Daniel Penny’s defense fund over $1M after manslaughter charge in Jordan Neely subway death

I am trying to be apolitical here for this discussion. Do you guys not see what is going on out there? You have guys beating women for their purse, people getting jumped everywhere, Shootings by road raggers, unfettered shoplifting, just pay a little attention to what we see on local and a national news every day and it puts you in a mind frame that I will not be a victim. You can either fight or flee and considering guys like Neely are the aggressor, you can wait for him to have the upper hand on you or take control yourself. Doesn't mean you walk around looking for conflict, it means you should be more aware of your surroundings and when something is going south you can choose to stay and be the victim, flee, or become the aggressor and try to control the situation. None of us know for sure, unless you have been in that situation, how we will respond, but waiting for the criminal to control the situation you can't get out of, some of us are going to try and react first. I was told by a very smart mentor that once your personal space has been violated you are already in a fight, and when you don't know the attacker or their intentions, assume they intend to inflict body harm to you and there are no rules in fighting.
If you choose to be a victim, go right ahead, but don't make the rest of us have to be victims also.

 

Just stop.
Everyone is saying no danger and showing HS pics. Predictable
My single point is Penny’s perception would have been accurate and backed up in instance after instance. Has nobody here been robbed on the subway or accosted by the mentally ill?
Penny is guilty of holding too long, or that is the perception right now.
Ideologues and zealots are always bad

 

Perception is for zealots and fascists, where "right" action matters more than law or ethics, or ends justify means. We supposedly live in a country where there is a presumption of innocence and even cops cant arrest or detain someone who has yet to act on whatever criminal intentions they may possess, even if they have a prior record. Why should a civilian be less restrained than a cop?

 

Speaking only for myself I have been accosted by persons that I assumed were homeless and displayed obvious mental problems (almost always aggressive panhandlers). Although rather unpleasant and I wished that they would go away I never felt physically threatened.

 

No situation is exactly the same, and I am keeping an open mind about the facts here. But there's a continuum between getting jumped and seeing shoplifting. With the former, an attack is under way, and you do what you have to do in order to defend yourself or others, and hopefully the amount of force used is proportional. I wouldn't risk my own life or risk maiming or killing someone else over shoplifting. I also have no interest in getting arrested or sued.

Yes, we should all be aware of our surroundings and shouldn't be victims. But I think there's a risk of otherwise rational people binge watching the news and violent videos online and getting amped up only to unleash their pent-up anger in situations where there might have been other options.

 

Under your doctrine of preventative defense, I assume that a woman, walking down a dark street, being followed by a man who's making vulgar and suggestive comments, is justified in turning around and shooting the guy. Waiting might mean raping. She's got the right to walk the streets safely, right?

 

Yeah, I by no means think Penny is a bad person, but I'm not sure how good this looks for him in court.

You say it's "obvious" he used deadly force. I would guess that would be the primary issue in trial.

Now, I'm biased as a big fan of martial arts. I think chokeholds are done all the time and nobody dies, especially when the guy performing the hold knows what he's doing, but in the current climate, there's going to be inevitable associations with George Floyd, fair or unfair. So I think a New York jury would most likely find that this is deadly force.

And if that's the case, he better be able to prove Neely was threatening deadly force or he's in trouble.

 

I will say this: New York has a real policy problem on its hands.

On one hand, it's the wild west down in the subways.

On the other, if someone finds a way of keeping the peace down there, they're running the risk of feeling the wrath of the state.

 

Is he just catcalling or is he about to rape/assault her?

If the latter, she should definitely have the right to use deadly force if her belief that she was about to be raped or seriously assaulted was reasonable.

That's just my opinion, not the law.

 

If you were being apolitical you’d write something like this:

“Although NYC has one of the lowest crime rates of the major US cities, and although national crime rates hover around historically low, they seem much worse due to the news cycle.”

Then apolitically you could have added:

“I wasn’t there but when someone dies there should be an investigation and we will see what law enforcement think once they have the details and what the Justice department decides”.

