Slog AM: Suspect in Healthcare CEO Killing Arrested, Bruce Harrell Is Running for Re-Election, Malibu Is on Fire

1. “Alleged killer found: Police arrested 26-year-old Luigi Mangione at an Altoona, Pennsylvania McDonald’s”

   Apparently Mangione sees a healthcare CEO as a bigger threat to public health than the crappy diet from a fast-food restaurant.

   The former gets his bullets, and he votes for the latter with his discretionary dollars.

   Ironic.

2. “In New York Penal Law, self-defense is justified when someone reasonably believes it necessary to defend themselves against the use or threatened use of “unlawful physical force.” The danger must be imminent, meaning that they believed they had to act when they did to avoid the danger.”

   https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-defense#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20in%20New%20York%20Penal%20Law%2C,when%20they%20did%20to%20avoid%20the%20danger.

   So why would Penny be held accountable when the jury found that Neely behaved in a way that allowed others on the subway to reasonably perceive him as an imminent threat of serious physical injury?

   Neely’s untreated mental illness, if that is what drove his behavior, became just as fatal to him as untreated cancer.

3. “After the hell that has been a moderate mayor and a moderate city council and with an incoming fascist regime Donald Trump presidency, maybe the people of Seattle are ready to try progressivism again.”

   not if the
   
   proto-Fascists
   
   of tS’s Commentariat
   
   have anything to Say about it

   and they’ve
   
   a LOT. see:
   
   below.

4. @1

   well
   
   at Least
   
   at McDonolds
   
   you Know what it’s
   
   gonna Cost you & you’ll
   
   ‘likely’ Get what you Fucking

   PAID for. the ‘irony’
   
   is all in your
   
   Handle mr
   
   magoo.

5. @4, You get what you paid for in both cases. Ill health and death.

6. I hope if I’m ever trapped on public transportation with a violent drug addled lunatic that someone like Dan Perry is arround (although this is a good reason to avoid pub trans in the first place).
   
   BTW, happy holidays!

7. FFS, people. If you’ve used a 3D printed gun to assassinate a corporate executive, dispose of the gun in short order! The whole point of 3D printing guns is that they’re relatively easily replaceable. Also, don’t carry your manifesto with you and go through the drive through.

8. “an initial police news release did not clarify what kind of threat the man posed.”

   Like you said, he was armed with a knife.

9. speaking of Fascists and good Health:
   
   eltrumpfster: Good or Bad for America?

   nyt:
   
   [RF] Kennedy [Jr]’s
   
   War on Corn Syrup Brings
   
   a Health Crusade to Trump Country

   When Donald Trump said Robert Kennedy Jr. could “go wild” on health, he might not have expected him to go to battle against the president-elect’s own voters.

   https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/us/politics/rfk-jr-corn-trump.html

   top reader’s comment:

   The health reform issues that RFK Jr. has brought into the public conversation are long overdue.

   American’s have relied on the EPA, the FDA and other public health agencies to be the watch dog for public health.

   Yet, decade by decade the quality of our health has deteriorated and the consumer is always accused of being the cause.

   It’s as if we can decide whether our water contains forever chemicals or traces of pharmaceuticals. It’s as if we decided to put an addictive ingredient (sugar) into more and more of our food products.

   Our European counterparts have higher food safety standards than we have and better health care through single payer systems.

   Why don’t we have these most basic public health standards? The answer is simple. Corporations make huge profit from selling us processed food, treating its effects with more and more drugs, and having us pay private companies to treat the diseases and ailments that inevitably result.

   But the real culprits aren’t those who sell us snake oil in the grocery store. It’s the members of congress who are supposed to represent our interests but don’t.

   It’s the media that allows politicians to hide the influence that industry lobbyists have. It’s the federal agencies that look the other way as our lifespan declines.

   If all RFK jr. accomplishes is bringing our food standards in line with Europe, it will save lives and money.

   He hopes to do much more than that, and I hope he does too.
   
   –@drspock; copake ny

   https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/us/politics/rfk-jr-corn-trump.html#commentsContainer

   okay just one more:

   From top to bottom the farmers and ag industry are dependent on government subsidies, hand-outs and bail-outs.

   But they are also good conservatives who reject government programs and policies which benefit anyone but themselves or might regulate the damage their products do to our health and environment.

   Gotta love the good honest farmer folk of the heartland.
   
   –RK; New York, NY

10. “The people chose Harrell, a moderate, back in 2021. After the hell that has been a moderate mayor and a moderate city council … maybe the people of Seattle are ready to try progressivism again.”

    If the Stranger is counting on widespread revulsion alone to boot Harrell from the Mayor’s Office, then they might want to think again.

