Daniel Penny on Trial for manslaughter and negligent homicide of Jordan Neely

[Ontario Mom]

Yep.
The prosecution is about the 5 mins 53 secs and NOT the initial take down.

Yes, we disagree.

 

[Izzylizzy]

To be fair and factual, it wasn't an "imagined threat" as you suggest. JN actually did threaten violence and conducted himself in a threatening manner, as witnesses have testified.

We also don't know if the threat was over or not. I don't pretend to know what Penny was thinking but for all we know, he was worried if he let him go before police arrived that he might get right up and carry out whatever threats he'd been making. On him, or anyone else within reach.

jmo

Neely was lifeless and there were 3 men holding him down, one in a chokehold.
Now we're supposed to believe that a lifeless man once released could get back up and cause harm to one of the three because all the passengers had left the subway car which was stopped?

 

[jepop]

Mickey2942 or anyone.

I'm confused about what happened when Grima was testifing and called Penny a "murderer".
Did the defense object and the judge overruled?

The same with the teenage girl who called Penny the "white guy" and Neely a "black guy" when speaking with 911 and then used "white man" during her testimony to refer to Penny.

The 911 dispatcher did ask her the man's race.

Haven't listened to the actual testimony, but in regards to Grima a post just up thread ( yours? Lol) quotes some msm report. According to that report, defense moved (outside presence of the jury am assuming) to have the entirety of Grima's testimony excluded on prejudicial grounds, which the judge declined. I think much would rest on the context of the witness' remarks.

Jmo, witnesses are there to tell their truth, " the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help (them) God..." and so forth... so not sure how they can be gagged as to what they choose to say under oath. Defense might have objected to the prosecutor's question which elicited such an opinion I suppose ( my speculation only). Defense also free to cross examine. Clearly the judge decided that excluding the entire testimony was uncalled for. Jmo

Could be worth having a listen (actually is this trial being recorded via audio and video? Will have a look when I have the time) to get some context to what actually happened.

 

[jepop]

<modsnip - quoted post was talking about the members instead of the case>
I would have some sympathy for DP if he showed any kind of remorse or accountability. But instead is just digging in his heals despite all the evidence. Imo, this could be an aggravating factor at sentencing. He would have been better off pleading and showing some understanding of his own reckless conduct in the aftermath of applying the chokehold. The victim died for crying out loud and this did not have to be. Jmo

 

[mickey2942]

Alternatively, the offer of food might have further enraged him. A person in his state of mind can be very unpredictable.

Perceptive. A panhandler asked me for "anything", I was carrying takeout, full rack of BBQ ribs. I offered him my takeout, he recoiled like it was a rattlesnake. Apparently, my offer of food was "offensive".

Aggressive panhandlers are why we moved, I didn't feel safe taking public transportation to work and home every day. And if you live in a large metro area, public transportation is pretty much your life.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Haven't listened to the actual testimony, but in regards to Grima a post just up thread ( yours? Lol) quotes some msm report. According to that report, defense moved (outside presence of the jury am assuming) to have the entirety of Grima's testimony excluded on prejudicial grounds, which the judge declined. I think much would rest on the context of the witness' remarks.

Jmo, witnesses are there to tell their truth, " the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help (them) God..." and so forth... so not sure how they can be gagged as to what they choose to say under oath. Defense might have objected to the prosecutor's question which elicited such an opinion I suppose ( my speculation only). Defense also free to cross examine. Clearly the judge decided that excluding the entire testimony was uncalled for. Jmo

Could be worth having a listen (actually is this trial being recorded via audio and video? Will have a look when I have the time) to get some context to what actually happened.

Exactly, just like the witnesses who said they thought they were going to die that day or that Neely was satanic.
So she referred to Neely as a potential murderer.
The defense also claimed that the teen female witness who called 911 referred to Penny as a "white guy" as she did during her testimony which the defense claimed would prejudice the jury.
When her 911 call was played for the jury the dispatcher asked her the race,she said "white guy" and "black guy".
Penny called Neely a "crack addict" during his LE interview.
NY is the only state or one of the few that doesn't allow any trial or part of it to be televised or audio recorded.
It's so frustrating when we're used to televised trials and commenting from there.

 

[Izzylizzy]

I don't believe this serious issue has been addressed here or in the trial yet.
Curious if it will be when medical experts testify for the state?

Doctors Have Long Warned That Chokeholds Are Deadly​

The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › 2023/05/04 › health › chok...




