His intent is why he's facing manslaughter rather than murder. Taking someone's life isn't excused with an "oops, my bad".

Well, don’t go around terrorizing passengers on a subway and people won’t have to put you in a headlock to stop you.

Works every time.

 

[krichton]

Nope. Physical force is only justified to fend off a physical attack. Your made up story doesn't change that. That doesn't mean they specifically have to touch you, then can threaten you and then walk towards you and the two can be seen as the threatening enough to warrant physical self defense but even that's iffy there are no other witnesses around to back up your story. Simply yelling however while making no move to attack anyone does not rise to that level.

If they have committed the crime of menacing then force is justified in restraining them.





First link has the full video. My work is done here.

 

[Curried Goats]

Well, don’t go around terrorizing passengers on a subway and people won’t have to put you in a headlock to stop you.

Works every time.

Don't go choking people out needlessly and you won't be facing manslaughter charges.

 

[Curried Goats]

If they have committed the crime of menacing then force is justified in restraining them.





First link has the full video. My work is done here.

It doesn't you Bingo, maybe you should of actually watched that video. I did. At the 3:50 mark he talks about how he acted after the guy started physically putting his hands on people. What a FAIL! by you.

 

[krichton]

It doesn't you Bingo, maybe you should of actually watched that video. I did. At the 3:50 mark he talks about how he acted after the guy started physically putting his hands on people. What a FAIL! by you.

He was referencing the perp getting aggressive by knocking away the bike from the guy who was pointing it towards him, and then confronting the other guy LOL. The only fail here is you continuing to support terror on the subway. Great job btw.

 

[Curried Goats]

He was referencing the perp getting aggressive by knocking away the bike from the guy who was pointing it towards him, LOL. The only fail here is you continuing to support terror on the subway. Great job btw.

Be embarrassed you little bitch. That's for admitting he only acted after the man got physical.

 

[krichton]

Be embarrassed you little bitch. That's for admitting he only acted after the man got physical.

But he still never touched anyone. He only pushed away the bike because the guy was aiming it towards him and inching closer. He actually ignored him the second time he came back. He never actually assaulted anyone. Using your logic, no one should have been allowed to touch this "innocent" man, correct? All he was doing was "talking" right? First you said I completely made up the story, now you're the one making things up because you're literally backtracking like crazy right now to find a reasonable argument in which you can be correct. You're my bitch now.