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

[Deleted member 296739]

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

And other posters think differently, beautiful thing about a freedom of thought, we are all entitled to our own thoughts, opinions, and conclusions… moo, jmo, ymmv

 

[Deleted member 296739]

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.

Others feel it was vigilante behavior and the intent was to kill and he shouldn’t have intervened at all-

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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 agree.

JN had a dangerous drug in his system when he died. If he was clean during this event perhaps the restraint that was used would not have caused him any major problems. JMO.

 

[LinasK]

I just watched the video. That was the assessment Daniel Penny made BEFORE JN started mouthing off and issuing threats.

People make rapid assessments of others all the time. He did nothing to JN based on him being a possible drug addict and was ready to live and let live.

That is, until JN started escalating and Daniel Penny stepped in to protect others.

It might not be a term I would use, but I see nothing wrong with DP using it in that situation.

I mean, JN did test positive for K2 now that you bring it up. Which causes reactions similar to those of cocaine…

IMO.

Except that Penny decided to act without knowing if Neely was on any drugs or not.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Except that Penny decided to act without knowing if Neely was on any drugs or not.

From his behavior DP guessed that he was, and DP was correct in his assessment

 

[LinasK]

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.

No, there's no legal justification for vigilanteism, which is exactly what Penny did. If an officer had acted the same way, he'd be charged for an officer-involved death.

 

[LinasK]

From his behavior DP guessed that he was, and DP was correct in his assessment

And what if if hadn't been drugs but a medical condition causing him to act that way??? Penny wasn't a doctor and wasn't qualified to assess him before or after death.

 

[Lilibet]

Others feel it was vigilante behavior and the intent was to kill and he shouldn’t have intervened at all-

Those you say feel that way will need to explain their reasoning. As I said, most of us feel Mr Penny was initially justified in intervening. And the justice system apparently agrees, based on the charges.

Personally, I’m shocked that no one intervened to stop Mr Penny from continuing the chokehold too long. I’m just a little old lady and I would hope I would have been hitting him over the head with my purse if words didn’t persuade him to stop.

JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

From his behavior DP guessed that he was, and DP was correct in his assessment

If DP (and others) saw JN as threat, JN only had to be stopped until the doors opened. Everyone who rides the subway is fully aware that the doors open at the next station - if there is a problem on the car, you just have to make it to the next station to get off the car.

And, when the subway pulled into the station and the doors opened, the passengers did indeed leave the car. They were no longer in danger or potential danger from JN.

There was no need to continue choking JN beyond the moment the doors opened. The passengers were safe and JN was subdued on the ground with men around him. There was no need to continue choking him until he was dead.

Whether or not DP should've taken him down in the first place isn't an argument I'll enter because DP isn't charged with that.

jmo

 

[Izzylizzy]

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.

JMO:
It's the "just" and the "you know what I mean" parts that he said to the detective

So what does he mean?
This "crackheads" existence is worthless , not like you and me and the detective should understand that?

Betcha had DP known at the time when he was talking with the detective that JN was dead something tells me that he wouldn't have referred to JN as such.

At that sit-down with the detective DP was told his rights and wavered them, his attorney tried to get that interrogation thrown out to no avail.

I find it ironic that the detective was also a Marine and their Marine bond that could have made DP more relaxed than usual and made him think he was in safe hands and would be in the clear.
Surprise! surprise!

I'm in Southern VT and in my town/county the homelessness, drugs and violence has reached epic levels.
Not that all offenders are homeless and/or addicted, there are the dealers too.

We also have pretty much of a revolving door here with those that suffer from mental illness, addictions and violence.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

If DP (and others) saw JN as threat, JN only had to be stopped until the doors opened. Everyone who rides the subway is fully aware that the doors open at the next station - if there is a problem on the car, you just have to make it to the next station to get off the car.

And, when the subway pulled into the station and the doors opened, the passengers did indeed leave the car. They were no longer in danger or potential danger from JN.

There was no need to continue choking JN beyond the moment the doors opened. The passengers were safe and JN was subdued on the ground with men around him. There was no need to continue choking him until he was dead.

Whether or not DP should've taken him down in the first place isn't an argument I'll enter because DP isn't charged with that.

jmo

Valid points

 

[Lilibet]

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

It wasn’t as obvious as a gunshot wound, of course. But she had done a physical autopsy and concluded he died of asphyxiation. The video simply showed her how it happened…the chokehold. She walked the jury through the video explaining how she drew that conclusion based on his coloration and movements and explaining at what point he was brain dead. As a physician, she would know the signs, unlike us. The chief medical examiner agreed.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

It wasn’t as obvious as a gunshot wound, of course. But she had done a physical autopsy and concluded he died of asphyxiation. The video simply showed her how it happened…the chokehold. She walked the jury through the video explaining how she drew that conclusion based on his coloration and movements and explaining at what point he was brain dead. As a physician, she would know the signs, unlike us. The chief medical examiner agreed.

OP that I was responding to mentioned a gunshot, hence the reference

 

[Izzylizzy]

It wasn’t as obvious as a gunshot wound, of course. But she had done a physical autopsy and concluded he died of asphyxiation. The video simply showed her how it happened…the chokehold. She walked the jury through the video explaining how she drew that conclusion based on his coloration and movements and explaining at what point he was brain dead. As a physician, she would know the signs, unlike us. The chief medical examiner agreed.

In Dr. Cynthia Harris's testimony and it wasn't just the Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Graham'.


"Dr. Harris presented her case as part of a routine conference with senior medical examiners, including the city’s chief, Dr. Jason Graham."

Harris's walk through the evidence for the jury.

Autopsy doctor testifies how chokehold killed Jordan Neely

Dr. Cynthia Harris took questions from prosecutors.

ny1.com

 

[Rolypolyoly]

From his behavior DP guessed that he was, and DP was correct in his assessment

We don't know that that's strictly true though. K2 has a half life of 41 days in the system, it could have been that day or a month or so previous to that day, that JN last partook.
There's no way to know for sure.

 

[IceIce9]

Except that Penny decided to act without knowing if Neely was on any drugs or not.

His behavior would indicate he was on drugs. JMO

 

[LinasK]

His behavior would indicate he was on drugs. JMO

You may have tons of experience as an EMT to know that, Penny didn't. Could have been caused by a medical condition for all he knew...

 

[IceIce9]

You may have tons of experience as an EMT to know that, Penny didn't. Could have been caused by a medical condition for all he knew...

IMO it wouldn’t matter if his erratic, aggressive behavior was due to drugs, alcohol, a physical condition, a mental condition, or an anger management problem. His aggressive behavior and threats had people in fear.

 

[LinasK]

IMO it wouldn’t matter if his erratic, aggressive behavior was due to drugs, alcohol, a physical condition, a mental condition, or an anger management problem. His aggressive behavior and threats had people in fear.

And that may be justified, but Penny's behavior in response wasn't. People should have fled to another car, or gotten off, or contacted a police officer.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

IMO it wouldn’t matter if his erratic, aggressive behavior was due to drugs, alcohol, a physical condition, a mental condition, or an anger management problem. His aggressive behavior and threats had people in fear.

Yes.

I don't believe that a person has to give a drug test or mental health evaluation before taking action to prevent an individual who is threatening to kill people from doing so.

What matters in this case is that there was an out of control person who was a serious and real threat to the safety of innocent people on the subway. The defendant protected those people from harm. JMO.