May 4, 2023 — Even if the person does not lose consciousness, strokes and permanent brain damage, including cognitive impairment, can result from a chokehold.

 

[mickey2942]

Marines are trained to kill, not to "Catch and Release". Penny did what he was trained to do in the United States military. He was also living by the Marines code, to protect people who need protection.

So, how can the same government, judge him, for doing things the same government trained him to do?

 

[Lilibet]

You missed my point that the kindness of offering food might have helped. If it didn’t Penny could have “taken him down” without killing him. But nothing Neely did gave Penny the right to accidentally/negligently kill Neely.

JMO

Alternatively, the offer of food might have further enraged him. A person in his state of mind can be very unpredictable.

Yes, kindness might have further enraged him, but it might have calmed him. No one knows until they try. I fail to understand why skipping kindness and going straight to physical restraint is considered the best thing to do. As I said in my comment quoted here, if the kindness of offering food or water didn’t help, Penny could have then restrained Neely without killing him.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

Marines are trained to kill, not to "Catch and Release". Penny did what he was trained to do in the United States military. He was also living by the Marines code, to protect people who need protection.

So, how can the same government, judge him, for doing things the same government trained him to do?

The training Penny received to kill was for use in military action, not in civilian life. The people he was protecting left the car, so he could have released the chokehold (which he never should have used), but still restrained Neely until LE arrived. Are you saying that all former soldiers have the right to kill civilians without penalty just because the government trained them? I hope not!

 

[shotgun09]

Sigh...
IMO..
Without Jordan Neely's actions, his threats, his behaviors etc, none of this would have happened. There would have been no one to stop. No one to subdue or restrain. No one to hide their child behind a stroller in fear.

The outcome was un-intended. Sad, but true.

Cause and effect.

'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' does not make one guilty.

MOO and Peace

 

[jepop]

Exactly, just like the witnesses who said they thought they were going to die that day or that Neely was satanic.
So she referred to Neely as a potential murderer.
The defense also claimed that the teen female witness who called 911 referred to Penny as a "white guy" as she did during her testimony which the defense claimed would prejudice the jury.
When her 911 call was played for the jury the dispatcher asked her the race,she said "white guy" and "black guy".
Penny called Neely a "crack addict" during his LE interview.
NY is the only state or one of the few that doesn't allow any trial or part of it to be televised or audio recorded.
It's so frustrating when we're used to televised trials and commenting from there.

Thanks for the info. Shame there's no audio or video, not that I really disagree with a no tech/conventional trial. Many countries outside the US don't televise. Keeps reporters on their toes, good to get practice in straight, descriptive reporting sans opinions and innuendo (which moo is getting rarer and rarer in the age of the internet.).

Agree with your points. Witness testimony is ideally an honest account, including how that witness may have felt about others (if questioned about that,). Jmo

 

[IceIce9]

Sigh...
IMO..
Without Jordan Neely's actions, his threats, his behaviors etc, none of this would have happened. There would have been no one to stop. No one to subdue or restrain. No one to hide their child behind a stroller in fear.

The outcome was un-intended. Sad, but true.

Cause and effect.

'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' does not make one guilty.

MOO and Peace

Agreed. And JMO people have the right to ride public transportation or walk down the street without being harassed, threatened, or in fear for their life.

 

[Donswife48]

<modsnip - quoted post was talking about the members instead of the case>
I would have some sympathy for DP if he showed any kind of remorse or accountability. But instead is just digging in his heals despite all the evidence. Imo, this could be an aggravating factor at sentencing. He would have been better off pleading and showing some understanding of his own reckless conduct in the aftermath of applying the chokehold. The victim died for crying out loud and this did not have to be. Jmo

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the victim died for crying out loud.
Do you mean how he entered the subway car?

A daily subway rider told the jury she's seen many incidents on the train before, but on May 1, 2023 on board the F train, she said, "There was a moment where I thought I was truly going to die."

She explained a screaming Neely entered the subway car in soiled clothing.

"He said, 'I don't care if I die. I don't care if you die. Lock me up for life.' Very, very, very aggressive threats," the witness said.
She testified she didn't see Neely make any physical contact with anyone. She also didn't see any weapons on Neely, but she said, "But I truly felt that he was most likely armed."

With nowhere to go because the train was in motion, she said she felt a sense of relief when Penny restrained Neely.

Neely's father stood up in the gallery and as he left said, "She's a f***ing liar."

