Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lived in NYC and regularly rode the subway both then and later, Penny’s acquittal is great news. Riding the subway is often not for the faint of heart and riders depend on the guardian angels not to sit back passively when crazy people start harassing riders.

As for Alvin Bragg, he is a disgrace who has no business having any prosecutorial authority. His decision to charge Penny in the first place made most New Yorkers feel less safe in their city, and the sooner this incompetent buffoon leaves his position the better.

+1000. I am a NYC resident and I completely agree with you. It was an insane decision to charge Penny on these facts, and I am very, very relieved he was acquitted.

Yes, I think many people will justify criminal behavior due to fear or frustration with a system that has allowed things to get out of control.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. In addition to being a NYC resident and regular subway rider, I’m also a lawyer, and I don’t agree that Penny’s behavior was criminal. I think it met the legal elements of self defense. I think the decision to charge him was stupid and a waste of prosecutorial resources, on the legal merits, and was likely significantly influenced by the fact that Penny is white and Neely is Black (which had zero relevance to this situation).

I'm not sure if being a lawyer is very relevant here. Having knowledge about BJJ is critical to determining if Neely was a threat. At the very least, you need to learn quite a bit before you can come to any reasonable determination whether the force used was appropriate.

It’s relevant because self-defense is an actual legal concept with specific elements, and in my view (clearly also in the jury’s view) Penny’s conduct satisfied those elements. In a situation like that, where you need to act within seconds to neutralize what appears to be a serious, imminent, and potentially lethal threat to yourself and others, and as a PP mentioned above, your body is flooded with adrenaline (i.e., exactly the circumstances necessitating self-defense), you’re not in a position in that split second to weigh all the information and make the most perfect judgment of the exact amount of force needed to incapacitate the person. Distinguish this from a case like the murder of Breona Taylor, which was clearly an unjustified and unreasonable use of force.

Here, Penny was very obviously not acting maliciously. There was a credible and immediate threat to everyone’s safety, he was acting in the defense of himself and others, and he acted to incapacitate Neely, which had the unfortunate result that he died. And “reasonable use of force” is something that’s easy to calculate after the fact, harder in the moment. Legally justified self defense doesn’t exclude the possibility that the aggressor dies. Sometimes it happens, and it happened here. There really shouldn’t have been charges at all.

Maybe you are a new lawyer? I say this because many people who have zero experience outside of academia don't fully grasp that there is a big difference between theory and real life. They also think they know more than they actually know. You read about a concept and are attempting to apply it to a scenario, but it doesn't really fit.

I have been a lawyer for 30 years and think the PPs description was accurate. And, as another PP noted, the jury acquitted. Maybe you could point out the parts you think are incorrect, or that don't fit?

Lawyer? That's half of the people on DCUM, probably practicing patent or real estate law 😭

Several posters have already given reasons earlier in the thread.

Sure. I'm not going to go back and parse through 80 something pages. Anyway, I'm not interested in what other posters think, I'm interested in why *you* think the PPs description and analysis, in your words, "doesn't really fit." To paraphrase Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, do you have any of your own thoughts on this matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

Funny, I won’t date men who will stand by and do nothing as a violent sociopath threatens to harm me and others around me. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

So glad justice was served. This is good for society in general as people won’t be afraid to stand up to bullies and people who threaten to harm others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lived in NYC and regularly rode the subway both then and later, Penny’s acquittal is great news. Riding the subway is often not for the faint of heart and riders depend on the guardian angels not to sit back passively when crazy people start harassing riders.

As for Alvin Bragg, he is a disgrace who has no business having any prosecutorial authority. His decision to charge Penny in the first place made most New Yorkers feel less safe in their city, and the sooner this incompetent buffoon leaves his position the better.

+1000. I am a NYC resident and I completely agree with you. It was an insane decision to charge Penny on these facts, and I am very, very relieved he was acquitted.