    If the Stranger believes voters chose Harrell as “a moderate,” then they need to read their own articles again. When he stood for election, the Stranger unhesitatingly painted him as a corporate stooge, e.g.: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2021/10/29/62394760/the-same-people-who-bought-the-mayor-in-2013-and-2017-are-trying-to-buy-the-mayor-in-2021

11. @2, exactly. My guess is that these millennial and gen-z Stranger writers have never seen the inside of a NYC subway car much less had their lives threatened on one. I have, and Daniel Penny is a hero in the minds of the vast majority of New Yorkers. P.S. why don’t we ever see so called progressives highlighting personal agency in these kinds of situations? Neely was given several opportunities to change the trajectory of his life and he walked away from all of them. He literally said he wanted to die.

12. @2: Not true. Neely had abundant mental health care. As part of a plea agreement with prosecutors after he punched a 67-year-old woman in the street in 2021, Jordan Neely was given free access to stable housing and health care at a treatment facility in the Bronx. He abandoned the facility after 13 days.

    All the passengers testified under oath that they were afraid for their lives, as Neely (influent by the K2 drugs) was screaming “somebody’d going to die!”.

13. @12, What I wrote is true. You report Neely walked away from treatment. I said he was “untreated,” which is factually correct based on the facts you report. I didn’t say treatment was unavailable or not provided to him.

    Like with people who choose not to treat cancer (some do as oncology nurses I know have reported on numerous occasions), choosing not to treat mental health can be fatal.

    As far as the passenger testimony you report, that is correct. Neely’s screaming threats is protected 1st Amendment speech. Would it make people fearful and deeply uncomfortable? You bet. Is it criminal? Nope.

    Where Neely crossed the line was Neely lunging at people while yelling such threats. Now you have an action to carry through on the threat. That created justification for anyone present to form a reasonable belief they were at imminent risk of serious physical injury from Neely and opened the door for them to use physical force against Neely. Tragically Neely died. The only person criminally culpable for that death was Neely himself.

    As far as civil culpability, there may be a settlement by Penny’s renters or homeowners insurance company, if any, without admission of liability, because its cheaper to settle than to go to trial and win. Beyond that Penny will need to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy ($400 filing fee) to put a stop the lawsuit. The lawyers getting paid on contingency, will quickly withdraw from the case once there is no opportunity to collect. It is unfortunate that Penny will have to face that, in addition to the high cost of being a criminal defendant.

    Fun fact: In Washington State, taxpayers would be on the hook for Penny’s criminal defense costs since he was acquitted. Washington is unique in the U.S. in that regard.

14. @13: Note to readers: none of this is a correct statement of First Amendment law or the law of self-defense. Please disregard. 😃

15. “On the one hand, it can swiftly track down the alleged shooter of a millionaire CEO who profited from denying healthcare coverage to millions— and was facing a lawsuit for alleged insider trading at the time of his death. On the other, it’s incapable of holding Daniel Perry in any way accountable for the avoidable death of Jordan Nelly, a beloved street performer who struggled with homelessness.”

    Do you not understand the distinction between arresting someone and a jury declining to convict? It’s the same system. The system TRIED to hold Penny accountable for Neely’s death. the jury didn’t.

    Also: beloved?

16. @15 is the jury not part of the system?

17. It almost sounds like the author is advocating for a carceral approach to Penny’s actions.

18. @16: sure, it’s part of it (hence “It’s the same system”), but the opposite end of it from the arrest. juries are (supposed to be) a check on the justice system.

    now Penny gets to defend himself in a civil case.

19. @18, Nope. Now Penny’s renter’s or homeowner’s insurance gets to defend him in a civil trial. The liability limits defend you anywhere you go, not just on the premise.

    Penny doesn’t have to defend himself, he just has to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Unless he is incredibly wealthy, like Rudi Giuliani wealthy, that filing will put his income and assets off-limits to the Plaintiff even if they win. The Plaintiff’s attorney’s will quickly move to dismiss, with no way to get paid.

20. @14, “Such a threat can be made with words as long as it puts the intended victim in a reasonable and immediate fear of physical harm or serious bodily injury. Without such a threat, offensive words do not justify the use of force in self-defense.” https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

    Mere words are not enough. There needs to be an additional element to show the threat is imminent and that there is actual jeopardy.

21. @14, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us/supreme-court-rules-in-anthony-elonis-online-threats-case.html

22. Soulless CEO gets murdered by the typical American terrorist (aggrieved white male) and the country is outraged. Former Marine (white male trained to slaughter) acquitted of all responsibility for murdering a homeless Black man on the subway in NYC (via choke hold) and no one gives a shit. This country is beyond redemption. Will it give a shit if CEOs and Trump and all of his clown car minions start getting gunned down? How many “important people” have to be slaughtered before this country gives a shit? Honestly, I don’t think any pile of bodies is big enough.

23. And the comments on this thread are repugnant. Why does this country have homeless mentally ill people? Why does it have homeless people? Why does it leave untreated mentally ill people to fend for themselves? Why do people believe that mentally ill homeless people deserve to be murdered?

