Heaven forbid somebody have something against killing innocent babies solely for a matter of convenience. And this guy was threatening more than a white man. But go ahead and make this about race. Quite typical of a far lefty.
Daniel Penny........
- Thread starter OG Goat Holder
- Start date
- Status
"The defendant cannot use any degree of force in self-defense unless the defendant is faced with an imminent attack (State v. Taylor, 2010). Imminent means the attack is immediate and not something that will occur in the future. If the defendant is threatened with a future attack, the appropriate response is to inform law enforcement, so that they can incapacitate the threatening individual by arrest or prosecution. Another situation where imminence is lacking is when the attack occurred in the past. When the defendant uses force to remedy a previous attack, this is retaliatory, and a self-defense claim is not appropriate. The legal response is to inform law enforcement so that they can incapacitate the attacker by arrest or prosecution."
I would imagine the prosecution will point out that Neely had been ranting for a while. Where's the imminent threat?
So the next item of interest for any jury would be: did the subject physically accost anyone prior or subsequent to making the verbal threats. Prior or subsequent to the first physical contact the defendant made to the subject. That's basically what the case hinges on.
like, what statistics are we going by... if i had to guess most killers had probably never killed before their first murder... there always has to be a first, you can t just jump ahead to the fifth... i would say statistically the guy with 4 assault arrests that is threatening to kill everyone on a subway car would be the one most likely to kill someone.
The wild card is drugs. When a guy gets high on the wrong drug/mixture of drugs what he's done in the past doesn't matter. If you suspect a guy (or gal) of being heavily drugged and you can't get away you better take measures to protect yourself because anything can happen regardless of what they've done in the past.
Apparently the time between the start of the chokehold and the next stop was 1 minute. So the prosecution will lean heavily on "you couldn't wait 1 minute?". Then the chokehold was held for another 14 minutes, well after any "threatened" passengers were off the train. Where's the imminent threat to continue the chokehold? I think that will clearly come to they were waiting on the police. So they choked him to ensure an arrest. That's not imminent threat.
If he witnessed the subject touching anyone before or after making the verbal threats then you have an argument for imminent danger. Even if the subject had pushed someone or hit them, and then backed off, if he's still verbalizing threats after he has already accosted one or more of the witnesses physically, it's going to be a lot harder to get a conviction.
If none of the witnesses can claim that the subject had any physical contact at all, and he was only verbally abusive, then it will be easier to get a conviction. The defense is going to ask the witnesses what level of fear they had of the subject regardless, but I think the conviction will hinge on physical contact prior to the choke hold.
Last edited:
if Trevor stole them, you'll likely be ok, but if Hank, Mike, Bubba, Junior or Billy stole them you'd probably best let it go
I think he'll up with some kind of plea deal, a few years in a mental facility (to learn who to deal with PTSD).
We agree on your first sentence, but two quick points:
1. Yes, of course I would consider the individual circumstance of each mother and child before deciding whether an abortion is warranted. Is she in a life-threatening health emergency? Or is it simply an inconvenience that she got pregnant and she wants to kill the baby to continue her lifestyle? I think of those as two very different situations.
2. I also consider an innocent child in the womb to be much different than a drug addled psycho threatening people on a subway train. One had a hand in his own situation and choices along the way, one didn't.
Sorry for all the 'righties' crazy talk.
1) It seems he may have inadvertently killed someone who may, or may not, have posed a direct threat to him.
What is if was a threat to other people? Do i not have the right (i'd argue i have the obligation) to intervene to protect someone from a threat
3) Guy was in a tough spot. It is a fine line between dude is having a mental break, threatening harm and is really gonna do harm vs dude is having a mental break, threatening harm and is really harmless. I don't know how you decide.
Mental or not has nothing to do with it if you are a threat. If you are a threat or not? i'd rather err on the side of the innocent people minding their own business and not on the "potential threats" side.
4) This kind of thing makes it more likely that the next guy who is thinking about stepping in and "helping" might just sit there until harm is done, and possibly severe harm.
Correct. this is why number 3 above is important.
To me, deadly force would infer intentionality. I think he didn't intend to kill the guy, just subdue him until the next stop. If Neely wasn't a habitual drug abuser with a weakened system, he would not have died. That's my understanding.
If you push a guy on the street, and he is so drunk that he falls off the curb, hits his head and dies, did you use "deadly force", or is that an accident? I honestly don't know the legal definition.
He could have easily put him in a hold that didn't cause him to stop breathing.
Its almost undeniable that George Floyd died of a heart attack due to fentanyl and not b/c Derek Chauvin is a murdering POS (I thin he is a POS fyi).
Yeah the NYC DA is certainly a reliable source on such matters.
I know you can't get past "its Fox News" but here are direct quotes from witnesses.
Witness to Jordan Neely chokehold death calls Daniel Penny a 'hero'
A witness who saw Marine vet Daniel Penny choke Jordan Neely on a New York City subway train called him a "hero" and said the passengers were scared for their lives.
www.foxnews.com
It's criminal use of force, not an accident unless you accidently pushed him. If you intended to push, you are criminally liable for the result. Probably not murder, probably manslaughter. Varies by state.
