Daniel Penny

[ken_sylvania]

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.

#1 - If Neely had had a trial, the jury could very well have concluded the obvious: that Neely was guilty of the crime of menacing, which falls under the category of assault in New York. Yelling is violence. Being on drugs often causes a person to behave violently.

#2 - I can't help but wonder what happens if you apply the same logic to the Jan. 6th protestors. Only a handful of the Jan 6ers committed any kind of violence. None of them killed anybody or put anybody in a chokehold. There was, to be sure, a police officer who apparently shot and killed a woman who was according to your definition not committing violence. If it's not a good idea to subdue someone who is trying to start a fight by putting them in a chokehold, how do you feel about a man who shoots a person someone at point blank range (with intent to kill) just because he thinks they might climb through a window?

[Bootstrap]

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.

#1 - If Neely had had a trial, the jury could very well have concluded the obvious: that Neely was guilty of the crime of menacing, which falls under the category of assault in New York. Yelling is violence. Being on drugs often causes a person to behave violently.

I don't think this is accurate. Yelling is clearly "disorderly conduct" in New York City:

https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._pe ... ion_240.20

In New York, disorderly conduct is classified as a violation, which is less severe than a misdemeanor.

There is a crime called "menacing", which has various degrees, like some other violent crimes. In NYC, here are the definitions:

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/P3THA120

Yelling does not qualify. Third degree menacing and second degree menacing are both misdemeanors. First degree menacing involves people who menace police officers.

[JohnH]

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?

Using illegal drugs is a death sentence. The solution is to not use illegal drugs. They frequently kill people, and it’s entirely the fault of the drug user.

There is no excuse to be hooked on pain pills, fentanyl, or any other manner of drugs to get a “high”

The way to save Neely’s life, was for him to get help to get off drugs and then law enforcement keeping these drugs off the streets

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.

Neely wasn’t executed. He did however forfeit his life when he used dangerous drugs that often lead to the death of the user. Notably the cops refused to perform lifesaving measures due to concern about getting Hepatitis from him

Being on drugs that make you violent and start threatening other passengers… that is in fact violence

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?

Was Penny a nonresistant Christian?

I told you my solution: get a car and avoid public transportation - I don’t want to get involved in fights or watch helplessly as innocent people are hurt or killed by violent maniacs on drugs.

[Bootstrap]

#2 - I can't help but wonder what happens if you apply the same logic to the Jan. 6th protestors. Only a handful of the Jan 6ers committed any kind of violence. None of them killed anybody or put anybody in a chokehold. There was, to be sure, a police officer who apparently shot and killed a woman who was according to your definition not committing violence. If it's not a good idea to subdue someone who is trying to start a fight by putting them in a chokehold, how do you feel about a man who shoots a person someone at point blank range (with intent to kill) just because he thinks they might climb through a window?

It's telling that this always comes back to the most politically polarized examples people can come up with, isn't it?

Clearly, if the only reason for shooting is a concern that someone might climb through a window, that would not be OK, and the police officer would face consequences. In this case, the Capital Police investigated and concluded this:

https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press ... hatgpt.com

USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer's conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.

Daniel Penny was not acting as an officer, and presumably had less training. If he had the same level of training and the same responsibility, a jury might have reached a different conclusion.

[JohnL]

#1 - If Neely had had a trial, the jury could very well have concluded the obvious: that Neely was guilty of the crime of menacing, which falls under the category of assault in New York. Yelling is violence. Being on drugs often causes a person to behave violently.

#2 - I can't help but wonder what happens if you apply the same logic to the Jan. 6th protestors. Only a handful of the Jan 6ers committed any kind of violence. None of them killed anybody or put anybody in a chokehold. There was, to be sure, a police officer who apparently shot and killed a woman who was according to your definition not committing violence. If it's not a good idea to subdue someone who is trying to start a fight by putting them in a chokehold, how do you feel about a man who shoots a person someone at point blank range (with intent to kill) just because he thinks they might climb through a window?

I agree. There's a lot of totalitarian Double Think and Double Speak coming out of the liberal politicians' mouths.

[Bootstrap]

I agree. There's a lot of totalitarian Double Think and Double Speak coming out of the liberal politicians' mouths.

But not just liberal politicians. If we aren't doing Doublespeak, words like "kill" are straightforward. When we can no longer speak plainly about such a simple concept, that is concerning. Orwell was right about that.

I think we are going in circles though. I have said what I have to say in this thread.

[R7ehr]

Silence is violence. At least that’s what I’ve been forced to hear.

[ken_sylvania]

#2 - I can't help but wonder what happens if you apply the same logic to the Jan. 6th protestors. Only a handful of the Jan 6ers committed any kind of violence. None of them killed anybody or put anybody in a chokehold. There was, to be sure, a police officer who apparently shot and killed a woman who was according to your definition not committing violence. If it's not a good idea to subdue someone who is trying to start a fight by putting them in a chokehold, how do you feel about a man who shoots a person someone at point blank range (with intent to kill) just because he thinks they might climb through a window?

It's telling that this always comes back to the most politically polarized examples people can come up with, isn't it?

Can you explain what you mean by that? What does it tell? Are you accusing me of something?

I don't think the shooting of Ms. Babbitt was politically motivated.

Clearly, if the only reason for shooting is a concern that someone might climb through a window, that would not be OK, and the police officer would face consequences. In this case, the Capital Police investigated and concluded this:

https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press ... hatgpt.com

USCP's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer's conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.

Daniel Penny was not acting as an officer, and presumably had less training. If he had the same level of training and the same responsibility, a jury might have reached a different conclusion.

Of course the USCP determined that the shooting was justified. Anything else would have been career suicide.

It seems that the Penny jury either decided that Penny did not kill Neely, or else that Penny reasonably believed that he was acting in the defense of human life.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I have ridden the NYC subways since the pandemic. If you are ok being confined in a steel tube with someone raving at you and threatening, fine.

Diy you know that multiple people have been killed by these mentally unstable people, mostly by being pushed off of the platform, which is frequently a death sentence. I likely would have ran, but where to? Can I run fast enough?

If I were on a jury, with what I have heard in the media (I read the NYT, hopelessly slanted in this matter) I would have voted not guilty, and hung the jury if necessary. If the prosecution wanted an acquittal , maybe a change of venue to the Hamptons, or upper Hudson valley would work. The problem for the prosecution is the jury UNDERSTOOD what was going on, having ridden the subway themselves.

[mike]

What are the chances Penny loses the civil suit?

https://gothamist.com/news/attention-tu ... hold-trial