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

[Charlot123]

BBM

This is such an important point that seems to have been overlooked by many. Not one of us has been given the right or responsibility to be judge, jury and executioner. Once Mr Neely had been subdued, no one’s life was in danger. He could have been restrained in a non-lethal way until LE arrived. I don’t understand why so many seem to think that Mr Penny was justified in choking him to death.

JMO

To be honest, I am torn myself. It would be easier if I were a New Yorker. But here is how the line cuts in this case. The subway is equally used by the employed who survive in an expensive megapolis, and whose taxes, among other things, pay for the free rides to the poor and the desperate, the homeless. The subway, hence, is socially charged: you see the fate of your taxes, but much worse is this inner fear, god forbid...

In this context - wasn’t Penny unemployed for two months before the episode? If so, he was standing pretty close to the dividing line, and he knew it.
In the societal paradigm, Neely’s excessive restraint might represents not as much one’s attempt to subdue the nuisance as choking on own fears.

To add, we are not raised in this, we praise charity and contributing to dinners for poor, NY is the site of the biggest, the best-run charities, the thought that a homeless was choked in a subway is horribly disturbing.

I suspect it would be either not guilty or some community token service. Least of all do we want to make a victim or an example out of Mr. Penny. I do care what happens to Mr. Penny and how does he, morally, undo what he has done.

 

[Lilibet]

The character witnesses are, I believe to show that DP was not a racist, not a hot head, not a person looking for a fight or to kill some one. When a person is pumped full of adrenaline and they are subduing some one else, I am not sure if time stands still or of it rushes past- 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 6 minutes... did DP mean to use lethal force or was he just afraid to let go? Yes he was trained in choke holds in the Marine Corps, but he was out of the corps and this is not something he practiced every day. The defense does want him to be seen as a good Samaritan, not as some one who should be punished for trying to prevent chaos.

I think you’re right about the purpose of the character witnesses. I certainly don’t think Mr Penny intended to kill Mr Neely and he may well have been afraid to let go. But he had help and ignored advice to let go and ignored being told that he was killing Mr Neely. That’s where he ceases to be a Good Samaritan IMO. If he doesn’t testify, we won’t know what he was thinking.

 

[LinasK]

I agree with everything you've said Lilibet.
'There will be no good outcome from this trial. I feel for both the Neely and Penny families.

The good outcome will be justice for Neely and hopefully a deterrent to future vigilante wannabes.

 

[Izzylizzy]

To be honest, I am torn myself. It would be easier if I were a New Yorker. But here is how the line cuts in this case. The subway is equally used by the employed who survive in an expensive megapolis, and whose taxes, among other things, pay for the free rides to the poor and the desperate, the homeless. The subway, hence, is socially charged: you see the fate of your taxes, but much worse is this inner fear, god forbid...

In this context - wasn’t Penny unemployed for two months before the episode? If so, he was standing pretty close to the dividing line, and he knew it.
In the societal paradigm, Neely’s excessive restraint might represents not as much one’s attempt to subdue the nuisance as choking on own fears.

To add, we are not raised in this, we praise charity and contributing to dinners for poor, NY is the site of the biggest, the best-run charities, the thought that a homeless was choked in a subway is horribly disturbing.

I suspect it would be either not guilty or some community token service. Least of all do we want to make a victim or an example out of Mr. Penny. I do care what happens to Mr. Penny and how does he, morally, undo what he has done.

BBM:
Neither a victim or an example.
Many want DP to be held responsible for killing an unarmed man who didn't assault anyone by using lethal force.

JMO

 

[GRT]

I don't understand why anyone would consider a person who is aggressive to not be a threat. How did you know he didn't have means to harm you? This is the exact reason why DP stepped into action to defuse the threat that Neeley clearly shouted when he entered the subway. As a woman, I'm shocked that I should be required to wait until attacked. Nonsense, I want someone, to recognize a threat to me and to act. JMO

I think most people feel the same way.

