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

It is a good thing for all of us that the system doesn't let us individually decide who is worth letting live vs. who isn't but rather utilizes a decision rule in terms of whether there was a deadly threat against others being prevented or not.

 

Says the person complaining about insults.

 

It’s 2 to 3 seconds with a blood choke, not 20 to 30. I have seen some references online that indicate it can take up to 10 seconds, but in my experience that would be in circumstances where the choke is not quite cutting off the circulation. But, as a man who has been choked out in MCMAP, I would challenge anyone who cares to quantify the matter more accurately, go to your local jiu jitsu dojo and asked to be choked out while your Buddy times it. If you can hold out for 10 seconds, I salute you.

 

You simply don't understand the escalation of force issue. You said Neely introduced "life threatening violence". You made that up. He was unarmed. You are also ignoring the statutory duty to retreat.

In sum, you are coming to the conclusion you prefer with no understanding of the applicable law. Don't feel alone, many are doing that.

Sorry, I don't have the inclination to look up your other hypotheticals because they don't matter, they have absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

This is what Neely is charged with:
S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

New York's statutory definion of "recklessly"
3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.

New York's defense of person statute:
Section 35.15 - Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

New York jury instructions definition of deadly force:
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.

 

Makes zero difference legally unless perhaps if Penny knew about it.

 

I wondered about the ability or inability for those scared to get away.

Didn’t this event last more than 15 minutes? Did the subway not stop during that period? I don’t know how frequent stops are. There were certainly others helping at some point, and the timeline is going to matter. Maybe since they had Neely outnumbered, at least at that point Penny could have let him up if they were able to confirm he wasn’t armed - to the extent that was the main fear.

 

It makes “zero difference” legally? That seems hard to believe. I would be very surprised if the judge suppresses the deceased’s violent history, so it’s probably going to come up in court. Your point seems to be that the passengers could not have known about the deceased’s violent history, and point well taken. But they reacted to something (again, fully acknowledge that what that was is not clear yet) that alarmed them to a point to take collective physical action. I’m no lawyer, but I have served on a jury. It doesn’t seem to me to be a great leap of logic that the defense attorneys can easily argue, given the deceased’s documented violent behavior in similar circumstances, that whatever behavior the passengers reacted to was enough for a reasonable person to be in fear. No idea what the accused’s combat record is, if any, but those of us who have served on the ground in combat situations start getting an intangible sense of alarm when things don’t feel right based on indicators of human behavior that are hard to put into words. Policemen I know have described the same thing. In summary, I just don’t see how you can argue the deceased’s record has zero legal relevance. It certainly doesn’t prove that he was about to start hurting people, I agree, but it strongly suggests that the people who reacted physically to whatever his behavior was had not collectively lost their minds.

 

It is not coming in. How can use the dead guy's violent past as a defense or justification for your actions if you were unaware of said past at the time you took those actions? You can't.

 

Gentleman’s bet that it does?

 

To everyone that thinks Penny was legally justified in doing what he did, please answer this.

If Penny was in lawful possession of a firearm, do you think Penny had a LEGAL right to shot and kill Neely under these facts? Y or N?

 

I'll even tell you procedurally how it will happen. The DA's office will file a Motion in Limine to exclude that evidence before trial. A hearing will be held, the judge will grant it and a jury will never hear it. No witness or attorney will ever be able to bring it up. Those motions are extraordinarily common. That changes if Penny knew about Neely's past.

 

I have no idea .. could Neelys past be used to establish a pattern of violent behavior? It wouldn’t be used to justify Pennys actions but could be used to show it was likely Neely acted in such a way as to make the people in the subway car fear or feel threatened?

 

So you're of the opinion that the man who was verbally (but not physically) abusive deserved to die, but the man who actually killed him shouldn't be charged?

 

Blah blah blah…..

3 minutes in a rear naked chokehold by a man who was expertly trained. The victim was unconscious 30 seconds in. It’s stretches credulity to say he had no intent. What did he loose track of time as to how long he was choking an inert human being? If you leap though a lot of hoops you could maybe buy that argument in court but 2nd degree manslaughter is a slam dunk.

 

Kind of soft on crime, don't you think? I mean, a man did die.

 

So killing the man was the only choice?