Yes, I think many people will justify criminal behavior due to fear or frustration with a system that has allowed things to get out of control.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. In addition to being a NYC resident and regular subway rider, I’m also a lawyer, and I don’t agree that Penny’s behavior was criminal. I think it met the legal elements of self defense. I think the decision to charge him was stupid and a waste of prosecutorial resources, on the legal merits, and was likely significantly influenced by the fact that Penny is white and Neely is Black (which had zero relevance to this situation).

I'm not sure if being a lawyer is very relevant here. Having knowledge about BJJ is critical to determining if Neely was a threat. At the very least, you need to learn quite a bit before you can come to any reasonable determination whether the force used was appropriate.

It’s relevant because self-defense is an actual legal concept with specific elements, and in my view (clearly also in the jury’s view) Penny’s conduct satisfied those elements. In a situation like that, where you need to act within seconds to neutralize what appears to be a serious, imminent, and potentially lethal threat to yourself and others, and as a PP mentioned above, your body is flooded with adrenaline (i.e., exactly the circumstances necessitating self-defense), you’re not in a position in that split second to weigh all the information and make the most perfect judgment of the exact amount of force needed to incapacitate the person. Distinguish this from a case like the murder of Breona Taylor, which was clearly an unjustified and unreasonable use of force.

Here, Penny was very obviously not acting maliciously. There was a credible and immediate threat to everyone’s safety, he was acting in the defense of himself and others, and he acted to incapacitate Neely, which had the unfortunate result that he died. And “reasonable use of force” is something that’s easy to calculate after the fact, harder in the moment. Legally justified self defense doesn’t exclude the possibility that the aggressor dies. Sometimes it happens, and it happened here. There really shouldn’t have been charges at all.

Maybe you are a new lawyer? I say this because many people who have zero experience outside of academia don't fully grasp that there is a big difference between theory and real life. They also think they know more than they actually know. You read about a concept and are attempting to apply it to a scenario, but it doesn't really fit.

… except the jury acquitted so obviously PP is correct

Juries are highly unpredictable, so you really haven't proven or disproven anything

I don’t think there was much unpredictability about this jury. Apparently multiple train passengers testified that they had never been so terrified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad justice was served. This is good for society in general as people won’t be afraid to stand up to bullies and people who threaten to harm others.

I hate the Trump federal courts for many reasons, but one positive silver lining is hopefully going to be a rethinking of precedent that limited long term involuntary commitment and medication.

[Anonymous]

I always thought that there is a point when people become unconscious and can't fight back. Isn't that when you stop choking them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lived in NYC and regularly rode the subway both then and later, Penny’s acquittal is great news. Riding the subway is often not for the faint of heart and riders depend on the guardian angels not to sit back passively when crazy people start harassing riders.

As for Alvin Bragg, he is a disgrace who has no business having any prosecutorial authority. His decision to charge Penny in the first place made most New Yorkers feel less safe in their city, and the sooner this incompetent buffoon leaves his position the better.

+1000. I am a NYC resident and I completely agree with you. It was an insane decision to charge Penny on these facts, and I am very, very relieved he was acquitted.

Yes, I think many people will justify criminal behavior due to fear or frustration with a system that has allowed things to get out of control.

I’m the PP you’re responding to. In addition to being a NYC resident and regular subway rider, I’m also a lawyer, and I don’t agree that Penny’s behavior was criminal. I think it met the legal elements of self defense. I think the decision to charge him was stupid and a waste of prosecutorial resources, on the legal merits, and was likely significantly influenced by the fact that Penny is white and Neely is Black (which had zero relevance to this situation).

I'm not sure if being a lawyer is very relevant here. Having knowledge about BJJ is critical to determining if Neely was a threat. At the very least, you need to learn quite a bit before you can come to any reasonable determination whether the force used was appropriate.

It’s relevant because self-defense is an actual legal concept with specific elements, and in my view (clearly also in the jury’s view) Penny’s conduct satisfied those elements. In a situation like that, where you need to act within seconds to neutralize what appears to be a serious, imminent, and potentially lethal threat to yourself and others, and as a PP mentioned above, your body is flooded with adrenaline (i.e., exactly the circumstances necessitating self-defense), you’re not in a position in that split second to weigh all the information and make the most perfect judgment of the exact amount of force needed to incapacitate the person. Distinguish this from a case like the murder of Breona Taylor, which was clearly an unjustified and unreasonable use of force.

