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

[GRT]

We do know what DP's initial state of mind was about JN when he told detectives " he's just a crackhead, you know what I mean?"

Yes, he did say it--but he said it after the fact, we don't really know what his state of mind was in the midst of the actual event. But he also said he wasn't trying to hurt the guy. I'd be willing to guess the term "crackhead" was being passed around by many that day. Or similar derogaroty labels. I'm not a fan of labels, but people use them when they don't know what else to say.

When someone acts so erratic, it's probably natural to think they're on drugs or something. No one really knew much about Neely that day, so they were only judging based on his aggression and the fear they felt.

There's also a lot of talk about the need to help the mentally ill to a greater extent, and I agree with that. The best solution to these events is to prevent them in the first place. But, it just seems like pulling teeth to get these people the services they need.

 

[Sillybilly]

Respectfully, my post was meant only to address the use of the term “crackhead”, not the actions that followed. IMO.

I snipped and was jumping off your post regarding the comment "Which causes similar reactions to cocaine…"

IMO, DP was categorizing JN as a "crackhead" when he had no way of knowing what underlying condition (s) might be a factor in how the victim was acting.

 

[GRT]

<rsbm>

If someone had any medical condition or prescribed medication that was causing them to act similar to JN, would that justify someone coming up behind them, placing them in a chokehold resulting in death?

It wouldn't "justify" it, but it could be the rationale for someone to respond that way. I think from a legal standpoint, a person in NYC who uses deadly force needs to believe that he/she is taking action to prevent someone else from being killed.

So, did DP think the lives of others would be lost if he didn't act? If he thought that (no matter why JN was behaving as he was), DP might legally be justified.

Average citizens are rarely qualified to determine why a person is acting out. In cases like this, they have very limited time to decide whether to act or walk away and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[IceIce9]

Synthetic marijuana, which is also frequently referred to as K2, spice, or potpourri, is a very dangerous drug that can bring about feelings of detachment from one’s self and one’s environment, terrifying episodes of psychosis, and a whole host of other euphoric effects that are often unexpected by those who abuse this drug.

K2 & Spice Abuse Signs & Symptoms | Longleaf Hospital

Learn about K2 & Spice abuse signs, symptoms and effects. Longleaf Hospital

www.longleafhospital.com

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Yes, he did say it--but he said it after the fact, we don't really know what his state of mind was in the midst of the actual event. But he also said he wasn't trying to hurt the guy. I'd be willing to guess the term "crackhead" was being passed around by many that day. Or similar derogaroty labels. I'm not a fan of labels, but people use them when they don't know what else to say.

When someone acts so erratic, it's probably natural to think they're on drugs or something. No one really knew much about Neely that day, so they were only judging based on his aggression and the fear they felt.

There's also a lot of talk about the need to help the mentally ill to a greater extent, and I agree with that. The best solution to these events is to prevent them in the first place. But, it just seems like pulling teeth to get these people the services they need.

Personally, I think after the fact is worse, and speaks volumes.

 

[IDK]

Personally, I think after the fact is worse, amd speaks volumes.

I don’t know, when I listened to the interview, it sounded like DP thought JN was “just a crackhead”, when he first saw him on the subway and before JN started menacing innocent bystanders.

If I have time later I’ll try to transcribe that part of the interview.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

It wouldn't "justify" it, but it could be the rationale for someone to respond that way. I think from a legal standpoint, a person in NYC who uses deadly force needs to believe that he/she is taking action to prevent someone else from being killed.

So, did DP think the lives of others would be lost if he didn't act? If he thought that (no matter why JN was behaving as he was), DP might legally be justified.

Average citizens are rarely qualified to determine why a person is acting out. In cases like this, they have very limited time to decide whether to act or walk away and let the chips fall where they may.

I think that's a tough one. Yes, JN was ranting and making threats, but these were generalised, not aimed at anyone in particular and he never attacked, or made an attempt to attack, anyone.
That said, I still don't fault him for stepping in, although I don't think his lethal force was justified.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I was just thinking out loud- he said he was going to kill somebody, but didn’t…

Would it follow that if he pulled a gun and didn’t shoot that no intervening is necessary?

What if he had a weapon that was concealed? Would that have impacted charges being filed?

What if he died from a heart attack just after the choke hold?

I don’t see how DP could be expected to know all of the variables, and I have no idea what he was thinking or feeling or experiencing time while in the acute of the situation-

But I’ve got the benefit of hindsight, DP did not,

if it would have made a difference in someone’s mind if JN had passed of a heart attack and had been found with weapons on his person, then I think giving DP the benefit of the doubt might be warranted and it’s a terrible accident but not manslaughter or negligent homicide and no crime was committed… jmo moo ymmv

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I was just thinking out loud- he said he was going to kill somebody, but didn’t…

Would it follow that if he pulled a gun and didn’t shoot that no intervening is necessary?

What if he had a weapon that was concealed? Would that have impacted charges being filed?

What if he died from a heart attack just after the choke hold?

I don’t see how DP could be expected to know all of the variables, and I have no idea what he was thinking or feeling or experiencing time while in the acute of the situation-

But I’ve got the benefit of hindsight, DP did not,

if it would have made a difference in someone’s mind if JN had passed of a heart attack and had been found with weapons on his person, then I think giving DP the benefit of the doubt might be warranted and it’s a terrible accident but not manslaughter or negligent homicide and no crime was committed… jmo moo ymmv

I understand your point, but I don't think that scenario compares, and concealed weapons wouldn't really change the situation as it happened, if theyvwere concealed then he wasn't threatening anyone with them.

