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

This post is a lie as you did not answer what he was going to do to them specifically (a question about the future). The point is that you are speculating as to what would happen in the future, because you don't know as he was killed instead. Again, I am happy to discuss issues with anybody capable of discussing them without insulting others. If you get to that point, let me know.

 

Another passenger to Penny at the 33 second mark:

"You're gonna kill him now!"

 

Did the situation require deadly force? Yes or no.

 

I defended the individual who did not go out looking for violence. I defended the individual who didn’t have an array record that included attempted kidnapping of a minor and abuse of women. Will I admit I was wrong… that depends on the evidence. So far everyone who was on that subway says Penny acted as a hero and are thankful for him doing so.
But if evidence points that he purposefully killed a helpless man then I will admit I am wrong.
If he is acquitted will you admit he was in the right to act the way he did?

 

Not a lot of context there. Random guy saying something random.. Penny didn’t say he was going to kill Neely, Penny didn’t threaten Neely.
Do you think Penny should have just sat there and done kothing while Neely threatened people on the subway?

 

When one is threatening violence against others then violence is what is expected. Deadly force was not the intent but the outcome. Neely started on the path to violence, threatened others and brought violence to himself.
Do you believe any of this happens if Neely sits calmly on the subway and isn’t acting as a threat?

 

LOL. You got caught in a lie and you can’t admit you were wrong. I’ll tell you what I tell my teens; it’s better to admit you lied. You will fee better about yourself and not have to keep trying to lie.

Everyone here can see the posts of you lying. Just take the L like a champ. It’s ok, you’re bound to be right about something soon…

 

And that's why it's manslaughter instead or murder.

 

Acquitted does not address whether he was morally right in our system. However, convicted is supposed to do the reverse. That is the point of a system in which you are "innocent until proven guilty."

And no, not everyone on that subway has said that.

An Eyewitness to Jordan Neely’s Death

The fact that it wasn't premeditated is why the charge is not murder.

 

And that's why it's manslaughter, not murder.

 

Fair enough..
Was he morally right to standup to someone threatening violence in an enclosed subway car? I as he morally right to protect others from that threat of violence?
Or would he have been morally right to sit by and do nothing and hope for the best?

 

Depends on what he did to protect them, in my opinion. If he simply restrained him in a non-life threatening fashion, I think he would have been justified. The guy had serious mental health issues. It is reasonable to restrain him. If he instead walked up and shot the guy in cold blood, no he would not be morally right to do that. This is between those circumstance, but he used deadly force. So I think it is reasonable to charge him with doing so and let the facts dictate whether he was purposefully using deadly force (which I think is going to be hard to argue against given his background and the length of time he applied the hold) and whether that was a situation that required deadly force rather than either non-deadly force, getting a police officer, or some other sort of intervention.

 

No. Penny had the right to use reasonable, non deadly force if Neely was physically threatening other passengers to prevent that from happening. He had no right to use deadly force. This is based on zero reporting Neely was armed with a weapon.

If Penny had said he was going to kill Neely he would be charged with murder, not manslaughter.

 

Your response is well thought out and measured. We have slightly different view points and takes, but that is normal.
My issues are with those painting this as a cold blooded murder. I will say this
If my wife or daughter or mother had been in that car, knowing how fast violence can happen, I would want a capable man to step forward and protect them. Do I think Neely needed to die? No. Do I think Penny meant to kill him .. no. But when Neely start acting irrationally, started making threats, he brought violence to the situation. That violence turned against him. It was of his own doing. I feel for him and wish he had been able to get help much sooner.. but he wasn’t not a good man, he was violent and he threatened violence. The outcome is on him in my opinion.

 

I want to hear the testimony and evidence.

If Neely was only ranting or even making verbal threats without touching anybody, does that give everyone around the right to try to take him out?

I don’t think Penny meant to kill him, which is probably why it’s a manslaughter charge and not murder. I could see him being found criminally negligent or reckless.

One concern I have with the promotion of physical force in response to verbal abuse or threats is the escalation, where both sides can then say they had an imminent fear for their life.

Also, we live in a culture where many people carry mace, knives, or guns, making any escalation even more dangerous - not only for those using force but also for everyone else around. It becomes a sort of prisoners’ dilemma incentivizing each party to escalate more quickly and severely than the the other.

 

If Penny had punched him and his head hit a protruding bolt.. would that have been lethal force? If Penny had hit him in the chest and stopped his heart would that have been deadly force. Deadly force was not the intent. Penny, in my opinion acted in a way to subdue an irrational violent passenger that was making threats. He did not know whether or not Neely was armed, he did not know what Neely was capable of so he he held him is a restraining hold. If Neely had not threatened violence, if he had left the other passengers alone, if he had not introduced the element of violence, life threatening violence, he would not have had it used on him.
We will see what a jury decides but as I said early, if my wife mother or daughter had been on that subway.. I’d want someone to protect them.

 

You do realize Mr Neely had an outstanding warrant out on him for breaking the nose of a 67 year old woman? This is the kind of individual we are talking about. Mental or not he needed to be taken off the street and apparently with 42 prior arrests the system was doing nothing to protect the public....way to go New York.

 

Whether it was intent or not, it was a reasonable inference of leaving a choke hold on for that length of time. And, given his training, it will be hard to argue that he just didn't know that. The other two instances you listed were clearly accidents that would not be expected outcomes of either action (although theoretically possible). Put it this way, if I apply a choke hold on 100 people like he did, how many would be alive at the end. Now, I punch a person or hit them in the chest with my hands, how many would be alive? I suspect the numbers would be substantially different enough to show the issue here.

 

I understand where you are coming from. In this instance though there was no way to retreat, no way to remove oneself from the threat. To wait on the action of violence would have been foolish at best and deadly at the worst. It was an enclosed subway car.
When one makes threats against another human being it is the right of the threatened to believe the threat and take it seriously. As for escalation… I agree it is a danger. But this wasn’t two people in an argument or disagreements . It was one person threatening violence to a captive group of innocent bystanders.
Neely brought the threat of violence to the situation. He introduced violence where there should have been none. The violence resulted in his death.
As far as I know he did not have a weapon. Neither did Penny.