[W: #644] Grand jury indicts Daniel Penny in NYC subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely: Sources

[mrjurrs]

Grand juries are not a democratic process.

Because no defense is offered?

 

[mrjurrs]

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I were on our way to the Midtown Costco and young guy was swinging a machete walking down the sidewalk. The next day, we took the streetcar (tram) down to the River Market. While we were at the stop waiting for the streetcar, the same guy that was walking down the street (a mile from this spot) swinging a machete rolled up on a skateboard and waited for the streetcar at the same stop. He walked up to a couple and asked the guy why he smelled like gunpowder (the guy didn't smell like anything as far as I could tell).

Anyway, we took streetcar down to the River Market, got some coffee, went to Asian Market and bought some stuff and then walked over to the streetcar stop by the Asian Market. While we were waiting for the streetcar, here comes that same guy. He was carrying some container full of something and swinging some kind of wooden rod in the other hand. He throws the container across the road then sits down a few feet from us holding that wooden rod. Starts talking to himself about how he can't do anything while people are walking around with guns everywhere he goes and smelling like gunpowder. I leaned over and whispered to my wife "This crazy mother****er seems dangerous, let's just walk to the next stop.", and we left.

Had we been on the streetcar and he started freaking, I would imagine someone would have tried to restrain him or something because to be honest, the guy wasn't just crazy, he was scary crazy. My point in all of this, is that none of us were there when this happened, and if we were there, we might have a different opinion about what happened. Daniel Penny is going to get his day in court and he might be found innocent. Right now, everyone is just lining up on their side of the culture war on this one, but that isn't how the justice system works.

Okay, recognize any difference between your set of facts and Penny's?

A threat with a machete in hand is completely different from a verbal threat.

 

[Credence]

Because no defense is offered?

NY is one of a few states that has a law that defendants are allowed to testify to a grand jury on their own behalf.

I don't know if he did or not but if he thought he had a compelling case he should have and if he did the GJ did not buy into it

 

[zincwarrior]

NY is one of a few states that has a law that defendants are allowed to testify to a grand jury on their own behalf.

I don't know if he did or not but if he thought he had a compelling case he should have and if he did the GJ did not buy into it

Doubtful. He would be suggest to cross examination at that point.

 

[Credence]

Doubtful. He would be suggest to cross examination at that point.

Like I said if he thought his defense was compelling he should have.

We don't know if he did or not and if he did the GJ disagreed

 

[pamak]

Penny didn't go out looking for trouble and merely reacted when trouble came his way. Just because someone died doesn't mean that a crime was committed and if I'm going to put someone with little to no history of troublemaking away for 15 years then whatever actions caused that occurrence are going to have to be egregious. Nothing Penny did was egregious or reckless.

If we start to define "reckless behavior" in terms of simply intervening when trouble is before us we're going to create a situation where the criminals, crazies and wantonly disruptive rule the streets. That's no way to expect people to live.

I did not say that he went out looking fir trouble. I just do not accept that this was just a case when somebody died because of a freak combination of circumstances. I gave you evidence that even police officers in NY are not permitted to use chokeholds. It has been recognized that such technique is too dangerous even when trained professional law-enforcing personnel applies it. There is a reason for such hesitation. Even police officers may not apply the proper technique during the hear of a fight, and even police officers do not know if the person they are choking has a health condition that can lead to fatal consequences.

We are not going to define "reckless behavior." The jury will determine if it rises to the level that is appropriate to justify a manslaughter. If the chokehold continued even after the victim became unresponsive then I can easily see a conviction for manslaughter.

 

[Lutherf]

I did not say that he went out looking fir trouble. I just do not accept that this was just a case when somebody died because of a freak combination of circumstances. I gave you evidence that even police officers in NY are not permitted to use chokeholds. It has been recognized that such technique is too dangerous even when trained professional law-enforcing personnel applies it. There is a reason for such hesitation. Even police officers may not apply the proper technique during the hear of a fight, and even police officers do not know if the person they are choking has a health condition that can lead to fatal consequences.

We are not going to define "reckless behavior." The jury will determine if it rises to the level that is appropriate to justify a manslaughter. If the chokehold continued even after the victim became unresponsive then I can easily see a conviction for manslaughter.

Of couse we're not going to define "reckless behavior". Why would we do that? I mean, sure, it's the single most pertinent factor in prosecuting this charge but why mess with stuff like that when we have such a great opportunity to spew politically motivated, rather than legal, issues?

-edit-

I suspect that straight sarcasm isn't going to be conducive to rational discussion on this topic so let's clarify two things:
1. Penny is, based on reports, indicted on 2nd Degree Manslaughter charges. the applicable statute is NY Penal Law Section 125.15
2. That statute uses the term "reckless" as the basis for the section under which we should assume Penny is being charged. The definition of "reckless" is found in NY Penal Law Section 15.05

If the definition of "reckless" is a key component of the statute under which Penny is being charged then we damned well better discuss it if we want to have a conversation about anything other than "this is how I feel so we don't need to discuss stuff I don't want to talk about".

