Daniel Penny

[ken_sylvania]

If admin+mods want to delete this topic, and all my forum input, i submit, i do not resist.

That seems incredibly unlikely to happen.

But if you start a thread about someone who killed someone else, we might wind up discussing the fact that he killed someone else. I don't understand why that would be objectionable - and it's hard to discuss the topic at all without discussing that.

I think this account is accurate, and reflects what occurred according to the trial - is there any doubt about any part of it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/08/nyre ... trial.html

A few stops in, at Second Avenue, an unhinged Jordan Neely got on and threw his jacket to the floor.

He started ranting about deprivation — about wanting ginger ale, about not caring if he ended up at Rikers, about feeling ready to die. Whether he mentioned wanting to kill anyone is unclear; witnesses offered differing accounts. But he seemed to be unarmed, directing his tirade at no one in particular.

Mr. Penny, a former Marine with a green belt from the corps’ martial arts program, looked at the frightened women and children around him and immediately sought to subdue a man they believed to be dangerous, grabbing him from behind and putting him in a chokehold. According to records from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, only 30 seconds passed between the time the train left Second Avenue and when it arrived at the next station.

At that point, everyone fearing this person who seemed so combustible could get off. Still, Mr. Penny held to the chokehold, exerting varying degrees of pressure, for nearly another five and a half minutes. Mr. Neely was pronounced dead at Lenox Hill Hospital in Greenwich Village. A medical examiner determined that he had died as a result of compression to the neck.

On Monday morning, after just a brief period of deliberation, jurors acquitted Mr. Penny on the charge of criminally negligent homicide.

Was there any evidence or expert testimony presented at trial that would suggest that perhaps the chokehold was not the cause of death?

[temporal1]

Was there any evidence or expert testimony presented at trial that would suggest that perhaps the chokehold was not the cause of death?

AP / “Pathologist disputes finding that Marine veteran’s chokehold caused subway rider’s death”
https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny ... 4f3a2ac302

The combination of conflicting medical examiner’s reports, with reports of police refusing CPR, along with eye witness accounts they witnessed restraint, some aided restraint, not with intent to kill, are enough to prevent (me) from believing DP killed JN.

Evidently, the jury concluded similarly, and unanimously. With more info than the public has.

i have no idea what responsibility police have wrt CPR.
we once had a FF friend who warned against calling police for medical emergencies. he said something like, “don’t call police, they’ll stand there and watch you die.” HIS OPINION. i do not confuse his opinion with The Word of God.

[Bootstrap]

Was there any evidence or expert testimony presented at trial that would suggest that perhaps the chokehold was not the cause of death?

Not that I am aware of. The cause of death was "compression to the neck". Was there some other source of compression to the neck that anyone considered the cause of death?

That does not prove that Penny intended to kill him. It does not say that he is guilty of a crime - the jury said he is not. But it does seem to say that he killed him.

[temporal1]

1) Find what you want to find in msm.
2) Stop reading.

boot:
But if you start a thread about someone who killed someone else, we might wind up discussing the fact that he killed someone else.

Odd. i tried to present the OP with various links to reflect QUESTIONS of guilt, one report indicated DP was dismissed from manslaughter. The case was not closed. Matt Walsh had a strong view. i’m not Matt Walsh. MW is not Mennonite.

ken_s brought forth the word, “kill,” which some hearted, but he apologized and withdrew from that position.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is pretty important in courts of law.
Even N Pelosi stumbled on that one.

[ken_sylvania]

Was there any evidence or expert testimony presented at trial that would suggest that perhaps the chokehold was not the cause of death?

Not that I am aware of. The cause of death was "compression to the neck". Was there some other source of compression to the neck that anyone considered the cause of death?

That's kind of what I suspected. We tend to see the information we expect to see based on the story we've already heard.

Dr. Satish Chundru, forensic pathologist and expert witness for the defense, testified that in his opinion, the chokehold administered by Mr. Penny was not the cause of death. He testified that in his opinion various items in the medical record were inconsistent with death caused by asphyxiation from a chokehold.

I am not saying that Mr. Penny didn't kill Mr. Neely. I'm not saying he did. I am saying that it seems reasonable to me that a person who says we should examine the evidence before drawing conclusions ought to do at least a basic search for contrary evidence before accepting the news reports as true.

