Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fishy1738 t1_jc4gkgr wrote

This was horrific to watch.

Serious question: for the adults watching a situation like this unfold, what exactly can they do? Besides the threat of many of them jumping the adult, the adult would be in trouble if they got physical with the “kids”, no?

105

Grass8989 t1_jc4hqua wrote

Nothing more dangerous than a group of unsupervised teens in this city.

147

bittoxic00 t1_jc4m2go wrote

Indeed, risk going to real jail for hitting a kid and if the kid hits you they get a slap on the wrist. Another downside is you’re seriously injured, a lot of these kids know how to fight and want to, I don’t know how to fight and really don’t want to

61

Shreddersaurusrex t1_jc61kgb wrote

Nah I’d fight that case tooth and nail

9

bittoxic00 t1_jc6uron wrote

Also fighting a group of kids if you intervene. If you lose you can lose 1v1 but if you get the upper hand 5 more are going to jump in

5

whatshisfacethatdude t1_jc7dh5v wrote

You won’t lost a 1v1, the moment you intervened, 10 of them started attacking you for sure. This is exactly what they did to this teenager no? The moment he hit the girl back 2 others attacked him - it’s planned. Friend of mine on the subway stood up to these teens one time since they were being racist towards a younger kid, they jumped him, gave him a black eye then fled. Nypd did shit all and kept giving him the run around - waste of our taxes that day

4

bittoxic00 t1_jc7ztxn wrote

Sorry about your buddy, no good deed. He has a black eye and the kids went home and ate ravioli like nothing happened

1

Vegetable-Double t1_jc4zki1 wrote

Always been the case. I’ve been taking the subway and bus almost everyday of life for over 30 years. Starting from junior high school, through high school, college, and my career.

I got jumped on the train in both high school and junior high by groups of teenagers for no reason (this was late 90s). I got harassed by groups of teenagers even as an adult. Not saying all groups of teenagers are bad, but being part of those groups of teenagers myself at some point, the peer pressure and need to look cool in front of others makes you do dumb shit. Nothing annoys me more, even now, than seeing a group of rowdy teenagers on the bus or subway. I know they are kids and I let it slide, especially being in that position myself once. But, even if a bystander stepped in, he or she would risk getting attacked too.

Also, anyone bringing race into it is stupid. The same stuff happens regardless of the race or location of the kids. Even in the suburbs, groups of unsupervised teens are the worst.

46

TeamMisha t1_jc4kkum wrote

Indeed for assailants with high risk tolerance and lower understanding of consequences, more unpredictability and more error prone or lack of good judgement, you've got no idea what could happen, I can't say I'd be rearing to intervene with my lanky ass lol.

27

oreosfly t1_jc4oh0d wrote

That's the shittiest part of this situation. We have so much to lose. Sure, we could deck one of those teenagers and knock them the fuck out and in defense of another kid, but if we are arrested or our names are dragged through the mud by a bunch of Twitter warriors, our paychecks, housing, careers, and livelihoods might be toast. These bum teenagers along with the bum adults who breed them have nothing to lose by acting like a bunch of zoo animals in public. Unless the government holds them accountable for their actions, we're powerless against them.

66

Henrychinaskismom1 t1_jc5pln5 wrote

Zoo animals are pretty chill. Do you think that animals in the wild pick on other animals just to hurt them. Not even eat them after. A cartoon animal yeah sure I can see that but a zoo animal.

5

theilya t1_jc6csdg wrote

This

−1

Anti-ThisBot-IB t1_jc6ct48 wrote

Hey there theilya! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an upvote instead of commenting "This"! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)

^(I am a bot! Visit) ^(r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) ^(Reddiquette)

7

Introduction_Organic t1_jcbxyxx wrote

Curfews would be good parents being fine would instantly check those kids cause it's to expensive not to

2

banjonyc t1_jc4mdx1 wrote

Nothing. Remember the reporter who told a group of teens to stop harassing a guy. He got beat up pretty bad

113

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc583k9 wrote

What do you think about having more armed citizens? With background checks, psychological checks, registries, etc. Do you think that would be more of a negative or a positive in situations like this in our city?

−57

banjonyc t1_jc591fw wrote

Negative in a big way. I'm a supporter of second amendment and if we were country that had extensive background checks I would definitely feel more comfortable. The issue that I really have with so many people being armed is that something as simple as harassment or even a fight which would end up with most people walking away winds up with someone dead or bystanders shot and killed. The last thing I want to be is stuck on a subway train with some lunatic firing their gun. If someone pulls the emergency brake, the car stops and you're literally stuck there.