 

The reason why I suggested it was obvious Penny used deadly force is because of how New York defines it. Should Penny go to trial, this is the definition the judge will read to the jury immediately before they begin their deliberations. Right out of NY's standard jury instructions::

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.

There is likely another instruction similar to this one. This is the LAST instruction a criminal jury gets in Florida immediately prior to deliberating:

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For more than two centuries we have lived by the constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

 

It's interesting but this thread has made me think back over my lifetime.....I have been in 3 fights in my life and all 3 I was standing up for somebody elses rights not my own. The first I have to admit I really should not have gotten involved in. It was my sophomore year in HS. One of the hoods (what we used to call the greasers who walked around wearing leather jackets and acting tough) butted in the lunch line. Then he started pushing people around asking who was going to stop him. I took up the challenge, I probably got my ass beat, I know he landed more punches. We both came out bruised up a bit. The second one I stopped a guy who was beating up on his woman in a bar parking lot. I threw a wrestling hold on him then sent my wife to get the cops. When the cops showed up we both went to jail for the night. I was charged with disorderly conduct but the charges were dropped the next morning when witnesses told the judge what had happened. In the 3rd one I was at a party talking to a young lady when her boyfriend came in. I wasn't with her, just talking, he took it as something going on and grabbed her shirt and ripped it open. Once again I came to the rescue. I had no intention of hurting him I just picked him up in a wrestling takedown and carried him to the front door where I intended to throw him out and lock the door. Problem was as I slung him out the door I tripped over the threshold and landed with the full weight of my body on his head. Needless to say he ended up with an ambulance ride and a few stitches in his chin. I'm not sure why I didn't go to jail that night, guess there were enough people speaking up in my behalf.

 

I’m not a psychologist but I feel like I should be one. My reasonable working assumption is writ large these are people who feel impotent. Life passing them by, everyone else getting there’s but not them. They were never happy people. These people could never be a vigilante because of aforementioned issues but live vicariously through them and imagine they could hurt those they dislike in a similar manner. It’s also why they open carry.

Prove me wrong

 

How can one know another's intentions? According to Penny's supporters, fear of possible violence is sufficient to justify a preemptive response. Most women can't put most men in a headlock, so they have to skip right to a gun. The NRA will be so happy!

 

We have to judge these on a case by case basis.

If we're judging by this case, New York has basically stopped prosecuting minor crimes. A guy like Neely can assault people and even if the police got him, he'd be out in a couple days. So you're left with a real safety problem on the subways and one of these times, somebody actually did something about it to protect others on the subway, and an unfortunate outcome resulted.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, most conservatives I know think he shouldn't have been there in the first place. He was wrong on that end, but once people were chasing him and threatening him, some of those people were carrying guns, he was running away until they caught up to him, he had a right to defend himself.

 

I don't have a problem with this, it's very close to a statement of Florida's law.

Florida's use of force statute:

76.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Sexual battery, Florida's term for rape, is an enumerated "forcible felony."

The emphasis, of course, is the reasonableness of the belief. While she doesn't have to wait until her underwear is being torn off, she can't blast away simply because she's being followed by some guy.

 

The law uses reasonableness standards incredibly commonly.

I don't know why you're complaining about this. Shouldn't you be happy women have the opportunity to have a great equalizer in the event a rapist attacks them?

 

These are very fact intensive. Penny's problem is that unless Neely was armed or creating a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, Penny was only at most authorized to use reasonable, non-lethal force. For example, in Florida you can kill your burglar, but you can only use reasonable, non deadly force on your trespasser.

Back to your example, mere words probably wouldn't create a reasonable fear. Couple those words with the guy unzipping his pants, producing a weapon or trying to grab her, I think most would conclude her fear was reasonable.

 

Who said I'm complaining? I'm thrilled, even more so for victims of domestic violence.

 

I feel impotent........
Oh I'm sorry you said impotent....I thought you said important.