 

[pamak]

Of couse we're not going to define "reckless behavior". Why would we do that? I mean, sure, it's the single most pertinent factor in prosecuting this charge but why mess with stuff like that when we have such a great opportunity to spew politically motivated, rather than legal, issues?

I am talking about the legal system you initially attacked. Unless we are in the jury, our opinions do not affect the legal outcome.
i

 

[Lutherf]

I am talking about the legal system you initially attacked. Unless we are in the jury, our opinions do not affect the legal outcome.
i

Our opinions DO matter because it's we, the voters, that end up putting assholes like Bragg in office. If our opinions are based on stuff that isn't law or is an incomplete or willfully ignorant interpretation of law then we're going to put people that ignore the law or interpret the law for their own political benefit in office. That kind of thing tends to go really bad for a society.

If you want the law changed then do so through a legislative process. DO NOT try to do it through misapplication of the law.

 

[maxparrish]

There are no hate charges and had nothing to do with race. Penny is the one who brought up the race allegation.
Heck even Sharpton said race was not involved and you don't see Crump

He was charged with manslaugher 2 and rightfully so as it is believed he had no intent to kill him. My goodness after the George Floyd incident surely people especially those who have served in the military know you cannot hold someone in a chokehold. It was clear that Neely (sp) was limp for a few minutes.

IMO it highlights the issues of the homeless people who have mental issues and are not being treated

What Is Manslaughter?​

New York's penal code says an individual is guilty of manslaughter in the 2nd degree if he "recklessly causes the death of another person."

That differs from manslaughter in the 1st degree, where the penal code requires that the defendant first have the "intent to cause serious physical injury to another person" that ultimately leads to that person's death.

In other words - 1st-degree manslaughter requires that you were trying to hurt the person who died, whereas 2nd-degree manslaughter merely requires that you acted recklessly somehow and that led to another person's death.

What Is 2nd-Degree Manslaughter in NY? Explaining the Subway Death Charge

Daniel Penny, the former Marine seen on camera choking performer Jordan Neely to death on a New York City subway earlier this month, will be formally charged with 2nd-degree manslaughter Friday. The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it was charging Penny without first presenting his case...

www.nbcnewyork.com

Like the Zimmerman, Rittenhouse, and many other high profile sensationalized trials, particularly any of those involving race, everyone has an opinion - opinions that are usually based on bad news reportage, ignorance, and impulse.

For example, the assumption that Penny used a chokehold when, unknown to the general public, a chokehold requires a specific application of force to the throat from the crook of the elbow, something unproven (and perhaps unprovable) it the video's.

Other kinds of false information that circulates is the length of time he was limp, the law of self defense that allows a person to use serious and even lethal force, what the passengers said or didn't say, etc.

So until further evidence is produced, it appears to me is innocent of killing, let alone an unlawful homicide.

 

[pamak]

Our opinions DO matter because it's we, the voters, that end up putting assholes like Bragg in office. If our opinions are based on stuff that isn't law or is an incomplete or willfully ignorant interpretation of law then we're going to put people that ignore the law or interpret the law for their own political benefit in office. That kind of thing tends to go really bad for a society.

If you want the law changed then do so through a legislative process. DO NOT try to do it through misapplication of the law.

So, who is politicizing the case now?

You make an interpretation of the NY law from Arizona (based on your profile).

Legal interpretations of the law is a matter with which the judge of the trial will deal, So, again, this is not about "Bragg" or you or me.

Have you even consider the idea that the "peers" of the defendants in NY have different views about what constitutes a reasonable "self-defense" or "citizen-arrest" than your peers in AZ?

 

[jonny5]

Bragg won't be on the jury.

My comment was about the indictment.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Okay, recognize any difference between your set of facts and Penny's?

A threat with a machete in hand is completely different from a verbal threat.

That wasn't our situation, reread the post.

 

[Cardinal]

Anyone who thinks a black man would be lionized for killing a white man is ignorant of about how our criminal justice system works.

The race angle has become the But Hillary for this case: completely irrelevant and disconnected from the facts of the case.

 

[Lursa]

I deleted the parts of your post that weren't related to the facts of the incident, and the above is what we're left with.

 

[Lursa]

Even if Penny just wanted to subdue him did he not realize after the George Floyd incident how dangerous it is to put someone in a chokehold especially since he is a former Marine.

I've brought that up a few times in previous threads:

And he had help restraining him at that point. 3 guys couldnt hold down a homeless guy without cutting off his air supply? Using the choke hold?​

​

If the Marine was trained in the maneuver, he applied it improperly (not supposed to result in dead people.)​

​

If he wasnt trained in the maneuver, and he didnt live in a cave, even overseas, he wouldnt have missed the Floyd case and others, and that the maneuver is being restricted...he knew it was dangerous and he acted with gross negligence.​

 

[mrjurrs]

That wasn't our situation, reread the post.

A threat by someone with a machete is different from a threat by someone with no weapon. Sorry, the story got one read, if I missed something point it out if you care to.

