Please don't bash me (or the admin) for deleting anything from your post--its all here--just broken up so I could respond to each piece one-by-one.
DC wrote:
why would you say that?
Because in the 50+ years that I've participated in judo competitions, I've choked out hundreds of my opponents. The reason none of them died is because I didn't continue choking them for 6-7 minutes after they were subdued. You don't need to kill your opponent to control them.
DC wrote:
the Marine was not acting in any official capacity he was acting as a private citizen
The death certificate doesn't distinguish between official and unofficial -- it just lists homicide as the manner of death.
DC wrote:
...protecting others on the train and himself from a violet out of control mentally ill man making threats and throwing things.
According to the primary witness (the one that recorded the video contained in the beginning of these posts), "Neely did not appear to be armed or looking to attack anyone."
The witness did say he was shouting but what he was shouting were not threats. Also, there is no mention by witnesses of Neely throwing things.
I've been shouted at, had things thrown at me, spat on, swung on and
attacked with baseball bats and knives. However, I have yet to kill anyone on friendly soil.
DC wrote:
his intent was not to harm but to subdue the guy who was struggling with them to the very end.
So why would he choose to use a tactic that is known to be lethal?
Maybe it was just that he made a bad choice. I'm sure that the Marine wishes he'd just knocked Neely out with a haymaker.
DC wrote:
sure in hind sight one could say he should of released his hold a little but if he did and the guy got free and did harm to the passengers people would be saying he should have maintained his hold on him tell he was subdued.
I know from experience how easily you can control your opponent immediately following their near loss of consciencness. Its not quite as easy as control someone that has just been killed but should have been manageable by the three men who were restraining him.
Unless the Corp dropped hand-to-hand from their training, the Marine should have known this too.
DC wrote:
the marine is not the villan here he is a hero for stepping in to prevent harm to the innocent riders from the real villan who is the now deceased man who was making the threats.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't call someone who killed another person who "did not appear to be armed or looking to attack anyone" a hero.
DC wrote:
remember we know from his past 40 arrests that he had made good on his threats in the past,
If Neely's previous arrests, of which 3 were violent, were unknown to the Marine then this is just 'justification after the fact'. If they were known, then that would make the Marine a vigilante.
DC wrote:
and most likely the actions of this marine is what prevented him doing the same this time
Ahh, finally we can both agree on. Neely definitely be seen acting erratically on the subway again.
Funny how being killed solves that pesky problem.
PapaD