    Let me tell you, I spent decades in NYC and the scariest, most violent homeless people I ever encountered were in Seattle. Look in the mirror at what a piece of shit YOU are if you believe anyone deserves what happened to that Black man at the hands of a trained Marine,

    A Marine WHO SHOULD HAVE AND COULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE IF HE WANTED TO, stopped the man without murdering him. He murdered him because he could and the people responsible for holding him accountable told him he has carte blanche to do it. God bless ‘Murica, where white people can murder Black people anytime, anywhere, any way they like and the victim will ALWAYS be blamed.

    To quote Mudhoney: FUCK YOU, YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!

24. @22: Who are you to judge whether someone has a soul or not?

25. ‘How many “impor-
    
    tant people” have to
    
    be slaughtered before
    
    this country gives a shit?’

    not to Worry xina
    
    the orange dick tator’s gonna
    
    Declare Martial Law on day one

    and we’ll replace Palestine as the
    
    Largest Open-Air concentration camp
    
    on the Planet tho it’ll be a Race into the Abyss

    kinda like
    
    Children of Men
    
    only sans any babies

    Except for
    
    the Colon-
    
    izers, of
    
    Course

26. https://youtu.be/IpXjrjjgZyM?feature=shared

27. @22 joke’s on you, I’m ambivalent about both deaths. Good riddance to a soulless corporate overlord and a mentally ill man who had no business being out in society.

    And sure, Penny (and anyone else) could try and stop someone in a mental health crisis, but Marines are literally trained to kill, not injure. Big designation.

28. @21: lol, the speech the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional in that article was death threats via Facebook rap lyrics. The speech you are erroneously attempting to defend as constitutional was death threats via screaming in person on a crowded train. Can you spot the difference? 😉

29. @27

    good point.
    
    had he not been
    
    Trained-To-Kill! he Couldda
    
    stopped CHOKING HIM TO DEATH
    
    at maybe four or five minutes instead of Fifteen

    lotta peeps cannot discern
    
    the diff. great comment

30. @22: you may wish to note that some of the country seems outraged that others in the country are NOT outraged at the CEO’s murder, and the same for the beloved street performer.

    there are so many homicides and suicides in this country every year that I find it hard to be outraged about any of them. your relentless rage is impressive in a way.

    @19: good point I guess.

31. 19, It’s disturbing to see how much leg work you have put into understanding the precise conditions where it’s legal to kill someone and avoid paying for a wrongful death claim

32. @28, The difference does not matter. On-line, or in person, you still need additional elements other than words. See @2. You need the element of actual jeopardy and it has to be imminent jeopardy in that moment.

    Let’s say, Neely is sitting in his seat on the subway seat, “I’m going to kill you,” at anyone and everyone, even making eye contact as he did so, with a deranged, angry, and malicious tone. As long as he remains in his seat, not moving towards anyone, there isn’t actual jeopardy that the threat will be made real. You need some act to further the threat. It could be balling up the fist and drawing back the arm to strike, it could be the verbal threat followed by, or contiguous with, advancing on a person, but words alone are not enough, no matter how much the party hearing or reading the words believes an attack will follow. The attack actually has to start.

    Many states, drawing from common law, state that in statute. E.g.:

    “The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

    In response to verbal provocation alone; or”

    ARS 13-404

    Texas, unlike AZ, which explicitly states words alone are not enough, draws the concept from common law, as does NY:

    “Words alone can never be enough to justify you using physical force upon another person. As a general rule, if you’re out in public, words alone aren’t enough to warrant you using force on the other person.” https://www.peeklawgroup.com/blog/2020/august/examples-that-do-not-justify-the-use-of-force-as/

    Finally you have the wording of NY Penal Code Chapter 40, Section 35.01 that states a person may use deadly physical force on another if:

    “[the] other person is committing or attempting to commit …” The statute describes a deeds where the ellipses occur, not words.

    There needs to be an action in furtherance of the stated threat. Without stated words, one is allowed to act when they observe someone “committing or attempting to commit.” Do words help in proving what the actions were intended to do? Yes. Are words necessary to create “reasonable belief” of imminent threat of serious physical injury? Nope. Words are extra-credit, or bonus points, if you will, but aren’t good enough alone to pass the test.

33. @22. Xina, you would have been so proud of me on that balmy August Sunday morning in 2020 when I pulled into a University area Bartells parking lot. As my delivery van came to a stop between BMWs and Prius (many adorned with “BLM” decals) and tony academic women strolled into the store, a deranged individual suddenly appeared. He rampaged and ranted across the lot before charging into the drugstore.

    I sat in my van, beaming. I opened the driver side window to better hear the screams and yells from the store, and then watched with delight as a cavalcade of U Village aristocratic women fled in haste. One woman lost a shoe. Another dropped her bag as the crazy guy gave chase.

    Never have I seen such divine justice delivered so elegantly. Part of me wanted desperately to join him! Having been victimized not simply by the insufferable tenor of these people, nor merely by their imbecilic ideas, but by the city’s acquiescence to it all, and what had befallen to my home that year (another tale). Laid on their door. Visted back upon them.