If that is what crying out loud is, yes, he was crying, yelling (according to witnesses). Who knew if he was a threat, or simply wouldn't attack anyone. MOO

Witness in Daniel Penny trial says she "thought she was truly going to die" after Jordan Neely boarded subway

Prosecutors have called more than a dozen witnesses so far in the trial of Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran charged in the chokehold death of 30-year-old Jordan Neely on board the subway last year.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[jepop]

Dbm accidental double post

 

[jepop]

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the victim died for crying out loud.
Do you mean how he entered the subway car?

A daily subway rider told the jury she's seen many incidents on the train before, but on May 1, 2023 on board the F train, she said, "There was a moment where I thought I was truly going to die."

She explained a screaming Neely entered the subway car in soiled clothing.

"He said, 'I don't care if I die. I don't care if you die. Lock me up for life.' Very, very, very aggressive threats," the witness said.
She testified she didn't see Neely make any physical contact with anyone. She also didn't see any weapons on Neely, but she said, "But I truly felt that he was most likely armed."

With nowhere to go because the train was in motion, she said she felt a sense of relief when Penny restrained Neely.

Neely's father stood up in the gallery and as he left said, "She's a *advertiser censored**ing liar."

If that is what crying out loud is, yes, he was crying, yelling (according to witnesses). Who knew if he was a threat, or simply wouldn't attack anyone. MOO

Witness in Daniel Penny trial says she "thought she was truly going to die" after Jordan Neely boarded subway

Prosecutors have called more than a dozen witnesses so far in the trial of Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran charged in the chokehold death of 30-year-old Jordan Neely on board the subway last year.

www.cbsnews.com

I Meant 'for crying out loud' as an expression of my exasperation. Apologies for the misunderstanding, should have maybe not assumed the expression would be familiar to all. Did not intend to convey I believe JN died because he made a cry/ loud noise.

 

[Halloqueenie]

Marines are trained to kill, not to "Catch and Release". Penny did what he was trained to do in the United States military. He was also living by the Marines code, to protect people who need protection.

So, how can the same government, judge him, for doing things the same government trained him to do?

Police are taught how to shoot to kill. We also expect them to be able to discern when this is reasonable or not. Being a Marine means he more than anyone should know his strength and the likely outcomes of using that strength. He isn't a brainwashed robot with no off switch.

 

[mickey2942]

Police are taught how to shoot to kill. We also expect them to be able to discern when this is reasonable or not. Being a Marine means he more than anyone should know his strength and the likely outcomes of using that strength. He isn't a brainwashed robot with no off switch.

I don't know. We have not seen or heard any evidence about his military discharge. Or his MOS, or experience in the military.

Maybe he is Service Connected for psychological reasons, or discharged for unsuitability reasons.

We don't know information, that may have triggered this response.

 

[Halloqueenie]

I don't know. We have not seen or heard any evidence about his military discharge. Or his MOS, or experience in the military.

Maybe he is Service Connected for psychological reasons, or discharged for unsuitability reasons.

We don't know information, that may have triggered this response.

None of that means it's excusable for him to choke someone to death.

 

[jepop]

I don't know. We have not seen or heard any evidence about his military discharge. Or his MOS, or experience in the military.

Maybe he is Service Connected for psychological reasons, or discharged for unsuitability reasons.

We don't know information, that may have triggered this response.

It's an interesting idea and maybe it's possible for D to change tactics at this stage?. Because atm according to reports of D opening statement, the current intended defense is along the lines of DP justifiably retaining that chokehold for five plus minutes because he believed he was still protecting others/possibly himself? So that is the main D argument for Ng manslaughter 2nd degree; ie defense appears to be arguing DP's action for those 5 plus minutes was not recklessly irresponsible ( in that a reasonable person would realise GBH is likely) because he was defending others/maybe self. Moo from available msm reports.

To me the above argument is going to prove difficult for raising reasonable doubt as to the P's case (as it currently stands). But I suppose D takes instructions from their client. Then again D can also provide advice based on their experience.

I think if D argued a diminished responsibility argument along the lines you suggest that might fare better for DP. But this would probably need to involve presenting evidence in support whilst also maybe having DP testify to such on the stand. Also would involve an admission that actions would be considered reckless were DP more stable or whatnot at the time. Jmo

Maybe defense will change their tack. Though that may present some credibility questions given the nature of d cross exam so far and their opening. Plus D, imo, cannot suddenly spring an expert psych witness on the P without sufficient notice.

All above is opinion and speculation.