Daniel Penny - Acquitted of all charges

[Carborendum]

Daniel Penny found not guilty in chokehold death of Jordan Neely

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Daniel Penny found not guilty in chokehold death of Jordan Neely

Just an unfortunate situation all around.

Penny’s act in initially subduing Neely was heroic.  We need more people willing to do this.

But I confess I don’t understand why it’s tactically necessary to keep someone in a chokehold (as opposed to switching to some other hold) once the opponent has drifted into unconsciousness.

Then again, considering the caliber of other goons that the New York prosecutor has let skate through—it’s hard to avoid concluding that either Penny was prosecuted for his race, or other lethal menaces are being released because of theirs.

[Carborendum]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just an unfortunate situation all around.

Penny’s act in initially subduing Neely was heroic.  We need more people willing to do this.

But I confess I don’t understand why it’s tactically necessary to keep someone in a chokehold (as opposed to switching to some other hold) once the opponent has drifted into unconsciousness.

Then again, considering the caliber of other goons that the New York prosecutor has let skate through—it’s hard to avoid concluding that either Penny was prosecuted for his race, or other lethal menaces are being released because of theirs.

Maybe I don't understand the intricacies of the legal details of this situation. 

But it seems to the layperson that the Neely was violently threatening everyone on the train to the point that they all feared for their lives.  If multiple people are clearly in fear for their lives, isn't deadly force warranted under the law?

If so, then does it matter if he was killed or not? 

What I understood from the onsite video interviews, Neely had previously faked being unconscious, only to start up again.  Penny wasn't taking any chances.  Maybe I misunderstood.

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If so, then does it matter if he was killed or not? 

Yes. Even in the best circumstances it’s not fun or enjoyable to kill people. If you can take someone else’s life and not be affected by it, that’s not a good sign. It’s a tragedy all around.

I’m almost certain that soldiers and cops who take glee in killing people aren’t terribly healthy individuals. Maybe someone with military experience here can assist me on that one. 
 

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

I haven’t followed the case, but now this Penny guy will be a marked man for the rest of his life. Someone might want to play vigilante and attack him. He better be ready for a vastly more difficult life.

Just to be clear I don’t endorse going after Penny. It’s disgusting if that happens-same with Rittenhouse. The killing has to stop somewhere. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But it seems to the layperson that the Neely was violently threatening everyone on the train to the point that they all feared for their lives.  If multiple people are clearly in fear for their lives, isn't deadly force warranted under the law?

If so, then does it matter if he was killed or not? 

Deadly force was certainly justified as long as he posed an immediate threat.  But if you neutralize the threat *without* deadly force, and he remains neutralized . . . You don’t get to (for example) wait 5 minutes and then say “you know what?  I want a Mulligan.  He might wake up, so I’m just gonna shoot him now.”

I want to tread softly, because I don’t know whether (or how many times) Neely regained consciousness after first being knocked out and I’ve never been in an altercation like that and I’m sure the decision-making process starts looking very different when the adrenaline is flowing.  But if it’s true that someone was saying “I’ve got his arms, you can let go”, and if it’s true that they made it to the next station and had every opportunity to evacuate the train car . . . It’s just hard for me to justify a continued chokehold after that point.

[LDSGator]

29 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Deadly force was certainly justified as long as he posed an immediate threat.  But if you neutralize the threat *without* deadly force, and he remains neutralized . . . You don’t get to (for example) wait 5 minutes and then say “you know what?  I want a Mulligan.  He might wake up, so I’m just gonna shoot him now.”

I want to tread softly, because I don’t know whether (or how many times) Neely regained consciousness after first being knocked out and I’ve never been in an altercation like that and I’m sure the decision-making process starts looking very different when the adrenaline is flowing.  But if it’s true that someone was saying “I’ve got his arms, you can let go”, and if it’s true that they made it to the next station and had every opportunity to evacuate the train car . . . It’s just hard for me to justify a continued chokehold after that point.

The story is more complicated than hero-man saves the day. 

[Carborendum]

40 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Deadly force was certainly justified as long as he posed an immediate threat.  But if you neutralize the threat *without* deadly force, and he remains neutralized . . . You don’t get to (for example) wait 5 minutes and then say “you know what?  I want a Mulligan.  He might wake up, so I’m just gonna shoot him now.”

That makes sense if he were truly neutralized. 

But if he's faking it and using it as a ruse to get Penny to let go...  That is where it gets murky to me.  How would Penny know if he was faking it or if he was truly neutralized.  Keep in mind that the hold he was using was meant to incapacitate, not kill.  But it appeared taht through the struggle and by way of adrenaline, his hold was just a bit off and may have been more deadly than he intended.  And we still don't know if that was the cause of death.  The drugs and other medical conditions were contributory -- conditions that Penny would not have had knowledge of.

If we're supposed to allow for the presumption of innocence, we have to allow that Penny did his best to subdue a person who (as far as he knew) was perfectly healthy, strong, and willing and able to impose violence on others.

What I can say as a layperson (which is what the jurors should be) based on all that I've seen, aside from the racial hoopla from Bragg's team, this case had no merit.  And the jury apparently agreed with me in the end.

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 But if it’s true that someone was saying “I’ve got his arms, you can let go”

Personally, I find this tremendously unconvincing. "I've got his arms, you can let go"? Not bloody likely (pardon the Brit vulgarity).

I assume he had the guy in a rear naked choke, probably with his leg wrapped around the guy with one arm (probably the left) around his neck, inside of elbow to throat, forearm and biceps occluding the carotid arteries (or the jugular veins—same effect). In that situation, you can just ease up on the choke, allowing the guy to regain consciousness but able to put him right back to sleep should he pose a threat.

That would be far more convincing to me as a possible juror that he didn't have to keep choking the guy than the fact that some random third guy said, "I got him! I have his arms pinned! You can just let go of him, because I got 'im! See? I'm pushing his arms into his side! I have his wrists! There's no possible way he could just easily push me off and twist out of my iron grip!" Uh, yeah, right, sure. People with no formal fight training or experience (thankfully, the vast majority of our population) are amazingly ignorant about very basic ideas of restraint. My son told me some funny stories about that topic, having to do with his wife and the effect of growing up in an all-girls family.

[Carborendum]

Wow!  AOC is the gift that keeps on giving.  She just made a public statement that Daniel Penny is why subways are not safe.

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Wow!  AOC is the gift that keeps on giving.  She just made a public statement that Daniel Penny is why subways are not safe.

Well, the reason why subways are not safe for her core constituency, maybe . . . 

[Traveler]

It is my opinion that the real problem and threat in our society is that we do not know what to do with the mentally ill that are a danger to themselves and others.  I sometimes (this as an example) think that we are unwilling to even attempt to deal with the mentally ill that are a danger to themselves and others.  This unwillingness is demonstrated with the HIPAA laws and the obvious link between mental illness and self-medicating on top of both prescribed and unprescribed psychotropic drugs.  And who knows what else is contributing to our youth (under age 25 that are still developing executive brain functions) turning into homicidal maniacs.

In one day, our news sources are overwhelmed when we capture one and finally acquit someone that put himself at risk to stop one.  And I wonder if some of our elected officials are among the self-medicating.

 

The Traveler