Too many times, people turn away and don't take action because they don't want to get involved.

We don't know how far Neely would have gone to make good on his threat. But we do know that Neely's aggressive behavior was the catalyst for what happened that day. And we do know that some of the people there were terrified and felt they might die.

DP was not seeking out a confrontation that day, so I don't think the label "vigilante" applies. The Defense's character witnesses indicate he is nothing other than a caring individual who stepped up in the face of(perceived) danger.

DP knew nothing about Neely at that moment other than Neely was being aggressive and threatening others. He didn't know about Neely's ability to imitate Michael Jackson, nor did he know Neely's mental history or arrest record. All DP knew was what was happening in the moment.

I'm sorry Neely died, but from everything I've heard, DP was not specifically trying kill him. He was just trying to restrain him until the authorities arrived to take him into custody.

From what I've heard so far -- I could not convict DP. When we convict those who stand up for others, we set the stage for more people to turn away. And like you, I don't want to be in a dangerous/threatening situation and have strong men who could help me--walk away out of fear of being criminally charged.

 

[GRT]

Seriously, what's the point with this defense at this point in the trial?
There's been 6 character witnesses so far and the death of JN that DP is charged with has absolutely nothing to do with their favorable testimonies about him.

I could be wrong, but I think the point is to show that DP did not have a vigilante attitude. If they can show--and I think they have--that DP wasn't the sort of person who sought out conflicts but rather the sort of person who cared for others, it tells the jury that his intent that day was to protect, not harm.

JMOO

 

[Lilibet]

I could be wrong, but I think the point is to show that DP did not have a vigilante attitude. If they can show--and I think they have--that DP wasn't the sort of person who sought out conflicts but rather the sort of person who cared for others, it tells the jury that his intent that day was to protect, not harm.

JMOO

I think it’s clear that Mr Penny wasn’t a vigilante and didn’t set out to harm Mr. Neely. He was trying to defuse the situation and protect others from potential harm. The charges against him have nothing to do with his initial motive and initial action of restraining Mr Neely. The charges are about Mr Penny being reckless and criminally negligent in continuing the choke hold longer than necessary, despite having help, and ignoring the warnings of others so that Mr Neely died. That’s what this case is about. One can be a kind and caring person who reacts poorly under stress so that someone is harmed or killed. It’s a tragedy for both men, but more so for Mr Neely, of course.

JMO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I could be wrong, but I think the point is to show that DP did not have a vigilante attitude. If they can show--and I think they have--that DP wasn't the sort of person who sought out conflicts but rather the sort of person who cared for others, it tells the jury that his intent that day was to protect, not harm.

JMOO

To be fair, I believe even the prosecution themselves stated as much in their opening statement. This trial has never been about intent, it has only ever been about whether Daniel Penny went too far, and the answer to that is yes IMO.
I think it's the defence who have twisted it to look like Penny is being accused of being a bad guy, a vigilante and worse, even though he isn't because that's the only way swing it in his favour. Smoke and mirrors with all the character witnesses.

I think it was always going to be an uphill struggle to get a conviction in this case, it is a difficult and divisive one, because DP did the right thing, for the right reasons, until he didn't. He should have let go.

 

[Jade]

There can’t be strange 24 year olds going around preemptively murdering people for a perception of danger when reality is JN was using just words.

JN did not sneak up behind someone attack with no warning crash the person to the ground and choke them to death Daniel Penny did.

As I’ve said it’s a shame a more mature better trained person wasn’t there instead of DP. DP is unqualified to interfere using his attorney says was his own mix of martial arts in the hold botching it and persisting to hold when others were telling him he was killing his victim.

DP doesn’t seem a good listener not using his training and ignoring others who gave him reasons and warnings to let N go.

I hope his followers don’t end up with their millions rewarded to him buying DP no consequences for his actions he needs to learn some humility, imo.