    No Xina. Don’t worry about kossack stepping in to prevent a maniac from harming someone, so long as that someone smells like a preening progressive sophisto.

34. nyt;
    
    Suspect
    
    in C.E.O. Killing
    
    Withdrew From a Life
    
    of Privilege and Promise

    … on Monday, Mr. Mangione was charged in Manhattan with murder, along with additional counts of forgery and illegal weapons possession. And in the hours after his apprehension, his baffling journey from star student to murder suspect began to come into focus.

    Through a series of posts, Mr. Mangione’s trail on the internet hinted at pain both physical and philosophical.

    In January, Mr. Mangione left a review of a book containing the rambling manifesto of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, on GoodReads, a social media site for bookworms.

    “It’s easy to quickly and thoughtless write this off as the manifesto of a lunatic, in order to avoid facing some of the uncomfortable problems it identifies,” Mr. Mangione wrote of the document. “But it’s simply impossible to ignore how prescient many of his predictions about modern society turned out.”

    One of Mr. Mangione’s favorite quotes, listed on GoodReads, was, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society,” from Jiddu Krishnamurti, the religious philosopher and teacher.

    One thing they were examining was the handwritten manifesto that he had in his possession when he was arrested, according to a senior law enforcement official.

    The 262-word handwritten document begins with the writer appearing to take responsibility for the murder, according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document.

    It notes that as UnitedHealthcare’s market capitalization has grown, American life expectancy has not.

    “To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone,” the writer wrote. The note condemns companies that “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.”

    –by Corey Kilgannon, Mike Baker, Luke Broadwater and Shawn Hubler; Dec. 9, 2024

    more:
    
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/united-healthcare-ceo-shooting-luigi-mangione.html

35. @23
    
    “And the
    
    comments on this
    
    thread are repugnant.”

    we have
    
    thee Most
    
    well-adjusted
    
    Commentariat
    
    on Planet Earth.

    “It is No measure of health
    
    to be well-adjusted to a
    
    profoundly Sick society.”

    –dr. Well Duh

    “Why does this country have
    
    homeless mentally ill people?

    Why does it have homeless people?

    Why does it leave untreated mentally
    
    ill people to fend for themselves?

    Why do people
    
    believe that mentally ill
    
    homeless people deserve to be murdered?”

    our Commentariat is also
    
    thee Most Intelligent on
    
    Planet Earth and Can
    
    Explain it All Away
    
    & in Great Detail

36. @34(b):
    
    see: @33.

37. the top three nyt readers’ comments
    
    on the nyt article, directly above
    
    (@34a):

    Of course, I do not condone this murder, but we need to confront the greed and exploitative nature of our healthcare system.

    Senator Sanders is right:

    “We waste hundreds of billions a year on health care administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured.

    Health care is a human right.

    We need Medicare for All.”
    
    –Ali Jarrah; VA

    Certainly is bewildering how someone went from a life of privilege and premier education to assassin.

    Curious to know what health insurance he had at the time of the surgery, and how the claims were handled.

    Like many others , I too have a “UHC” story, when , as a new mom I had to call over several months to get them to finally pay for childbirth and epidural.

    One of the most stressful things I underwent , after the actual birth and recovery itself.

    Spent my already limited maternity leave alternating between worry at the unpaid bill and seething anger at how many hoops I had to jump to just PAY for the care I needed after years of premiums
    
    –Someone; Somewhere

    The US healthcare industry is broken. We pay by far the most money in the world for our healthcare and have about the 44th best life expectancy, on par with Turkey, Poland, Croatia and Colombia.

    UnitedHealth meanwhile made $371.6 billion in revenue last year. They operate every day to maximize profit and serve their shareholders, not their patients and customers.

    Accordingly, their stock is up 96.4% in just the last five years alone.

    Maybe this terrible occurrence will lead to some positive change and improvement of our healthcare. But, probably not.
    
    –Arthur Morgan; New Orleans, LA

    oodles:
    
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/united-healthcare-ceo-shooting-luigi-mangione.html#commentsContainer

38. one more
    
    nyt reader’s
    
    Comment on
    
    the Capture of
    
    Unitedhealthcare’s
    
    CEO Brian Thompson’s assassin:

    Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures …

    Luigi Mangione condemns companies that “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.”

    While nothing justifies murder, Luigi Mangione’s desperate act challenges us to face the growing desperation and hopelessness of fellow Americans whose lives are systematically, needlessly ruined and cut short by a predatory for-profit “healthcare industry” where greed and profit trump all else, while it offers no hope, no healing and no solutions whatsoever to millions of ailing, ill, disease-and-pain-afflicted and dying Americans…In other words: no recourse whatsoever!

    This murder is yet one more symptom of systemic failure within the American oligarchic capitalist infrastructure of wealth and tax avoidance that, for 40 years, has moved $50 trillion upward, out of the hands of the bottom 90% of Americans into corporate CEOs’ own, and into their supportive politicians’ and judges,’ insatiably greedy hands.
    