46

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc5ccus wrote

I understand. This has always been an issue in densely populated metro areas. I wish there was a better way for people to keep themselves safe and be able to help their fellow citizens, all without coming into harm's way.

−11

mostlyfire t1_jc5w6w5 wrote

There are ways. It’s just cost a lot of money

3

jaj-io t1_jc6iryz wrote

I’m very much pro-2A, but a bunch of guns in a crowded city would only result in more death. It doesn’t matter how much you train someone. There’s nothing safe about using a gun on a busy train.

31

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc7b66j wrote

I think it would balance itself out eventually. I also think it would bring rent prices down.

−13

Odd_Inter3st t1_jc7iod3 wrote

How?

1

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc7kkam wrote

By lowering the population and damaging property.

−4

Odd_Inter3st t1_jc7lnch wrote

That’s… a horrible way to lower rent. If anything that makes things worse for those already living in those areas

6

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc7qjeg wrote

I am just trying to bust balls now. I was genuinely asking in my first question, but I understand that this is a tricky and complicated subject.

3

Rottimer t1_jc5drdz wrote

As shitty as this situation was, it doesn’t look like anyone ended up in the hospital. There were broken glasses, a bloody lip and probably a bruised ego. Those kids should absolutely be arrested. But introducing a gun in this situation may have put someone in the morgue. That would absolutely be a worse outcome even for assholes like these.

15

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc5i46s wrote

>As shitty as this situation was, it doesn’t look like anyone ended up in the hospital.

Do you think there is a limit to the amount of damage you should receive before you can use a gun?

>But introducing a gun in this situation may have put someone in the morgue. That would absolutely be a worse outcome even for assholes like these.

At what point do you think that someone should not be concerned with the well-being and safety of their attacker?

−7

Rottimer t1_jc5jewr wrote

Deadly force is a last resort where your life or the life of another is in danger of ending and you or they cannot get away. The problem with this is that people with guns get it in their head that anything can put their life danger - “that guy called me an asshole and is staring me down, what if he punches me and I hit my head on the pavement and die? Time to pull out the gun and start blasting!!!”

There is also the issue with population density and the fact that bullets don’t care about your intent. NYPD cops know this first hand as a number of police involved shootings have harmed innocent bystanders. More guns in this city, legal or otherwise, will result in more gun deaths.

7

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc5mokw wrote

>Deadly force is a last resort where your life or the life of another is in danger of ending and you or they cannot get away.

Yes, I understand.

>The problem with this is that people with guns get it in their head that anything can put their life danger - “that guy called me an asshole and is staring me down, what if he punches me and I hit my head on the pavement and die? Time to pull out the gun and start blasting!!!”

This definitely can occur, but I don't think it's fair to assume that every gun owner is a hypersensitive cowboy that is ready to shoot first. But I do understand that can be the case with certain types of people. I also knew guys that pulled out boxcutters or hammers as soon as they felt threatened. But I am also aware that a gun can do much more damage in a much shorter amount of time.

>There is also the issue with population density and the fact that bullets don’t care about your intent. NYPD cops know this first hand as a number of police involved shootings have harmed innocent bystanders. More guns in this city, legal or otherwise, will result in more gun deaths.

True. More armed people up the chances of shootings. That's a very major problem in our country currently. I know that the NYPD used certain types of bullets ( I think hollowpoints ) since they tend to break apart in the body and not go through people as easily.

I just think there should be a middle ground between making it impossible for reasonable, vetted, and regularly trained individuals to have access to a tool that can keep them safe in a violent altercation. It just seems to me that criminals and cops can easily get access to guns in NYC.

I am aware of the issues with gun control in this country. I am aware of the problems that unreasonable gun laws cause. I am not a gun nut. I am not asking these questions to troll either. NYC has some of the most strict firearm regulations in the entire country. It's just that I have personally been a victim of violent crime on more than one occasion. There was a very big difference in the outcome when I was armed vs. When I was unarmed. I think being armed can keep people safe in situations like this. I don't think you always have to shoot. Sometimes just the threat can be enough.

1

Rottimer t1_jc5n6eq wrote

> NYC has some of the most strict firearm regulations in the entire country.

And it's also one of the safest cities in the country. There will always be crime. I simply don't believe that more guns is going to be the solution to minimizing it. There are states with far less regulation on guns and their largest cities tend to be much more violent than NYC.

