Daniel Penny

[Bootstrap]

They studied the actual evidence and did not just read a NYT article.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Chundru attributed Neely's death to a combination of factors, and the struggle was one of them. Without the struggle, I think even defense witness Chundru's testimony implies that Neely would be alive today. If you object to the word "killing", how are you defining the term? I'm used to the "but for" test - Would Person B have survived but for Person A's actions? If you define "killing" differently, could you please share the definition you are using?

In my world, if you do something to another person and it results in that person's death, that's called killing. The jury said Penny is not guilty of any criminal charges, but I have been unable to find anything to suggest that Neely's death was just a coincidence and was not caused by what Penny did.

Also, could you all please stop making the false claim that all I did was read a NYT article? I have not been making false claims about you all, and I have already clarified this. If you REALLY believe that I don't generally read multiple sources ... I'm not sure who you think you have been talking to.

[ken_sylvania]

Also, could you all please stop making the false claim that all I did was read a NYT article? I have not been making false claims about you all, and I have already clarified this. If you REALLY believe that I don't generally read multiple sources ... I'm not sure who you think you have been talking to.

I suppose I could - but first of all I would have to start making that claim. Are you sure you want me to do that?

In the mean time, would you please stop beating your wife.

[Bootstrap]

Also, could you all please stop making the false claim that all I did was read a NYT article? I have not been making false claims about you all, and I have already clarified this. If you REALLY believe that I don't generally read multiple sources ... I'm not sure who you think you have been talking to.

I suppose I could - but first of all I would have to start making that claim. Are you sure you want me to do that?

In the mean time, would you please stop beating your wife.

I was responding to this:

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.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that the Penny did not kill Neely. Is Neely still alive somewhere, laughing at all of us? Or was it just a surprising coincidence that Neely died after a physical struggle and being held in a chokehold?

I would like to know more about this "actual evidence" people are talking about.

[ken_sylvania]

As far as I can tell, Dr. Chundru attributed Neely's death to a combination of factors, and the struggle was one of them. Without the struggle, I think even defense witness Chundru's testimony implies that Neely would be alive today. If you object to the word "killing", how are you defining the term? I'm used to the "but for" test - Would Person B have survived but for Person A's actions? If you define "killing" differently, could you please share the definition you are using?

In my world, if you do something to another person and it results in that person's death, that's called killing. The jury said Penny is not guilty of any criminal charges, but I have been unable to find anything to suggest that Neely's death was just a coincidence and was not caused by what Penny did.

Using those definitions, would you say it is reasonable to conclude that the synthetic marijuana in Neely's system may have been what killed him? Would you say Neely's struggle against restraint is what killed him?

Do I think Penny probably killed Neely? Yes, I do, but I don't think he intended to do so and I think the jury had good reason to conclude that Penny's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. I really don't think Neely would have died if he hadn't been dosed up with K2 and schizophrenic, and fighting Penny's restraint as a result.

[ken_sylvania]

Also, could you all please stop making the false claim that all I did was read a NYT article? I have not been making false claims about you all, and I have already clarified this. If you REALLY believe that I don't generally read multiple sources ... I'm not sure who you think you have been talking to.

I suppose I could - but first of all I would have to start making that claim. Are you sure you want me to do that?

In the mean time, would you please stop beating your wife.

I was responding to this:

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.

That's what I figured. And in that post Robert doesn't begin to accuse you of only reading a NYT article. Furthermore, "you all" is a plural form, meaning you were asking all of us to stop making a claim that none of us made.

[Robert]

As far as I can tell, Dr. Chundru attributed Neely's death to a combination of factors, and the struggle was one of them.

A doctor can attempt to help a person with a medical procedure. The patient can die. The doctor did not kill the patient. Penny's testimony was his intent was restraint. It was not to bring harm to the person. Police found Neely still alive when they arrived. Two other people were restraining Neely. One hispanic and one black. BLM and others like them want to use this as a power tool but there is no racial component. Left wing media want to make it sound as Penny killed him. Neely put himself in a situation that resulted in his death. Most of the blame is Neely and our resistance to house/detain mentally disturbed people.

In my world, if you do something to another person and it results in that person's death, that's called killing.

Nuance, intent and wording does matter when we start throwing around claims of killing.