Here, Penny was very obviously not acting maliciously. There was a credible and immediate threat to everyone’s safety, he was acting in the defense of himself and others, and he acted to incapacitate Neely, which had the unfortunate result that he died. And “reasonable use of force” is something that’s easy to calculate after the fact, harder in the moment. Legally justified self defense doesn’t exclude the possibility that the aggressor dies. Sometimes it happens, and it happened here. There really shouldn’t have been charges at all.

Maybe you are a new lawyer? I say this because many people who have zero experience outside of academia don't fully grasp that there is a big difference between theory and real life. They also think they know more than they actually know. You read about a concept and are attempting to apply it to a scenario, but it doesn't really fit.

I have been a lawyer for 30 years and think the PPs description was accurate. And, as another PP noted, the jury acquitted. Maybe you could point out the parts you think are incorrect, or that don't fit?

Lawyer? That's half of the people on DCUM, probably practicing patent or real estate law 😭

Several posters have already given reasons earlier in the thread.

Sure. I'm not going to go back and parse through 80 something pages. Anyway, I'm not interested in what other posters think, I'm interested in why *you* think the PPs description and analysis, in your words, "doesn't really fit." To paraphrase Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, do you have any of your own thoughts on this matter?

Seriously, what's the point. If you are too lazy to go back a couple of pages, then you have no interest in learning anything anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol

that’s a white supremacist account. Thanks for proving that MAGA is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always thought that there is a point when people become unconscious and can't fight back. Isn't that when you stop choking them?

With a blood choke, you can be in a world of hurt even before you go unconscious. It's deceptive because you are doing damage but the person is not limp. Penny likely had very limited training when it comes to chokes so it's hard to hold him to a very high standard, or at least that is what the jury was probably thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

He's going to be drowning in women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad justice was served. This is good for society in general as people won’t be afraid to stand up to bullies and people who threaten to harm others.

They will, especially in cities like NY, DC, LA. The real travesty of justice is that this case was brought in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

He's going to be drowning in women.

+1

That sexy AF blond, curly hair.

Just hope he isn't scared when he sinks in the choke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

Funny, I won’t date men who will stand by and do nothing as a violent sociopath threatens to harm me and others around me. But you do you.

Violent, drug addicted sociopath. Don’t forget he was high as a kite on K2 while he threatened that child and the other passengers on the train. If Penny wasn’t there, an innocent person would have died on that train. Possibly more than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

Funny, I won’t date men who will stand by and do nothing as a violent sociopath threatens to harm me and others around me. But you do you.

Violent, drug addicted sociopath. Don’t forget he was high as a kite on K2 while he threatened that child and the other passengers on the train. If Penny wasn’t there, an innocent person would have died on that train. Possibly more than one.

Just like George Floyd. I wonder what Fox News and the usual suspect are saying about this incident. They are probably using the same talking points they used to describe George Floyd. He died of drugs. He also died from pre-existing conditions. He would have died anyway. Dude standing on his neck had nothing to do with it! haha Crazy what people will believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won't date men who choke people.

Funny, I won’t date men who will stand by and do nothing as a violent sociopath threatens to harm me and others around me. But you do you.

Violent, drug addicted sociopath. Don’t forget he was high as a kite on K2 while he threatened that child and the other passengers on the train. If Penny wasn’t there, an innocent person would have died on that train. Possibly more than one.

Just like George Floyd. I wonder what Fox News and the usual suspect are saying about this incident. They are probably using the same talking points they used to describe George Floyd. He died of drugs. He also died from pre-existing conditions. He would have died anyway. Dude standing on his neck had nothing to do with it! haha Crazy what people will believe.

They are saying a man was killed for riding a subway. Ridiculous. Wrong again, just like George Floyd.