Edit: And by the way, I'm not anti-gun. Guns have their place. But I think if you live or visit a large city and it's suburbs, you should meet much greater scrutiny to have a gun on you than if you live, in say, rural West Virgnia.

5

socialcommentary2000 t1_jc6kwb7 wrote

I dunno dude, I suppose its the question on whether you want to see this kind of shit in the news or ' 2 teens airholed by straphangers trying to break up fight between said teens '

I do not trust gun types to make these sorts of decisions. The police can be bad enough at it already. Anyone who's gonna carry a piece in the subway system is either already on their way to get into bad shit somewhere else or is going to be some herb from Westchester or Long Island who pisses their pants at their own shadow from time to time.

And, funny enough, the criminals who are already carrying on the subway don't really get into confrontations on said subway. It's odd, but that's how it shakes out. I guess they even know not to piss on their typical form of conveyance.

4

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jc7fm1x wrote

>And, funny enough, the criminals who are already carrying on the subway don't really get into confrontations on said subway. It's odd, but that's how it shakes out. I guess they even know not to piss on their typical form of conveyance.

Do you think that it's because they have a gun, and nobody wants to get themselves shot?

>I dunno dude, I suppose its the question on whether you want to see this kind of shit in the news or ' 2 teens airholed by straphangers trying to break up fight between said teens '

I know that this won't be popular, but I think sometimes you bring it on yourself. I hear about shootings and violent crime all the time on the news. Usually, it's about a victim of it who couldn't defend themselves. I grew up in this city, and anyone who did (especially during a certain time in certain places) knows how violent things can get. You can't fight off everyone. You know that some people are batshit crazy. I don't think it's alright that it's culturally acceptable in NYC to just accept that on occasion, you could get jumped on the train. You are just expected to deal with that or watch yourself more. I don't like relying on some cop (who is probably hiding out in a room in transit) to come help me out. I only see police show up after the fact in many cases. You know that's how it works. I personally think more citizens having the ability to keep themselves safe is more of a positive than a negative. Especially after hearing another story about an autistic kid who got jumped and stomped out by a bunch of shit heads. Of course, no one tried to help since they didn't want to get hurt. It could also be because some people don't care what happens to you... So I think people should be able to look after themselves. Even if it means every now and then you could turn into Swiss cheese.

Edit: spelling

2

PrudentLingoberry t1_jd3kc4y wrote

why the fuck do mass-arming people not acknowledge the fact that whoever gets the first draw usually wins? You also literally do not consider that bullets are very good at travelling through things, so good infact we use hollow points so that they don't travel through too many things, which they do anyway. Hell even in less densely packed places you can fucking see how "polite" society is in places like Florida or Texas. All you do is make the murder button way more accessible to people, a literal degradation of societal fabric when the stranger next to you is more likely than not a possible threat. I genuinely find it baffling how people fantasize about living in such a hellscape, where you could die at any moment.

1

Odins-Enriched-Sack t1_jd4amkn wrote

So then people will have to be quicker on the draw. Old school, like Wild Bill and the OG cowboys. More guns mean more practice. Duels at high noon would start popping up all throughout the city, like food trucks. This could eventually have a positive effect. Like increasing tourism. /s

In all seriousness, there are ways to allow for responsible and reasonable gun ownership. I don't think everyone should own an AR-15 or a tank. I also don't believe that it should be super easy to get a gun. I do think people should have a right to keep themselves, their family, and their possessions safe. Law enforcement can not be everywhere all the time and all at once. In some cases, they are completely useless and will end up hurting the victim instead. I also believe that if rights can be taken away, then they are privileges, not rights.

I do, however, understand that rights come with responsibility. There must also be reasonable conssessions made. For example, you have the right to free speech (and all that it entails). You don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded space and cause a stamped. Your right to do something shouldn't infringe on someone else's rights. My right to own a firearm shouldn't infringe in your right to be alive. Were I to abuse that right, then I should be made to deal with dire consequences.

We allow for responsible vehicle ownership. This is despite the fact that vehicles can be two ton heavy metal death machines. We force people to learn to drive and prove that they can drive. We require individuals to register and insure their vehicle. We require mandatory annual inspections and renewal of registration. We have infrastructure in place (not perfect) that influences the way people drive (speeding cameras, stop lights, etc). I believe this could be done for firearm ownership, just in a more stringent way.

If you believe that all it is taking for people to go completely ape shit is access to a weapon; then we already live in a terribly unsafe and deranged society. That would make me feel that I NEEDED a firearm even more. I understand the nature of this subject is sensitive. I wish these conversations could happen in a more reasonable way. I also understand what you are saying and the point you are trying to make. Or at least I think I understand.