Same as if you choose to drive drunk but didn't intend to get into a wreck and kill someone else. The choice to illegally drive drunk makes you criminally responsible for the foreseeable possible results.
I appreciate the info on terminology. That helps.
I'm not sure the drunk driving/wreck is exactly analogous to the case at hand - Daniel Penny wasn't drunk, the other guy was drunk. But I know what you're saying, unintentional death and liability-wise.
The definition of deadly force is… the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Honestly I don’t know how much more clear that can be. No one in the world, except you I guess, is debating that Penny used deadly force.
You literally make the argument in your post... You specifically say that Neely's 40+ arrests "gives credibility to the idea that he was acting in a manner that justified Penny's actions." Penny's actions resulted in the death of Neely. You are very literally saying the 40+ arrests justified Penny's killing of Neely.
No hes saying that if a man is drunk and i try and stop him from driving i should be held liable for whatever happens to the drunk man.
I know thats not exactly "what he said" but it kind of is.
Was the guy who choked him aware the guy had been arrested 40 times? Otherwise these arguments mean nothing.
ETA: I’m not saying he is guilty of anything. I am not taking sides. I am just saying everyone keeps throwing around the arrested 40 times thing to justify what happened. Unless that guy had personal knowledge of that fact, you cannot use it to justify his actions
ETA: I’m not saying he is guilty of anything. I am not taking sides. I am just saying everyone keeps throwing around the arrested 40 times thing to justify what happened. Unless that guy had personal knowledge of that fact, you cannot use it to justify his actions
Here's how you can be more clear: include this important part of the equation you keep leaving out of your responses.
My original point in questioning the "force" Penny used was that NEELY WAS ON SPICE. The hold would not have killed 99% of the population that day if not for the shape his body was in. Not as in out of shape - he was apparently fully strong and able-bodied as it took three guys to hold him after he threatened the car-load of passengers. His weakened physical condition was caused by 20 years of drug abuse.
That means, the hold in question was not "likely" to cause serious bodily injury to anyone but this guy. That's why I questioned it.
Physiologically, what did the spice do to his body to make the chokehold that was placed on him more likely to kill him than 99% of the population? You can’t just say “drugs”, because that runs the gamut from marijuana to cocaine. Did it increase his sympathetic response? His parasympathetic response? Did it slow down his bodies ability to recognize when his oxygen level was low? I am not saying you are wrong. Just please offer an argument other than “drugs”
The act caused bodily harm… that meets the definition. There are no circumstances that change that fact. Neely is dead because of the force Penny used. That’s not even up for debate. He will go to trial to determine if the deadly force he used was justified. You do realize you’re the only one trying to make this argument?
Actually your point helps the choker. Not the chokee.
he felt the man was a threat. Turns out by the chokee being arrest 40 17ing times the choker’s instincts were probably right.
It likely made him keep resisting where 99% of other people wouldn’t have.
You know drugs make people crazy and do stupid things.
Some may not believe this but doing drugs and being arrested are not grounds for summary execution.
Well, one side supports killing children. And if the children are blessed to be born, they want to expose them to freakish sexual content and convince them they are the wrong gender. And that same group wants illegal immigrants to flood cities, cause chaos, and vote blue. They want our tax dollars to go to those immigrants by the millions and to Ukraine by the billions.
They want to call people like me domestic terrorists, because I dare to have concern about our overreaching gov’t and want to be informed about what our children are being exposed to in schools.
No, we just want to call you stupid, because we don't believe any of those things and make that clear over and over, yet that doesn't deter your belief that we do in the slightest.
You ought to get to know some liberals in real life instead of just believing some nonsense strawmen that the TV or internet told you. You may be pleasantly surprised.
I have plenty of liberal friends. They are moderates, though.
The Dem party is clearly in the extreme progressive Socialist anti-American camp. I would love to see a RFK Jr presidency instead of Commie Joe
I would say thanks for making my point, but unfortunately what you have written just makes me incredibly sad.
Well maybe you should get your party leaders to stop openly supporting them.
Well maybe you should stop voting for people who publicly stand up for what he said?
or put another way start voting for people who publicly stand against it
Geoge Soros' Son is just as evil and they boh have tons of evil people working for them. Are you aware that Oktibehah's DA's campaign was funded by Soros? Does that give you a clue or ring any bells as to howdeep his evil has permeated the judical landscape of our country? He once crippled singlehandidly the British Pound with his wealth control and has entities he funds that have facilitated 3rd world migration into industrialized countries.
TH: someone who doles out countless sums to undermine and reshape in his dystopian image entire countries, spreading across at least five separate continents. Soros directly spent $128.5 million during last fall's U.S. midterm elections, making him that election cycle's single largest individual donor. He has spent $40 million trying to elect radically left-wing "reform prosecutors" -- something he has been fully transparent about, defending it under his own byline in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last summer -- across the country. He has been dishearteningly successful in that endeavor, successfully electing 75 district attorneys -- such as Alvin Bragg in New York City, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco (since mercifully recalled) and Kim Foxx in Chicago -- who oversee a decivilizational (and oxymoronic) prosecutorial agenda of not prosecuting violent and property crimes. Simply put, Soros is more responsible than any man in the world for the descent of some of America's most iconic cities into anarchic urban hellholes.
We Are Jews Against Soros
townhall.com
- Status