    –@Karin Barnaby; Sea Cliff, NY

    oodles:
    
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/united-healthcare-ceo-shooting-luigi-mangione.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock#commentsContainer

    make it Two:

    I remember very well, the fear of being in-between jobs, long before the ACA existed.

    I remember my then 23-year-old daughter being denied individual health coverage because at age 16 she saw a therapist for a few weeks. Reason for denial: “history of depression.” Good grief.

    Cuurently I have Medicare with Kaiser and LOVE it. Medicare is probably the best thing this country ever did for its citizens.

    It’s time to join the rest of the civilized world. It’s time for a healthcare moon shot.

    Change the tax code on extreme wealth. (Remember that currently, only W2 income pays into Medicare). Pay off health insurance shareholders. Hire and train their employees to work for Medicare. Employers who currently cover their employee premiums will also contribute.

    Do it all over a 5 to 10 year period.

    Enough already.
    
    –@Jules; California

    fucking
    
    Bravo, @Jules.

    “But
    
    WE cannot
    
    AFFORD IT!”
    
    say the Neolibs
    
    and Cons echoing
    
    Corporate America’s
    
    Clarion Call for Leaving our
    
    Billionaires the F’g Hell ALONE:

    it’s just
    
    Nature’s Way.

39. @32, Seriously, what kind of person has this much knowledge of and interest in killing people, you know, legally? You even know the laws in different states! It’s fucked up, man.

40. @23 – I can hear your virtue signaling resonating off the walls of Espresso Vivace’s cafe on Broadway to create an echo…

    Good job…

41. @32: You are conflating the standards for determining when the government may lawfully punish or prohibit speech under the First Amendment and the standards for determining when a person may lawfully use violence in self-defense. Your thinking will be clearer once you learn to analyze those as two distinct questions. 😉

42. @38: What’s almost equally as bizarre is his belief that a person has a constitutionally protected right to stand in the middle of a crowded train shouting death threats. See @13 (“Neely’s screaming threats is protected 1st Amendment speech.”) 🤪

    Just in case anyone else is somehow confused on this point: No. No you do not have a constitutional right to stand in the middle of a crowded train screaming death threats. Please do not do this. 😄

43. @38, It’s called civics.

    What are your, and my, legal obligations to those you step out into the public square with? What behavior do you and I need to stay well away from so we don’t inadvertently open the legal door for someone to use legal force, or even deadly force, against us, because they reasonably, but wrongly, misconstrue, our words and actions? The threshold for the use of deadly force is much lower, and broader, than people think, or is portrayed in popular culture.

    As we evaluate these cases, what is the democratically enacted standard for evaluating the conduct of the players in these cases, whether cops, non-cops, or a mixture of both?

    Somewhat related: You see people on the news getting drug out of their cars by cops because the cop told them to get out, and they think they have the legal right not to get out, because the cop just pulled them over for running a stop sign. Under Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, whether you remain in the car, or don’t, is TOTALLY at the discretion of the cop. Whether you are detained in handcuffs for the duration of that stop, while he/she/they writes the citation, is up to the cop and how squirrelly they think you are being. So on the one-hand you have someone escalating because they think they are being told to do something they aren’t legally required to do, and on the other someone resisting because there must be more to the stop then rolling the stop sign. It’s a recipe for deadly misunderstanding.

    The important thing is that people don’t have the civics education to understand what their rights and responsibilities are in either case, so then these things escalate as they stand on principle on some civil or legal right that doesn’t exist.

    They taught civics in my high school (only seven states require it now). It wasn’t just how to vote, how laws got made, a summary of how juries, work, etc. until everyone was asleep at their desk. It was practical stuff like what are your legal rights and obligations during a traffic stop. They taught stuff like when is it legal to use force, how much force, and what are the legal consequences. Enough civics education so that I can remember enough about the issues to be able to frame a quick google search to verify that what I was taught way back when is still the case, or if its changed.

    Pragmatic civics and civil rights stuff.

44. @23, It doesn’t matter what you or I believed the man who died on the subway deserved. All that matters is what we democratically decided the laws would be to judge Penny and Neely’s conduct in the circumstances.

    We are a nation of laws, not the emotional whims of the public, Xina, or me, in the wake of these incident.

    At least we are until the Fascist-in-Chief takes office in January, and democratically decided laws are made irrelevant.

45. @34, The mentally ill don’t deserve to be murdered. No one does.

    He wasn’t murdered. He was a homicide victim. He wasn’t a victim of homicide because he was mentally ill, but because his conduct allowed those on that subway car to conclude that he intended to murder one or more of them and their was imminent risk of him doing so.

    Another poster on this thread reports (IDK) that Neely had housing and mental health services that he walked away from prior to this event. If true, that is what killed him. Penny was just the means of Neely’s suicide-by-subway-rider, not the cause.