0

spicytoastaficionado t1_jc4p92h wrote

Conventional wisdom would say you would never get in trouble for defending a kid from a violent gang style beating, but this is the same borough where the DA charged a bodega worker with murder even after they had video of him clearly defending himself.

Also, you don't know how other people would react.

It doesn't seem like they cared about a bunch of teens bullying another teen, but if someone didn't know what was going on and saw an adult beating up some kids, you might catch a beat down of your own from a half dozen people

43

8bitaficionado t1_jc6bqol wrote

This is the same city state that just dropped a first degree murder conviction on one of the members who killed Lesandro “Junior” Guzman-Feliz and that guy was caught on video.

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/bronx/court-throws-out-murder-conviction-in-bronx-justice-for-junior-case/

3

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc739fo wrote

Did you not read the article you linked? You make it seem like the guy you mentioned will just walk free. The article says the state literally could not make the legal case for first degree murder (requiring an element of torture), and so the guy will be sentenced for second degree murder. He still faces life in prison.

4

8bitaficionado t1_jc759zl wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxA8vTd2VnQ

They dragged this poor kid out of a store and beat him, slashed his neck and left him to die and they they have the gall to say

"Thus, we find that defendant and his accomplices did not engage in a ‘course of conduct’ involving the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain.”"

He was convicted by a jury of his peers and the city reduced it.

1

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7676y wrote

The appellate division of the New York Supreme Court vacated the first degree murder conviction, so no, it was not the city... Again, did you read what you linked?

No one is debating whether or not this was an awful crime. You seem to be mixing up the Manhattan DA with NY state law. The city didn't reduce anything.

7

8bitaficionado t1_jc79u1u wrote

I edited it from City to State, but it doesn't matter. Its the same political machine that put those state judges there and made this determination.

Also with 25 years to life who is to say they will actually get life with the lessor sentence?

−1

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7bptq wrote

I only bring that up because the comment you originally replied to was lamenting about the Manhattan DA who charged the bodega worker for acting in self-defense, making your comment seem like this is just yet another example of Manhattan DA incompetence, when by reading the article it's clear it's not that at all.

To answer your second question, there's no guarantee I suppose, but if you read the link you sent, the Bronx DA (who is not in favor of the NY Supreme Court's ruling) said the guy has already been sentenced to 25 to life as part of the second degree murder conviction, and is also charged with conspiracy and gang assault on top of that. Those seem like appropriate charges to me, given what I know, and I expect the total charges will likely extend his sentence to the maximum.

3

8bitaficionado t1_jc7j8ly wrote

I didn't mention the DA at all.

0

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7jotg wrote

I didn’t say you did.

1

8bitaficionado t1_jc7jzl1 wrote

Yet you made the assumption. I said the city and I should have said the state. Regardless it is the same political machine that put the state judges and the city ones

1

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7l0oz wrote

I made no assumption. But your comment’s lack of clarity (and, as you admit, false info) could easily lead anyone who read it to believe that the choice to vacate the first degree murder sentence was a bad (perhaps political?) decision on the part of the DA’s office.

Clearly, the defendant’s lawyers filed an appeal that was ruled favorably upon by the state supreme court. What exactly is your problem with that?

1

8bitaficionado t1_jc7nfk4 wrote

I made a mistake and it was more about the politics then the DA. If I meant the DA I would have said so.

My problem is the political ideas and the machine that has enabled this.

1

socrates4_2_0 t1_jc7p5rl wrote

I understand that, but what I'm trying to get at is that based on the article you linked, the circumstances surrounding the case you're referring to has literally nothing to do with "political ideas and the machine".

1

williamwchuang t1_jc807tp wrote

The law is a harsh mistress. For first degree murder, the law requires a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that "the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim’s death." A single stab wound that results in death almost certainly cannot constitute torture under this law as a single action cannot be a "course of conduct". The idiot was convicted of second degree murder.

To give you an idea of how hard it is to get a conviction for first degree murder by torture, only three convictions have been obtained in the thirty years it has been in effect.

2

8bitaficionado t1_jc84suy wrote

The dragging out of a deli and the beat down doesn't fit those requirements? It wasn't just a stab wound.

1

williamwchuang t1_jc8cn8p wrote

Pulling him out of the deli wasn't meant to infect torture. It's a law meant for really specific purposes and the prosecutor tried to stretch it.

