Sure, that's the smart thing to do, but my question is more around what is the legal expectation regarding the decision you make. If I'm just holding a knife and I ask for your money, I technically didn't say I was going to use the knife to stab you, but you made that assumption based on the context of the situation. Do we as citizens have a legal obligation to get clarification from the person that they intend to do us harm with that knife if we don't give them the money before we decide what is an equitable reaction from us? that's more what I'm concerned about.

Exactly, in this case and the bodega one from last summer there’s this incredible over reaction to the charges that get downgraded quickly and that’s scary and betrays a district attorney’s office that’s either caving to public pressure or not doing sue diligence and both of those are troubling.

I posted this article because although I know the post is very trashy and sensational, this article is beyond comprehension, and I fear indicative of a major systemic shift in our perception of morality, safety, protection, cause and effect in our city.

If I understood correct; one of the brothers attempted to steal shrimp from a local fishery. The workers reacted aggressively by chasing the robber out and used some force to protect the property. The robber then went and got back up and came back with the intention of retaliating to his attempted robbery that went wrong. In other words, a person went to rob a business (morally and criminally wrong), didn't succeed and felt the need to go get revenge because he met resistance.

The workers were left with little recourse as this robber came back with back-up and had to react. Now, I understand the workers should've called the cops, but we know that robberies under $1000 arent really being taken seriously anymore by cops and DA's. So this small business is now more or less on its own to prevent theft.

Did the worker need to stab this guy? IDK, but the workers clearly felt scared at this point since this person escalated things by coming back to retaliate. I understand self-defense laws in our city mean that you have to reasonably make all efforts to flee, but does that apply to protection of property as well?

At this point what is the reasonable expectation of self-defense and property protection. For example, if I'm walking down the street, and some person comes up to me with a knife in their hands and demands my money, do I have to ask if they intend to use the knife to stab me if I don't handover the money before I make a decision to defend myself equitably (meaning do I flee, or if their hitting me do I hit back instead of using a knife myself if I have one?) because it seems like there is this weird interpretation of the law in this case and the bodega one where it wasn't clear if the robbers intended mortal harm as opposed to just a fight? but then is it realistic to expect someone to ask if the would be assailant intends to kill them or just punch them a few times and move on? this is where this is getting weird and really concerning to the average person.

These are split second decisions that may have very real legal consequences. Sure, charges get dropped but this worker has to come up with legal fees, which could wreck the worker for years. So moving forward what is the expectation for the average New Yorker? idk if any lawyers are on the sub but would love to know more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/nyregion/climate-change-nyc.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Our weather changed. We probably won’t get small snow storms anymore (back in the 80’s-90’s you’d get 3-5 inch storms every week or two because the cold temperatures were more consistent.) now you’ll get a big blizzard that melts in two days.

“New York City, after years of being considered a humid continental climate, now sits within the humid subtropical climate zone. The classification requires that summers average above 72 degrees Fahrenheit — which New York’s have had since 1927 — and for winter months to stay above 27 degrees Fahrenheit, on average. The city has met that requirement for the last five years, despite the occasional cold snap. And the winters are only getting warmer.”

For summers; “Annually, the city gets about the same amount of rain as it has over the last few decades, but it comes in deluges, instead of steady, moderate downfalls, said Dr. Bassuk, the Cornell professor. And there is more time in between rain events, making drought more likely.”

I’m talking about mowing someone down, not simply running a red light.

It’s insane here in kew gardens and forest hills. Over the holidays I saw a family member who is currently NYPD and they shared some context.

Apparently it’s a two factor problem.

1. The NYPD really doesn’t want to engage with low level stuff. Most officers are legit concerned that traffic stops and low level stuff will escalate, and they feel if it does escalate they won’t be backed up by management. Not saying it’s wrong or right, just that it’s where they’re at mentally now.

2. District attorneys can’t really prosecute vehicular stuff. It’s all about proving intent and the way legal statutes are written, it is next to impossible for da’s to prove intent when a car is involved. The example they used was this: someone runs a red light and crashes into a parent and stroller. First you gotta prove the car ran the light, second you gotta prove that there was intent to hit that person and their kid. Morally we know the driver is at fault for running a light, but legally it’s much murkier. The minute the driver says it was an accident, or I didn’t see them, or I thought the light was yellow, etc. it becomes legally challenging to prove much of anything. This is why da’s stay away from these. It harms their stats (I.e. winning cases).

This is why Di blasio wanted a task force outside the NYPD at DOT to investigate car crashes and issue recommendations to the da’s.

Lastly the culture around cars has changed. When I learned how to drive 20-22 years ago, my parents (boomers) were pretty adamant that hitting someone was morally wrong. It was tied to a values system. Nowadays most people relegate accidents to an insurance issue, not a moral one. Hit someone, too bad my insurance will cover it. At worst my premium goes up. That’s the new mentality and it leads to risky behaviors that border in antisocial behavior.

And thus once again this shows how much this cities leadership hates it’s middle class.