46. @40, The government can’t prosecute someone merely for saying they want to kill or harm another, without some act to further what is said or written.

    Likewise, the citizen on the street can’t legally use physical force against someone who uses mere words to utter a threat, without some action to further what is threatened.

47. @43 “we are a nation of laws” um, no we are not. if we were trumpty dumpty would be in prison.

    we are a lawless nation run by psychopaths and sociopaths who are so addicted to power and money that there is no value held for any human life of any kind in any way. but keep on believin’! clearly you have zero cognitive dissonance or critical thinking skills. don’t feel badly about that, it’s the way this country is and the indoctrination starts as soon as we are born. we are nothing bodies that exist to make other people lots of money and to make more bodies to make more money by any means possible. girls and women don’t even have basic human rights. so please spare me your sanctimonious bullshit.

    again to quote mudhoney (a song written in response to trump’s first squat in the white house that is even more relevant today) from their album digital garbage.

    21st Century Pharisees

    Evangelical hypocrites
    
    Laying hands on a pile of shit
    
    There is no blessing
    
    There is no blessing
    
    They’d like to wash away
    
    Wash away
    
    That stench

    21st Century Pharisees
    
    Evangelical hypocrites
    
    All of them in on the grift
    
    Sanctimonious pieces of shit
    
    Sanctimonious pieces of shit
    
    Keep your foul hands
    
    Keep your vile hands to yourself
    
    21st Century Pharisees

    Evangelical hypocrites
    
    Laying hands on a pile of shit
    
    He doesn’t give a fuck about your Jesus
    
    He doesn’t give a fuck about your Jesus
    
    And it’s clear that you
    
    It’s clear that you
    
    It’s clear that
    
    It’s clear that you don’t either

48. @41, I agree with “Please do not do this;” however, it is not unlawful. Mere words are not a crime, and mere words don’t open the legal door for someone on that train car to use force against you. It requires some action to carry out the threat, in both cases. I have given you legal citations and cases. Where are yours?

49. @45: “The government can’t prosecute someone merely for saying they want to kill or harm another, without some act to further what is said or written.”

    @47: “Mere words are not a crime”

    Wrong. I’m surprised you, as a transit worker, don’t know this one:

    “Unlawful transit conduct. A person is guilty of unlawful transit conduct if, while on or in a transit vehicle or in or at a transit station, he or she knowingly: … Unreasonably disturbs others by engaging in loud, raucous, unruly, harmful, or harassing behavior.”
    
    RCW 9.91.025

    Again, regardless of what you think the First Amendment says, please do not scream death threats at people on a crowded train. It’s not just a bad idea, it’s a crime pursuant to RCW 9.91.025. 😃 The First Amendment will not be a defense if you are charged with this crime. It will also not be a defense that you took no overt action to instantiate your screaming threats. The mere screaming of the threats is the crime, regardless of any other act or omission.

50. RCW 9.91.025 has never been successfully prosecuted for mere words. No prosecutor wants to touch that because it’s a 1st Amendment minefield. One persons loud, raucous, unruly, harmful, or harassing behavior is another persons political protest. People do loud, disruptive protests that disturb others all the time in transit stations. There may be even so many protesters, people can’t readily get through and miss a train or a bus. It’s not prosecutable.

    People get arrested for refusing to leave a transit vehicle or station when told to do so, which is trespass, but not for RCW 9.91.025.

    The precedent goes back as far as the 1969 SCOTUS ruling in Watts v. United States where a man said he was going to shoot L.B.J. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/1107%20MISC#:~:text=Decision%20for%20Robert%20Watts&text=The%20Court%20noted%2C%20%22The%20language,was%20not%20a%20true%20threat.

    Mere words are not enough. You need something in furtherance of the words.

    Cite a conviction under RCW 9.91.025 where it is only for something said.

51. @49: Ha ha, sorry but no! “Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the challenger has the burden to show unconstitutionality.” State v. Nelson, 31 Wn. App. 2d 594 (June 25, 2024). It is not my burden to find a case upholding the constitutionality of RCW 9.91.025, it is your burden to find a case in which RCW 9.91.025 was held to be unconstitutional! 😂

    OK, OK, I’ll take pity on you! 😄 Please direct your attention to the case of Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22 (July 14, 1988). Mr. Eze boarded a public bus in Seattle without paying the fare. When the drive asked him to pay, Eze went on a tirade, calling the driver “all kinds of names” (in the Supreme Court’s understated words, lol). Eze continued arguing with and gesticulating at the driver until the police arrived.

    Eze was convicted of violating Seattle Municipal Code § 12A.12.040(F) (since recodified), whose language at the time criminalized the conduct of anyone who “unreasonably disturbs others by engaging in loud or raucous behavior.” On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld Eze’s conviction against a First Amendment challenge to the code’s language regarding “loud or raucous behavior.” The Court found this language did not violate the First Amendment.