In keeping with your line of thought, flip it on its head and consider, what if Penny didn't step in at all and Neely jumped off the train at the next stop just as quickly as he jumped on? How many times might he have done exactly the same thing that we don't know about, and not hurt anyone?
We have no way to know if Neely would have hurt someone that day but, equally, we don't know that he wouldn't have just left as quickly as he came.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I understand your point, but I don't think that scenario compares, and concealed weapons wouldn't really change the situation as it happened, if theyvwere concealed then he wasn't threatening anyone with them.

In keeping with your line of thought, flip it on its head and consider, what if Penny didn't step in at all and Neely jumped off the train at the next stop just as quickly as he jumped on? How many times might he have done exactly the same thing that we don't know about, and not hurt anyone?
We have no way to know if Neely would have hurt someone that day but, equally, we don't know that he wouldn't have just left as quickly as he came.

I see your point and follow your argument- it’s one of those not quite as black and white cases as I’d like it to be, lots of area for interpretation and personal filling in the blanks from ones own experience and perspective, and tragically a man has nonetheless died (regardless of if it was intentional or not…)

All the elements of this case seem to compound to make for very strong opinions and “vigorous fellowship” when discussing the trial… Being in NYC and the DA there, the racial differences between the men, homelessness, mental health, and addiction, previous training, what was known and unknown at the time and intentions of both men… it’s a lot wrapped up into a single event which forever altered the course of history for these two men and their families…

moo

 

[Cryptic]

It's just we don't know DP's state of mind once he restrained JN. It's very likely his adrenalin was racing and he didn't have a good idea of the threat being past.

We can always hold out hope that someone who is put in the position of protecting others has a clear mind while doing it, but we can't insist on it.

For me, the stronger the intervention (lethal force) in this case, the more responsibility the intervener has to "do it right". Penny did not do that.

This responsibility is doubly so when the reason for the lethal intervention was based purely on what somebody "might do".

 

[Deleted member 296739]

For me, the stronger the intervention (lethal force) in this case, the more responsibility the intervener has to "do it right". Penny did not do that.

This responsibility is doubly so when the reason for the lethal intervention was based purely on what somebody "might do".

This is why toxicology report is really important if it was a mitigating factor- if what he was doing mightn’t have been lethal under different circumstances… moo

 

[Lilibet]

I’m not sure why there is still a discussion about whether Mr Penny should have intervened or not. It’s been stated over and over by most of us that he was justified in intervening, since he didn’t know what Mr Neely was going to do.

He was not charged with intervening. He was charged with killing Mr Neely by continuing the chokehold too long. It’s really a very simple case and all the discussion about what Mr Neely did or didn’t do has no relevance to the charges. It’s simply blaming the victim so that killing him seems justified.

Here again are the charges and definitions. We can see that Mr Penny was not charged with intervening.

'Manslaughter in the second degree'
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE H, ARTICLE 125

§ 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 (see definition of recklessly below)

3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

SECTION 125.10
Criminally negligent homicide
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE H, ARTICLE 125

§ 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with
criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person. (See definition of criminal negligence below)

Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.
The New York State Senate
————————-
Recklessly— recklessly
in a way that is dangerous and shows that you are not thinking about the risks and possible results of your behavior:

Criminally negligent— What Is Criminal Negligence?
Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.

 

[LinasK]

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?

I'm not familiar with that case. Neely wasn't a bully, Penny was a vigilante, and that's NOT the answer. Why weren't there police on the train trained to deescalate a threatening person? As I previously stated, I recently had an encounter with an aggressive person weeks ago who followed me on a street and was trying to beckon me back for a confrontation. You avoid them, you don't attack them. Also, Penny did NOT know Neely's history when he decided to attack him.

 

[LinasK]

This is why toxicology report is really important if it was a mitigating factor- if what he was doing mightn’t have been lethal under different circumstances… moo

The ME has already stated that it wasn't a mitigating factor.

 

[Lilibet]

This is why toxicology report is really important if it was a mitigating factor- if what he was doing mightn’t have been lethal under different circumstances… moo

I believe the medical examiner pointed out that if she does an autopsy on someone clearly killed by a gunshot wound to their head, a toxicology report is unnecessary. What they had in their system does not make the bullet less responsible for their death. It was the same with Mr Neely. It was clear to her that the chokehold itself was lethal. The K2 or another drug would not change that. It wasn’t a mitigating factor in her opinion and in the opinion of the chief medical examiner of NYC.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I believe the medical examiner pointed out that if she does an autopsy on someone clearly killed by a gunshot wound to their head, a toxicology report is unnecessary. What they had in their system does not make the bullet less responsible for their death. It was the same with Mr Neely. It was clear to her that the chokehold itself was lethal. The K2 or another drug would not change that. It wasn’t a mitigating factor in her opinion and in the opinion of the chief medical examiner of NYC.

I agree she didn’t think it mattered- I don’t think that can be determined by a video… unlike say a cranial gunshot wound … moo

 

[LinasK]

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

He didn't need a weapon. His arms were the murder weapon.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

The ME has already stated that it wasn't a mitigating factor.

She indeed did state that

 

[LinasK]

<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."

I think Penny WAS a vigilante, and I think it WAS his intention to kill him.