 

[JRTurner]

My comment was about the indictment.

Bragg wasn't on the grand jury.

 

[reinaert]

He's a pornstache ffs? Jeebus weeps...

 

[poweRob]

You mad?

Any time he posts in sarcasm, he's mad.

 

[jonny5]

Bragg wasn't on the grand jury.

Point?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Emphasis mine

The legal system should not permit taking the life of a "low level criminal" when there is no imminent life -threatening situation. Unfortunately, we have let many deadly chokeholds go unpunished (Eric Garner's-"I can't breathe" case is the classic example), and many common citizens have been exposed to the idea that they can employ such dangerous tactics to neutralize "low level criminals."

Exactly. If the law were structured the way @Lutherf thinks it should be, then there would be no accountability for anyone who decides to take the law into their own hands and they're indemnified because of a shaky assumption they will always be upstanding citizens and the other person(s) are automatically guilty. Fortunately the law is not as one sided as some would want it to be and sets pretty specific conditions for when it is justified to use lethal force, or to defend oneself or others.

Since it is hard to predict every possible scenario, it makes perfect sense to handle each one individually to determine whether or not the action someone took matched the criteria for justified use force; especially when someone ends up dead. Based on the information we have so far, that is not clear at all, which is why additional testimony will be key in understanding the actual threat Neely presented against the perceived threat, and why Neely ended up dead despite Penny having subdued Neely.

 

[ElChupacabra]

If Penny had INTENTIONALLY killed Neely then I'd be on board but his actions were reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances. Neely's death is a sad outcome but it wasn't due to intent or even recklessness. Penny's actions were those of someone trying to PROTECT himself, others and even Neely from the distinct likelihood of assault. His actions were REASONABLE under the circumstances and just because he chose to intervene rather than ignore what was happening doesn't change that reasonableness.

That's where he really faces problems, because the video evidence and witness testimony confirms that Neely was subdued with not only Penny's chokehold, but held by another passenger. Penny was also warned by one of the passengers Neely had defecated on himself which was likely an indicator he was close to death. Penny did not release Neely despite having help from other passengers in restraining Neely and being warned of Neely's state of distress. That can certainly fall under the "recklessness" category.

Also, it's still not clear what the trigger was for Penny to put Neely in a chokehold, and if it's only because of what he was saying, that's going to be scrutinized more than if Neely was about to attack someone or the threat seemed imminent. That's the part that will hopefully better defined in the trial based on additional testimony. Having people get attacked and potentially killed because they're ranting in a public place doesn't seem like a good precedent. Having been in nearly an exact scenario when I was younger, I was able to deescalate the scenario by offering to buy the ranting homeless guy a meal. That's not to say it would have worked here, but based on the law, the use of lethal force has very precise conditions:

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.

You and others have cited Garner and Chauvin as examples of choke holds being akin to deadly force. They are not. Choke holds are used all the time in street fights and they RARELY have a deadly outcome unless that is the intent of the one using such a hold. You take two highly politicized cases and try to use them as evidence of something that simply isn't factual. You, like so many others, seem to be allowing political and racial bias color your assessment of what happened. If Neely had been a drunk, Trump hat wearing bigot harassing black people on the train and Penny had been a black man, the conversation would ABSOLUTELY have been a different one than we're having now and that IS NOT how justice is supposed to be applied.

Except when they do. As someone who is trained to do this, I can tell you a carotid hold is one I reserve for very rare circumstances because of the various factors that can have it go sideways. Not knowing someone's preexisting conditions, putting someone in that hold could cause another medical condition. It's even worse when people who aren't well trained do this, because you have to be hyperaware of someone's physical state to know when to release.

 

[holbritter]

Exactly.

Well, it is 2023 and there is video of the chokehold. So Perry can’t say “I didn’t do it, it wasn’t me”. We have all seen the video.

Perry choked Neely. Neely died from that. You saw/heard people telling Perry that Neely could die.

That, in and of itself, is enough for the indictment.

He’s “presumed innocent” but it isn’t like we don’t ALL know the guy killed Neely. There’s real time video of the event.

The question now is whether or not Perry acted in self-defense. That’s yet to be seen.

Frankly, Perry should take a plea deal if it is offered to him.

I’d take a wild guess that the grand jury was shown the video of the choke hold and then the coroner’s finding of the death caused by the choke hold.



And the women sitting in the background of the video when the chokehold occurred didn’t seem terrified, scared, etc. they just sat there.

Because if you ride subways enough, you see ALL sorts of things. As you’ve pointed out.

I don’t see how Perry can claim he was acting in self-defense, etc when other passengers in the same car were not even paying attention to Neely and didn’t feel the need to even move from their seats.

There are conflicting witness reports. Some say there were scared and Neely was threatening to kill them, others say he wasn't. Some did indeed move from their seats to the next car, and some didn't.
We'll have to see what the outcome is.

 

[holbritter]

You might wanna find another analogy in the Gun Nut Nayshun. ijs

Those pics are so yesterday. Find new material.