[JohnH]

A good question is what should happen when a violent person on drugs starts flipping out on the subway… particularly when the weak and innocent like women and children are in danger

In my own life my solution was “drive a car and rent a parking spot”. It got stressful facing one of these situations every few weeks. For an example, some of these crazy people think you looked at them and then will come over and scream at you and start threatening you, like they are trying to start a fight

Complaining about Penny seems like looking at the wrong problem. Deranged people on drugs should not be in public transportation

[temporal1]

.. Deranged people on drugs should not be in public.

My 17 year old granddaughter and her peers know no other life than one peppered with people (at least drunk on alcohol) vomiting, urinating, begging in public. Expecting fentynal dust on very nice public transportation (as transportation entities report).

i’ve seen my granddaughter as a young child refuse to eat because of scenes like this - all in the nicest Seattle suburbs.
She was physically ill from the depravity. (i told my daughter i was glad she’s not numb to it.) The schools literally teach and warn young students about what to watch for, in school and in public.

Last week i was doing a little daytime shopping in small town Midwest, a woman who appeared quite inebriated begged for money in the store. A bit later, she begged again in the checkout lane - not recognizing me.

There are serious problems. His name is not Daniel Penny.

Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties
Making criminal threats comes with serious consequences, even if you didn't plan to carry out the threat.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/c ... hreats.htm

- - - - - - -

My lively young conservative virtual friends react to the verdict:
i believe they are college graduates. they believe they are Christians.

CartierFamily / BLM ERUPTS After Daniel Penny Walks Free — NOT GUILTY!! / 24min

[Bootstrap]

Complaining about Penny seems like looking at the wrong problem. Deranged people on drugs should not be in public transportation.

Aren't there two problems here? Neely is now dead. I think that's a problem too.

I don't think Penny intended to kill Neely, but too many people are dying due to chokeholds - Neely, George Floyd, Eric Garner, Elijah McClain, Manual Ellis ... at the very least, people who teach these chokeholds need to be teaching people how to avoid killing others.

Some people are mentally ill. Some people are on drugs. That can be unnerving - but often, it is not dangerous. Should it be a death sentence?

A good question is what should happen when a violent person on drugs starts flipping out on the subway… particularly when the weak and innocent like women and children are in danger

In my own life my solution was “drive a car and rent a parking spot”. It got stressful facing one of these situations every few weeks. For an example, some of these crazy people think you looked at them and then will come over and scream at you and start threatening you, like they are trying to start a fight

If Neely had a trial, the jury would have concluded the obvious: Yelling is not violence. Being on drugs is not violence. Instead of getting a trial, Neely was killed. Penny got a trial.

A chokehold is, in fact, violence. And killing is, in fact, killing. Doing that because you think someone might be trying to start a fight probably isn't the best move. The jury decided there was nothing criminal about this, but still ... and for us, maybe the better question is this: what would we, as nonresistant Christians, do in the same situation?

[Bootstrap]

In my world, if you do something to another person and it results in that person's death, that's called killing.

Nuance, intent and wording does matter when we start throwing around claims of killing.

Really? "Killing" is so nuanced that it's hard to define? Some things really aren't all THAT complicated. Do you have a nuanced definition of killing you would like to share?

If a policeman shoots someone who is threatening someone else, he has killed that person. He has probably just done his job, but he did kill someone.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Chundru attributed Neely's death to a combination of factors, and the struggle was one of them.

A doctor can attempt to help a person with a medical procedure. The patient can die. The doctor did not kill the patient.

Sometimes a doctor DOES kill the patient. That's different from a failure to save the patient. And it's not always a legal liability. But it is killing. This is, I think, the way the word is normally used.

Penny's testimony was his intent was restraint. It was not to bring harm to the person.

I agree with this. But it doesn't mean that Penny did not kill Neely. Seriously, "killing" is not that hard to define. Words like "murder", "homicide", "manslaughter", "negligent", etc. are much more nuanced.

Police found Neely still alive when they arrived. Two other people were restraining Neely. One hispanic and one black. BLM and others like them want to use this as a power tool but there is no racial component. Left wing media want to make it sound as Penny killed him. Neely put himself in a situation that resulted in his death. Most of the blame is Neely and our resistance to house/detain mentally disturbed people.

This has been politicized beyond the pale across the board. Right wing media has certainly done this too.

Blaming Neely for his own death, to me, seems wrong. If Neely had killed Penny, would you say it was Penny's fault? After all, Neely was not physically threatening anyone. I don't think Penny should have been found guilty, but I don't think Neely should have been killed either.