1

8bitaficionado t1_jcauepv wrote

You forgot the beating, but I guess they determined that that wasn't severe enough. What a joke.

1

williamwchuang t1_jcb2hqv wrote

It's clear that the crime here doesn't meet the requirements of the law. We aren't supposed to bend the law because we hate the defendants. That's why there's a saying that tough cases make bad law: we twist the law to fit a certain situation then that ends up with bad consequences down the road.

The torture law requires:

the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain;

In the context of murder, everything leading up to the death is going to be horrible. The law says that it has to be "especially cruel and wanton manner" and it has to be intended to inflict and actually inflict torture. The other ways to get convicted of first degree murder are pretty extreme and rare:

  1. Knowingly and intentionally killing an on-duty cop, firefighter, EMS, corrections officer, etc.;
  2. Killing a witness to silence them;
  3. Killing a judge out of vengeance;
  4. being a serial killer;
  5. Killing anyone while you're already in prison serving a life term;
  6. murder for hire;
  7. a killing while conducting a rape, robbery, or burglary.
0

8bitaficionado t1_jcbie16 wrote

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.27

> the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or

If you want to argue that what happened was not "especially cruel and wanton" that's on you. If you don't feel multiple people beating on someone is torturous, that's your opinion. The prosecutors and jurors thought so.

0

williamwchuang t1_jcbl58r wrote

You're making an emotional argument and an appeal to authority. The appellate court overturned the decision of the prosecutor and jury, so my appeal to authority defeats yours. If you want to say that you know more about the law than the appellate courts, then you are free to do so, but it would not hold much water because it's just your opinion supported by your emotions. At the end of the day, are you saying that the appellate court was wrong?

0

8bitaficionado t1_jcbrjyz wrote

You must be a lawyer because you are looking at this like a case you want to win and looking for a technical edge.

0

williamwchuang t1_jcbtp7c wrote

You are very clearly wrong but you're still arguing. No idea why you think you know more than an appellate court.

0

Soultan1 t1_jc6w89o wrote

In my experience a loud shout of “HEY KNOCK IT OFF” and “5-0, 5-0 RUN” is good enough to get everyone to stop for a couple seconds assess and run away it’s worked a couple times on and off the subway

6

Rottimer t1_jc5cu30 wrote

With a group of teenagers, call 911 or tell the conductor so they can call the police.

If it’s a station where police are stationed then I wish I could tell you to go get the police, but that usually ends with some smarmy comment from the cops about “so why didn’t you do something about it?” They’re more likely to respond through “official” channels.

What you don’t want to do is get involved on your own. If you’re in your 30s or older, the fact is that teenagers are often faster, stronger and have a lot less impulse control than you. They won’t mind beating the shit out of you and running away. If it’s you and a couple of other guys, then maybe you can intervene.

4

BenHogan1971 t1_jc8zxty wrote

>and have a lot less impulse control than you

and have a lot less to lose

1

Im_trolling_yu t1_jc6tdt8 wrote

Why doesn’t MTA hire bouncers to protect the subways? People obviously don’t trust the police, and they’re too expensive. Some big ass bouncers on the trains could help keep things safe.

2

fishy1738 t1_jc7bofr wrote

Do you sincerely think that the average person doesn’t trust the police to stop violent attacks such as this one? Also, I think MTA bouncers would be useless because we already have a government body to protect citizens and aid those in danger: the police.

I really hope situations like this (involving violent teens) don’t occur again. However, the reality is that they likely will, and the average citizen can’t help the victim because society would penalize them for attacking a “kid”.

I feel so bad for the victims in these particular situations. Especially this innocent teenager here.

6

OGPants t1_jc7k46t wrote

Back in hs about 10 years ago, I fought off two guys trying to steal my phone (stupid I know) in a bus for a full bus stop... Nobody did anything or try to comfort me, even after the two other guys gave up fighting me and got off the bus.

This is nyc. I expect this (people not doing anything) and nothing more. If someone intervenes, good for them. But I would never bet on it.

2

jjd13001 t1_jcahe72 wrote

Nothing, NYC teenagers are terrifying, they do not give a fuck and they are rarely ever held accountable, you even try to stop one of them and your ass will be the one ending up in the hospital

2

lupuscapabilis t1_jc7ic43 wrote

I remember while commuting to high school years ago on the M and L trains, I got surrounded and robbed by 3 guys on the M platform right in full view of everyone. The only thing anyone did was yell "assholes!" as they ran off. It was years ago and I still remember the person saying that because I couldn't believe that's all anyone did.

1