    The Court specifically noted that RCW 9.91.025(1)(f) (since recodified) had language at the time that prohibited conduct that “intentionally disturbs others by engaging in loud or unruly behavior.” (Compare with today’s code, RCW 9.91.025(1)(i).) The Court observed that the Seattle code prohibited “a wider range of activity than does the state statute.”

    If the Seattle code was upheld as constitutional against a First Amendment challenge, then there is no reason why RCW 9.91.025, which prohibits a narrower range of conduct, would not also be upheld as constitutional against a First Amendment challenge.

    I am very sorry to burst your bubble, but state law prohibits standing in the middle of a crowded train screaming death threats, and the First Amendment does not entitle you to stand in the middle of a crowded train screaming deaths threats. You’ll just have to figure out some other means of communicating your contempt for society, perhaps through posting poorly founded comments on Slog? 😉

52. @50, Thanks for that.

    What do you do with the case where the guy got away with threatening to kill the POTUS on 1st Amendment grounds?

    He didn’t do thst online.

53. Also do you know if Eze appealed to SCOTUS and failed too get cert? People can and do appeal state laws as violating U.S. Constitutional rights. State Constitutions can grant more civil rights than the Feds provide, but not less.

54. 42, Lots of people took civics in high school and I would wager the vast majority of them can’t recite the laws that dictate when you’re legally allowed to kill someone or what to do to avoid paying out in a civil suit. It’s fucking weird.

55. Slog is in a time warp!

56. @51/52: As far as I can tell, Eze never sought cert in the US Supreme Court, leaving the judgment of the WA Supreme Court as the last word on the matter.

    As for threatening the life of the President, the Supreme Court in the Watts case you cited was careful to says that “Certainly the statute [prohibiting threats to the life of the President] is constitutional on its face.” The Court reversed Watts’ conviction on the grounds that his statement was not a true threat, NOT on the grounds that a true threat would be protected by the First Amendment.

    Nor did the Watts Court say that pure speech could never constitute a true threat. Instead, the Court found that THIS PARTICULAR speech was not a true threat, based on the context the statement was made (at a political rally), the conditional nature of the statement (IF they induct me into the armed forces, I WANT to shoot the president, but I am never going to let them induct me), and the reaction of the speaker and the crowd to the statement (they all laughed).

    It would be a misreading of Watts to think that the First Amendment protects your right to threaten the President’s life, or that a threat must be accompanied by an overt act to render it criminally culpable. Neither of those notions is correct.

57. @56, “The Court reversed Watts’ conviction on the grounds that his statement was not a true threat.”

    Therein lies the heart of findlaw.com’s and other legal sources statement that “words alone are not enough.”

    There has to be additional evidence to corroborate the words as a “true threat,” both for prosecution and to make use of force in self-defense lawful.

    Is Neely sitting on a subway seat yelling he is going to kill people, without any additional action other than glaring menacingly while he does so a 1st Amendment exercise in being provocative and offensive in the public square like Watts? Is it just offensive and scary verbalization of a mentally ill man that will never be acted on, and thus not a true threat? Is it non-criminal offensive and scary speech, or a true threat? Once Neely starts advancing toward people, balling up his fists, drawing an arm back to strike, reaching toward pockets or the waistband, or actually producing a weapon, no matter how slight, now you have additional facts to push it into something that justifies criminal action, or use of force in self-defense. You have evidence that a finder-of-fact can hang their hat on.

    Words are not enough.

    Self-defense classes focus on the mantra that you must have three conditions to legally justify use of force. 1) Threat (words or actions that convey intent) 2) Imminence (it’s happening now) 3) Actual jeopardy (the beginning of the exercise of means to actualize the expressed threat.) Without those elements, use of force isn’t self-defense, but unlawful, criminal action that will get one charged, and possibly imprisoned. Those elements are drawn from a long line of common law that predates the Republic and carried into U.S. case law.

    That only gets reinforced every time SCOTUS gets a case based on words alone, without some action, no matter how slight (e.g. the furtive movement) to further the words. The jury in NY found that there were actions by Neely to allow Penny, and others on that transit car, to reasonably allow others to conclude Neely was uttering more than scary, intentionally provocative, mere words, but was a true threat.

58. @56: You’re conflating First Amendment jurisprudence with self-defense jurisprudence. Stop doing that. You’ll only confuse yourself. Put your First Amendmenr ideas in one box over here, and your self-defense ideas in another box over there, and stop mixing them up. Different laws, different analysis.

    Look at Ewe. His conduct was far LESS threatening than Neely’s and he still got convicted. It is absolutely not the case that you can scream whatever death threats you want on a train or a bus so long as you don’t ball up your fists or act like you have a knife or something like that. That is absolutely not the law. Pure speech will absolutely get you convicted.