You may say that Dr. Chundru was being paid to draw the conclusions he did. I would agree and further remind you that the newspapers find it to their financial advantage to draw certain conclusions.

You say that the news reported that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely and that we should credit that report because Mr. Penny could sue them if they reported wrongly (not actually true, he would have to show that they intended to report wrongfully or were at least reckless). Let me remind you then that Dr. Chundru was testifying in court under oath, and could be prosecuted for perjury if he lied under oath.

[Bootstrap]

I am not saying that Mr. Penny didn't kill Mr. Neely. I'm not saying he did. I am saying that it seems reasonable to me that a person who says we should examine the evidence before drawing conclusions ought to do at least a basic search for contrary evidence before accepting the news reports as true.

I think I did. But the official cause of death is determined by the coroner or medical examiner. The official verdict of guilt or innocence is determined by the jury. I think it is reasonable to accept both.

You may say that Dr. Chundru was being paid to draw the conclusions he did. I would agree and further remind you that the newspapers find it to their financial advantage to draw certain conclusions.

I generally assume the defense says that their guy is innocent, the prosecution says he is guilty, and their witnesses try to make the best possible case for their side. I am more likely to go with the official verdict and the official cause of death. I find that reasonable.

[ken_sylvania]

I am not saying that Mr. Penny didn't kill Mr. Neely. I'm not saying he did. I am saying that it seems reasonable to me that a person who says we should examine the evidence before drawing conclusions ought to do at least a basic search for contrary evidence before accepting the news reports as true.

I think I did. But the official cause of death is determined by the coroner or medical examiner. The official verdict of guilt or innocence is determined by the jury. I think it is reasonable to accept both.

OK, I find it hard to believe that a quick search would turn up nothing about the expert testimony suggesting the chokehold was not the cause of death, but if you actually did look then I guess it is what it is.

Offhand, I would say:

1. There was video.
2. The jury doesn't seem to have questioned whether he killed him.
3. News sources are saying he did kill him, and Daniel Perry could make a lot of money by suing them if that's not true.

And after consideration, I would say:
1. I did not watch the video, maybe it would resolve all doubt.
2. Have any of the jurors granted interviews, or how do you conclude that the jury didn't question whether Penny killed Neely? Obviously the jury questions don't tell us what they concluded, but I find it interesting that the jury asked for readback of multiple portions of Dr. Harris' testimony about the cause of death, and that they asked for the videos showing the chokehold to be provided on a laptop so they could watch them as often as they wanted. That seems consistent with the jury having some question whether the chokehold was in fact the cause of death.
3. I think we all know that just because the news reports a falsehood doesn't mean the person reported on can "make a lot of money suing them."

[Robert]

But if you start a thread about someone who killed someone else, we might wind up discussing the fact that he killed someone else.

There is strong evidence that Neely was not killed by Penny, thus the not guilty decision. You statement that Penny killed Neely is not supported by the evidence that the jury reviewed and made a decision on. By continuing to claim that he killed Neely after a court has determined differently without clearly stating that it is your opinion leaves you to be presenting false statements.

It may be your opinion that Penny killed Neely, but that is not clear by the evidence and jury verdict. They studied the actual evidence and did not just read a NYT article.

[temporal1]

Because i included Matt Walsh’s opinion video in the OP, i’m adding this as followup.
i don’t understand everything he’s describing about how law works, or even his exact way of thinking.
i think his opinions are interesting. He uses some language i wouldn’t. i wouldn’t get into hero worship. Neither villain.
MW is a conservative Catholic, not Mennonite.

Daniel Penny’s Freedom Is a Win for America / 18min

Description:
Justice prevails against the odds in the Daniel Penny case, as he is finally acquitted on charges that never should have been brought in the first place.

[JohnH]

In particular, the jury found that Penny wasn't even guilty of negligent homicide.

I suppose one can protest and claim that Penny did actually kill Neely, but when one does so, they are saying the jury decided wrong and they disagree with the court's verdict... I guess it depends on how much one thinks we need to "trust courts" and "respect court verdicts" and so on.