Did Donald Trump pay you to say that? And so what if it’s difficult no evidence exist that it can’t be done. Media has an obligation to print the known facts.
but, if all the media did was present the facts of a case, people are gonna speculate anyway. IMO, there are few things more inhuman & anti basic human nature than to ask people not to draw conclusions given the info they have no matter how imperfect & incomplete. Lawyers know this & need to counter as best they can. Having said that, I agree with your pt. think about the human mind. We'd probably be extinct if we did not quickly draw conclusions with the avail info. Oh, & btw, you & EVERYONE else insta speculates. All those people who say wait for the facts, they too have speculated given the avail info. You can't not do it. I bet there are brain scan studies that prove it. If somehow ALL the facts were going to come out, it seems dumb to have trails. But, juries have to speculate given the avail info at the trial. Many times lots of facts come in after the trial.
Reading that article, I found some of the shit he said disturbing: “I’m deeply saddened by the loss of life,” he said ” It’s tragic what happened to him. Hopefully, we can change the system that’s so desperately failed us.” You're the guy who choked him to death. Stop talking in passive voice. How are you going to blame "the system"? And then he followed that up with this: Does he feel he did anything to be ashamed of? “I don’t, I mean, I always do what I think is right.” So you say it's tragic, but also simultaneously claim that you should not be ashamed of strangling him to death and did the right thing. Yeah, f this dude. I get that he's going to have a trial and can't say anything that hurts his case, but I'd at least have some empathy for him if he said, "I feel terrible that he died. I did not mean to kill him. That was not my intent. It was a tragic mistake in a tough situation where I made a split-second call." But he can spare me the talking out of both sides of his mouth. That just makes me distrust him.
I get your point, but you are reaching to make this a debate. It is inevitable that we will jump to conclusions, usually given pre-conceived biases. That’s natural. What I’m reacting to in this case, or anything that starts to look like a social Justice case, in form or substance, you get immediate judgment, regardless of fact set, and immediate condemnation of anybody who doesn’t share the same moral outrage. In some circles the moral outrage signaling is more important than the actual facts. A completely different example where moral outrage and signaling was more important than actual facts to some involved. How Naming the James Webb Telescope Turned Into a Fight Over Homophobia
He has been advised by an attorney to speak in generalities and not say anything to incriminate himself. You know this better than I, yet you still can’t pass an opportunity to signal your moral outrage.
Get off it, dude. He can opt not to answer these questions citing his trial. It's the perfect get-out-jail-free card to any question he doesn't want to answer. He chose to give these disingenuous answers. I'm going to express my "moral outrage" at the guy strangling a homeless man, calling it a "tragedy," then disclaiming any responsibility, and saying he's not ashamed of what he did. You created the thread. You invited the discussion. Spare me the bullshit.
Is there any sequence of events that preceded the chokehold where you would come to the conclusion Penny is not guilty, at least from a legal perspective? If Neely was violent? If he grabbed Penny or somebody else? If he made specific threats of harm to Penny or somebody else?
Again, more virtue signaling. You (ought ) to know as well as anyone winning the court of public opinion is half the battle. “No comment” sounds guilty. So he throws out some generic platitudes that don’t incriminate him.
you are right & I did move the goalposts. I was more thinking about me, you & peeps at large speculating. Centralized, coordinated & agenda driven speculation that is then consumed by the public, certainly can create harm (&, in many cases good too). In those cases, it just becomes a form of propaganda.
The reasonable response is no comment. That’s what a good lawyer would tell him, he’s not going to win public opinion wit that..
I'm sure that some of you have paid more attention to the case than I have ... but in my peripheral following, I never got a sense that he was a white supremacist. Just that he overreacted and held a choke hold on for far too long.
If Neely pulled a weapon and started to make a move or physically attacked another passenger, yes. If Penny had warned him, subdued him, and let him go without killing him, I could even see it as justified. But he used deadly force in a situation where there have been no facts reported evidencing that he had just cause to do so. Oh look, you're doing more virtue signaling. He doesn't have to say "no comment." He can say, "Sorry, my attorneys told me I can't go into that due to the pending charges. Those questions will be answered at trial." Dude tried to eat his cake and have it too. I found it entirely disingenuous. "Neely's death is tragic, but it's not my fault. And I'm not ashamed that I killed him." There's nothing honest about those contradictory stances.
So as a lawyer, you think Penny in public should announce he is ashamed of killing Neely? As to not letting go of the choke hold - it seems to me the real issue was whether Penny restraining him was warranted. If it was, you can argue that as long as Penny is resisting he is still a threat.
I'm only sending my client out to do press, even a puff piece like this, if we've settled on our version of events, drilled them down, and I have some sort of strategy for beating the other side to the punch (by changing or setting the narrative). This accomplished neither imo.
It's a strategic decision. Is our argument that this was a tragic mistake and my client wasn't trying to use deadly force, or is our argument that deadly force is warranted under the circumstances? If it's the former, you can talk about regret. If it's the latter, you need to paint Neely as the bad guy. They seemed to pick some sort of middle road instead of committing to a lane (Neely's death is tragic, but I was in the right!), and it comes off as disingenuous. The questions are whether Penny used deadly force and whether he was allowed to use deadly force in that situation. The answers imo are yes and no. Does that mean he spends the next 60 years in prison? No. Assuming he doesn't have awful stuff in his background (violence), I'd show the guy some mercy with his sentence.
The lack of blood or air often leads to unconsciousness or even death if the hold is maintained. Chokeholds are used in martial arts, combat sports, self-defense, law enforcement and in military hand to hand combat applications. They are considered superior to brute-force manual strangling, which generally requires a large disparity in physical strength to be effective.[4] Rather than using the fingers or arms to attempt to crush the neck, chokeholds effectively use leverage such as figure-four holds or collar holds that use the clothes to assist in the constriction. Wiki If Penny was 'trained' to use the 'chokehold', then he should have known the time limits for this restraining technique. More than 3-5 minutes can cause brain injury and or death. Was his intent to restrain or kill?
Speaking as somewhat of a sympathizer for Penny at the moment, about the only way I agree with him getting any leniency is if it were proven that Penny let up on his hold periodically only to reapply it due to Neelys continued threats and resistance. I also don't think it is as simple as the question you asked. Was it his intent to kill or restrain? Was it his intent to restrain and he over did it due to the stress of the moment? Was it his intent to restrain and then he snapped and let rage take over at which time he knew he could kill him but didn't care or actually intended to? Murder at that point. In moat every scenario I still agree with the manslaughter charge i just dont believe at this time that Penny was doing anything other than trying to help and screwed up.
I agree, the resulting death may have been accidental. While trained in the chokehold maneuver a percentage may fail to recognize thresholds in the heat of the moment. The outcome remains tragic.
Questions about chokeholds aside, I think one could be forgiven for thinking THIS trial has less to do with the limits of self-defense than the fact that a white man killed a black man.