    You can test it yourself next time you are on an airplane. Tell them you put a bomb in the cargo hold. Don’t perform any other action, just give them some calm, pure speech about a bomb, no other action, and then watch what happens to you. 😄 Don’t forget to scream incoherently about the First Amendment as you are dragged off the airplane and into a federal prison for the next year and half as a result of pure speech. 😂

59. @58, Self-defense and the 1st Amendment analysis are very related. Justifiable self-defense hinges on whether the one asserting self-defense is facing conduct by another that the state could charge as a crime. If it’s protected by the 1st Amendment, then by definition, its not a crime.

    As far as the bomb threat, that is a different kettle of fish then what Penny and other passengers faced from Neely. There is no way to verify the “true threat” or merely outrageous, provocative words by observing the speaker. It involves landing the plane, searching the school, pulling over the bus, etc. Just the need to do that has already had coercive effect.

    If we arrested every mentally ill person that utters threats, we would have jails full of them. The outpatient mental health clinicians I used to supervise, would have greatly reduced case loads due to their patients being in jail.

    If the NYC subway, Metro buses, or the 1 line stopped every time someone made a statement with violent content, the systems would come to screeching halt. Fact: people like Neely verbalize statements about killing or attacking others on a regular basis. It gets notice, it makes people uncomfortable, but until they get up from their seat and go toward people like Neely did, the wheels keep rolling.

    Mere words are not enough.

60. @58: “Self-defense and the 1st Amendment analysis are very related. Justifiable self-defense hinges on whether the one asserting self-defense is facing conduct by another that the state could charge as a crime. If it’s protected by the 1st Amendment, then by definition, its not a crime.”

    No, no, no! That is the wrong framework to think about these issues. First Amendment law asks, “Can the government lawfully toss me in jail for saying or doing this?” Self-defense law asks, “Can some stranger lawfully shoot me with a gun for saying or doing this?” These are separate inquiries. They involve separate parties, separate stakes, separate sources of law. They need to be analyzed through separate lenses.

    Again, go back to the Ewe case. We know the government could lawfully toss Ewe in jail, because that’s exactly what they did and the Supreme Court said it was fine. Ewe violated the law against unreasonably disturbing others by engaging in loud or raucous behavior on a bus. That’s a crime, and the First Amendment doesn’t protect him. Mere words are enough to convict him, and they did.

    Now ask, could the bus driver lawfully have shot Ewe with a gun? After all, Ewe was committing a crime! He was unreasonably disturbing people with his words! Right there on the bus! He’s not allowed to do that!

    The answer to this second question is no, the driver could not lawfully have shot Ewe with a gun, even though Ewe was committing a crime and even though Ewe was outside the protections of the First Amendment. Ewe was unreasonably disturbing the driver, but he was not placing the driver in imminent fear of his life.

    Self-defense law does not ask whether the bad guy was breaking the law. It does not ask whether the bad guy was exercising his rights to free speech. It asks whether the bad guy was posing an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm. In the case of Ewe, the answer was no.

    Put Ewe in jail for his mere words? Absolutely, and the First Amendment supports it, says the Supreme Court. Shoot Ewe with a gun for his mere words? Absolutely not, and no source of law would support it. Different inquiries, different lenses, different results.

61. Free The Adjuster!

62. @59, “Can some stranger lawfully shoot me with a gun for saying or doing this?” These are separate inquiries.

    Nope. You can’t shoot some stranger (or non-stranger) unless a legislature has outlawed the stranger’s conduct. It can’t be unlawful if the government is prevented from criminalizing the conduct under the 1st Amendment.

    Self-defense law very much asks whether the conduct of the bad guy was breaking the law. To wit, RCW 9a.16.050:

    “Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.”

    Each and every justification for shooting the bad guy is a chargeable crime on the bad guy as well. The only difference is burden of proof. The state must use “beyond a reasonable doubt” to win a criminal conviction. The self-defense shooter must only win the argument of “reasonableness”. E.g. “Reasonable ground to apprehend …”

    In RCW 9A.16.020, which discusses lawful use of less than lethal force, the standard again is reasonableness with some form of “reason” appearing in the statute.

63. @61: No, re-read the statute!

    “reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person”

    You’ve latched onto the “commit a felony” part, but you’re ignoring the “or do some great personal injury” part.

    Think of the Rittenhouse case, for example. Other than the first person he shot (who was an unjustified attacker), all of the subsequent people he shot were attacking him because they wrongly believed he was a mass shooter. The subsequent attackers were not committing a felony upon Rittenhouse, because they were justified in their belief that he was the bag guy, but they were intent on causing him great bodily harm. For this reason, it was lawful for Rittenhouse to shoot these NON-FELON, NON-CRIMINAL attackers in his own self-defense. The Rittenhouse case is a fascinating study in self-defense, because everybody’s attacking everybody but nobody’s committing a crime (except for that first guy).

    Self-defense does not require that your attacker be a criminal. It does require that your attacker intend you great bodily harm. Rittenhouse shows the perhaps unintended law-of-the-jungle outcome of such a rule, but that is the rule.

Comments are closed.