All imo

 

[GRT]

I think it’s clear that Mr Penny wasn’t a vigilante and didn’t set out to harm Mr. Neely. He was trying to defuse the situation and protect others from potential harm. The charges against him have nothing to do with his initial motive and initial action of restraining Mr Neely. The charges are about Mr Penny being reckless and criminally negligent in continuing the choke hold longer than necessary, despite having help, and ignoring the warnings of others so that Mr Neely died. That’s what this case is about. One can be a kind and caring person who reacts poorly under stress so that someone is harmed or killed. It’s a tragedy for both men, but more so for Mr Neely, of course.

JMO

I think this is a good assessment.

DP held the chokehold too long. As you say, he reacted poorly under stress and didn't release his hold in time. Just 30 seconds earlier, this thread might not exist.

Still, given the circumstances and his intent, I'm prone to blaming it on accident rather than criminal liability.

We haven't heard all the testimony yet, so I still want to hold out on my final verdict, but I'm leaning strongly in the direction of an acquittal at this moment.

Given what I've heard about DP, I feel as though just living with the knowledge that a man died because he held on too long is more than enough punishment.

Now, if we heard DP was the sort to go out looking for fights and conflicts, I'd feel differently.

This case is so sad, but at the end of the day, Neely's actions led to his being restrained too long.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I think this is a good assessment.

DP held the chokehold too long. As you say, he reacted poorly under stress and didn't release his hold in time. Just 30 seconds earlier, this thread might not exist.

Still, given the circumstances and his intent, I'm prone to blaming it on accident rather than criminal liability.

We haven't heard all the testimony yet, so I still want to hold out on my final verdict, but I'm leaning strongly in the direction of an acquittal at this moment.

Given what I've heard about DP, I feel as though just living with the knowledge that a man died because he held on too long is more than enough punishment.

Now, if we heard DP was the sort to go out looking for fights and conflicts, I'd feel differently.

This case is so sad, but at the end of the day, Neely's actions led to his being restrained too long.

This last part of your post is where I have to disagree. Neely's actions may have led to him being restrained. Daniel Penny's actions led to him being restrained for too long.

 

[Izzylizzy]

A reminder that there is no trial today.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

There can’t be strange 24 year olds going around preemptively murdering people for a perception of danger…

Snipped for focus…

No there can’t/shouldn’t be… and in my estimation there wasn’t in this case either…

DP wasn’t wandering around the city with an assault rifle, exterminating all unhoused individuals who spoke out if line…

moo

 

[IceIce9]

There can’t be strange 24 year olds going around preemptively murdering people for a perception of danger when reality is JN was using just words.

JN did not sneak up behind someone attack with no warning crash the person to the ground and choke them to death Daniel Penny did.

As I’ve said it’s a shame a more mature better trained person wasn’t there instead of DP. DP is unqualified to interfere using his attorney says was his own mix of martial arts in the hold botching it and persisting to hold when others were telling him he was killing his victim.

DP doesn’t seem a good listener not using his training and ignoring others who gave him reasons and warnings to let N go.

I hope his followers don’t end up with their millions rewarded to him buying DP no consequences for his actions he needs to learn some humility, imo.


All imo

There shouldn't be strange aggressive homeless individuals going around threatening innocent people just going about their daily activities. Everyone should have the right to ride public transportation, walk on public sidewalks, take their children to a park, etc. without being threatened by aggressive individuals.

Remember, these are the threats that JN shouted:


He said he was hungry and thirsty
He said he was not afraid of going to prison
He said he was ready to die
He said he was going to kill people
He said he was prepared to go to jail for life


Witnesses said they were afraid of Neely. One witness said that Neely threw his jacket at other passengers, causing them to move away. One passenger had a small child she attempted to protect hiding behind the stroller.


