Just a random thought I had that might help us to assess threats in the future when someone clearly in distress is ranting about wanting to go to jail or kill or be killed…
Rarely does someone signal physically or verbally that they are about to harm or kill someone. We know this from following a multitude of cases here on WS as well as from news articles about random acts of violence on city streets, including NYC subways. A person intending harm does so swiftly and quietly. I expect Mr Neely’s attack on the 62 year old woman came without warning. (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong about that particular event.)
So my point is that a person behaving as Mr Neely did on the subway should certainly be watched closely by those who are in a position to interrupt a violent act. But the words alone and the angry delivery do not *usually* signal an imminent attack that needs to be neutralized immediately. There is too much that can go wrong when even people trained in techniques to immobilize someone do so prematurely and out of unreasonable fear. Watchful waiting is unlikely to cause harm or death to either bystanders or the one ranting about violence.
So let’s dial back our fear of angry and threatening shouting and actions like throwing down a coat or throwing garbage. I realize that quite a few on this thread feel that they shouldn’t have to put up with these actions that destroy their feeling of security. But these words and actions are the current reality, and yes, we do have to put up with it unless we intend to take drastic actions against these people, including killing them, accidentally or not. We can’t always control our surroundings, but we can control our fear and our feeling that we are entitled to perfect security in an imperfect world. Do we want to achieve that security at the expense of ones who seem to threaten our security by their words or actions directed at no one in particular. These people are entitled to compassion from those who are in a better place mentally and physically.
JMO
Rarely does someone signal physically or verbally that they are about to harm or kill someone. We know this from following a multitude of cases here on WS as well as from news articles about random acts of violence on city streets, including NYC subways. A person intending harm does so swiftly and quietly. I expect Mr Neely’s attack on the 62 year old woman came without warning. (I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong about that particular event.)
So my point is that a person behaving as Mr Neely did on the subway should certainly be watched closely by those who are in a position to interrupt a violent act. But the words alone and the angry delivery do not *usually* signal an imminent attack that needs to be neutralized immediately. There is too much that can go wrong when even people trained in techniques to immobilize someone do so prematurely and out of unreasonable fear. Watchful waiting is unlikely to cause harm or death to either bystanders or the one ranting about violence.
So let’s dial back our fear of angry and threatening shouting and actions like throwing down a coat or throwing garbage. I realize that quite a few on this thread feel that they shouldn’t have to put up with these actions that destroy their feeling of security. But these words and actions are the current reality, and yes, we do have to put up with it unless we intend to take drastic actions against these people, including killing them, accidentally or not. We can’t always control our surroundings, but we can control our fear and our feeling that we are entitled to perfect security in an imperfect world. Do we want to achieve that security at the expense of ones who seem to threaten our security by their words or actions directed at no one in particular. These people are entitled to compassion from those who are in a better place mentally and physically.
JMO
Last edited:
