Penny speaks out

Whether or not Penny was motivated by race when he attacked Neely, it's a virtual certainty that the total contributions to Penny's defense fund would have been far lower had Neely been white and would have been minuscule had Penny been black and Neely been white.

 

And the fact that that it may have been accidental is the reason that Penny has been charged with manslaughter rather than murder.

 

If Penny had told Neely that I know you’re hungry, let me buy you a meal, and if Neely choked to death on his food, I would say that Penny did nothing wrong. Penny ultimately might be found to have done nothing wrong, but he took the inhumane course of action.

 

In this scenario the story would be buried on page 22.

 

The element of race has certainly clouded the issue, as it often does. It may have played a role in Penny's actions, but it may not have. And it's a shame that it's become the focus.

It's also a shame that he is being called a hero.

 

Interesting rehashing this one from a few years back given this current situation.

 

I think that could cut both ways though. If the defense's argument will be that Penny had to maintain the choke hold because he feared that Neely would hurt him if he loosened the hold or let him up, it could also be argued that any threat Neely still posed was significantly mitigated at least by the time the two other men got involved.

 

Actually if the races were reversed no one would've even heard about this story since it doesn't fit the left's narrative of white people bad. Simple as that.

 

He was found responsible for the deaths by a jury of his peers.

 

As far as the racial aspect goes, Penny doesn't have to be White supremacist for people to have concerns about whether subconscious racial biases might affect the degree of or duration of the use of force. I think this is something that many parents of Black boys and Black men fear, particularly when mental health problems exist. It's worth pointing out that according to this study at least, Black participants shared some of the racial biases (not all) of the participants as a whole.

People see Black men as larger, more threatening than same-sized White men

WASHINGTON — People have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.


“Unarmed black men are disproportionately more likely to be shot and killed by police, and often these killings are accompanied by explanations that cite the physical size of the person shot,” said lead author John Paul Wilson, PhD, of Montclair State University. “Our research suggests that these descriptions may reflect stereotypes of black males that do not seem to comport with reality.”


Wilson and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving more than 950 online participants (all from the United States) in which people were shown a series of color photographs of white and black male faces of individuals who were all of equal height and weight. The participants were then asked to estimate the height, weight, strength and overall muscularity of the men pictured.


“We found that these estimates were consistently biased. Participants judged the black men to be larger, stronger and more muscular than the white men, even though they were actually the same size,” said Wilson. “Participants also believed that the black men were more capable of causing harm in a hypothetical altercation and, troublingly, that police would be more justified in using force to subdue them, even if the men were unarmed.”

 

I would never let a client be interviewed that was facing criminal charges. The only possible rationale would be to sway public opinion, but it's a very risky tactic.

You are glossing over the force used to restrain Neely. Assuming for these purposes there was sufficient cause to physically restrain him, there are many non-lethal holds one could use to do so....just watch college wrestling. Another passenger had secured both of Neely's hands. The particular hold he chose to apply cuts of blood to the brain. NY has outlawed it's use by law enforcement officers, federal law enforcement officers are prohibited from using it to restrain a suspect "unless deadly force is authorized."
https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/at...straint_knock_and_announce_policy_final_0.pdf

Forget for a moment what you believe to be "deadly force" as it doesn't matter. What matters is how New York defines it. I've posted this before, but here it is again:
"DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury."

It is hard to argue that Penny did not use deadly force as defined. It sure was readily capable of causing Neely's death as it was used.

So the issue for you to sort out when coming to your preliminary conclusions is whether or not Neely's actions justified the use of deadly force against him.

 

Even if it were legally relevant to the criminal case, which I doubt it is, I'm not sure how it would be possible to prove both that any subconscious bias existed and that it made the difference with respect to a particular series of events. But I do think it's an important area to consider between the extreme alternatives that are often presented.

 

That is true. That is also arguably a reaction to the disproportionate rousing, mostly from the political left, to cast another “bad white guy” story. Let’s not forget that the initial judgment of police was not to recommend charges against Penny after interviewing him, witnesses, and reviewing the full tape (which I still not have seen yet). Then the worst nine seconds of a (supposedly) 15-minute tape went viral, and politicians tipped in with narratives about a sweet Michael Jackson impersonator who was killed for riding the subway “while being black” and maybe (just maybe) annoying people by stating politely that he was hungry. Excoriating language demonizing the accused as a racist villain followed (absent any evidence of that) along with demands for criminal charges, which only then happened. I’m not contributing to this guy’s defense fund, but I can certainly see how others might view the above as stacking the deck unfairly against the accused and wanting to balance the scales with decent legal representation.

 

I don’t think he intended to kill that crazy dude but he did kill him and there are consequences for that.

 

He killed somebody. He could have bought him a meal instead.

 

Few questions, and I understand we're talking about manslaughter in this case and not murder.

Is deadly physical force defined only objectively or is there a subjective component (what the defendant may have thought or believed)?

Are there degrees or is it more binary?

For example, would a prolonged choke be evaluated the same as shooting someone? I would think shooting someone would be more likely to result in death, but the details might matter (e.g., how long the choke is held). Here, if Penny had shot Neely as opposed to choking him, would that make a practical difference for the defense arguments? Could the prosecutor argue that a gun was a greater escalation vis a vis the degree of the threat? Or is all deadly force kinda lumped in together?

As another comparison, I would imagine that a choke would be more likely to cause death than throwing punches. Though, even with punches, people have died, so I wouldn't say death is unforseeable there. But I definitely wouldn't consider one or even multiple punches to constitute the use of deadly force. Maybe with a professional fighter punching a toddler, but that also gets pretty factually-specific.

 

The facts might end up being as simple as that. I don’t know yet. However, I have biases like any other human being, and my instinct is that the accused was not presented with the same binary “choose your own adventure” choice you describe.

 

You keep saying this. It may be true but that's a pretty generic statement. An overwhelming majority of the homeless I interact with are pretty harmless. I have a pretty lengthy history interacting with them. I don't expect average people with little actual interaction with homeless to feel comfortable or interpret behavior from sometimes disturbed individuals as well as someone like myself. I'm not an expert, psychologist or social worker but again, I have so much experience that I generally feel comfortable reading behavior.

With that said, not every hungry homeless person is harmless. I've seen a hungry homeless person stab someone with a 3 prong gardening tool behind the ear embedding it in their head. I've seen another strip naked and chase someone while having some sort of breakdown likely fueled by some synthetic substance.

The truth will come out, hopefully, as to how aggressive Neely was and if it warranted any intervention at all. Penny doesn't get a free pass regardless but I'm not oversimplifying a situation I know so little about at this time.