This is why I call JN's death a tragic accident. If JN had not aggressively threatened innocent subway riders in the first place, he would not have died. JN himself started the chain of events that led to his death.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Snipped for focus…

No there can’t/shouldn’t be… and in my estimation there wasn’t in this case either…

DP wasn’t wandering around the city with an assault rifle, exterminating all unhoused individuals who spoke out if line…

moo

BBM:

No he wasn't but he thought that JN was going to kill someone so he ended up using lethal force and killed him instead.

jmo

 

[mickey2942]

The good outcome will be justice for Neely and hopefully a deterrent to future vigilante wannabes.

Like Bernard Geotz? At what point are we completely controlled by these bullies? The lawlessness runs unchecked in NYC, and continues to escalate.

Neely may have been mentally ill, high on drugs, whatever else society wants to state as justification for his behavior. But he frightened people on the train that day.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if Penny had not been on the train that day to protect people?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Like Bernard Geotz? At what point are we completely controlled by these bullies? The lawlessness runs unchecked in NYC, and continues to escalate.

Neely may have been mentally ill, high on drugs, whatever else society wants to state as justification for his behavior. But he frightened people on the train that day.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if Penny had not been on the train that day to protect people?

JN's well documented violent criminal record may hold some amount of insight into the "what if" question.
Obviously we can't say for sure, but we also can't pretend we don't know that he was in fact, a violent person.

 

[IDK]

I agree IceIce.

We all have the luxury of hindsight and IMO it’s easy to judge what we would have done in his place.

DP did a lot of things right— protected the other riders, asked someone to call for help and put JN in a recovery position.

I’m sure DP would have been thrilled if LE or metro police had arrived and taken over for him. As it was, he did have a couple helpers , regular citizens. But he was basically on his own.

IMO, it’s not right that ANY subway rider should be put in that position.

DP is not a trained LE officer.

DP had training when he was in the Marines.

There is no documentation that he received any kind of annual retraining.

No other subway rider was harmed.

He has to live with his actions for the rest of his life.

IMO, It was a horrible, sad accident.


I cannot judge him for his actions.



“A poll conducted by the Citizens Budget Commission last year found that about half, 49 percent, of New Yorkers feel at least somewhat safe riding the subway during the day. Only 22 percent of New Yorkers felt the same about riding at night. The 2023 figures are dramatic decline from 201, when 82 percent felt safe riding the subway during the day and 46 percent felt safe riding the subway at night.”

"People in New York City are understandably very distressed by the increase in crime, the perception of lawlessness on the subways and other aspects of our lives in this environment," Kenniff said.”

"My client was seeking to the aid of other subway riders that were confronted with someone who had a incredibly violent history and a history of paranoid schizophrenic psychosis that was not being treated by [the city's mental health system]."

Alvin Bragg emerges again, just in time for Election Day

Two weeks before Election Day, the Manhattan D.A. whose indictment helped solidify Trump as the GOP nominee will put another high-profile case to trial.

www.newsweek.com

 

[GRT]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
The events that led up to the chokehold are crucial to examine. It's not victim-blaming, in my opinion.

One of the issues for the jury (MOO) will be whether DP was justified in initially restraining JN. And, I think most people think that was justified (at first) based on the perceived threat from JN. The testimony from those who said they thought they would die that day will establish that. MOO

The only remaining question is whether DP should have sensed/known/expected JN would die if he didn't release his chokehold sooner. That's what the whole trial seems to hinge on. That's going to be difficult to show, and that's where I think all the character witnesses will come in. I think the Defense is establishing the idea that DP is a stand-up guy--not a vigilante. If they can firmly establish that, I think it could convince the jury that his holding onto JN longer than he should have was not based on any bad intent but rather because DP wasn't thinking clearly. And, if so, that puts it in the realm of an "accident."

 

[Deleted member 296739]

BBM:

No he wasn't but he thought that JN was going to kill someone so he ended up using lethal force and killed him instead.

jmo

Sounds like lots of people on the train thought JN was going to kill someone, and DP intervened- no one knew if he had a weapon or was going to kill that day… are you suggesting that DP should have waited to see if JN actually killed anyone before stepping in?