Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense fund nearing 400K - yay! This prosecution is ridiculous/pure political theater and will go nowhere. But in the meantime, the poor kid will go through hell. Glad he at least will not have to pay for his defense.

Jury will convict when they are shown photos of Neely dead on the subway floor in pool of his own vomited blood, piss, and feces. Prosecution will tell jury that these results are disproportionate use of force relative to Neely’s lunatic ranting, lack of weapon, and lack of physical assault. Prosecution will play video of the crowd pleading with Neely to let go, thereby eliminating his excuse that he didn’t realize Neely was dying.

Penny is f#cked, but his lawyers will get rich. Yay?

You saw different pictures and videos than everyone else did...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

And innocent people who are pushed in front of trains by mentally ill and/or repeat criminals? To what degree and to what level of comparison do you think their deaths are proportionate?

What do those unrelated cases have to do with the facts and circumstances of this exact case?

You can’t kill someone because of bad vibes and “what if…”. The justice system doesn’t work like that, thank god.

Neely attempted to push someone a week earlier. Some other homeless person did fatally push someone in front of a train. Bad vibes = real danger in the NY subway, to a reasonable person. Maybe you aren't reasonable, but others are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

And innocent people who are pushed in front of trains by mentally ill and/or repeat criminals? To what degree and to what level of comparison do you think their deaths are proportionate?

What do those unrelated cases have to do with the facts and circumstances of this exact case?

You can’t kill someone because of bad vibes and “what if…”. The justice system doesn’t work like that, thank god.

Unrelated? It's what many mass transportation riders have experienced or witnessed. Why are they supposed to sit calmly when someone is yelling and threatening to kill someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

PP here. Strawman argument? I think not. When someone feels threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daniel Penny's defense fund is up to $360,000. Excellent.

And, just to note... this is part of what his attorneys have said.....
"Any proceeds collected which exceed those necessary to cover Mr. Penny’s legal defense will be donated to a mental health advocacy program in New York City."

Just another useless program that enables those like Neely to be in and out, in and out… or maybe they actually do advocate for lifelong involuntary commitment? Which I doubt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is America. You shouldn’t be able to murder someone with your bare hands just because they are acting strange or having a mental health episode. That isn’t “self defense.” The law disagrees.

The people supporting the Marine are inching toward the notion that they should be able to kill anyone they deem a “threat.” And guess who they will consider a “threat” just because their fee-fees are agitated?

Holding this view, and acknowledging that the city has serious issues with the mentally ill roaming the streets and posing threats are compatible.

That said, the Supreme Court has taken an extremely expansive view of personal liberties. You have every right to be a raving mentally ill lunatic on the subway as long as you don’t commit a crime. Being mentally ill in public is not a crime. I’m supportive of looser involuntary commitment laws, but that would likely go against everything the current SC has been recently promoting in regards to a very expansive view of personal liberties.

This guy wasn't "behaving erratically", he actually was dangerous. Multiple people had said so, officially. That doesn't even include his multiple earlier victims, btw.

When people conflate crazy homeless people with dangerous homeless people, then more tragedies like this will happen. Think more deeply.

How was he actually "dangerous" in this moment on the subway? Did he threaten to harm others? Did he actually assault someone? Be specific - use his words verbatim. You are just insinuating danger over and over again. The court doesn't rule on feelings.

Listen, I am sympathetic that people were scared by his language and volume. I've been in the NYC subway plenty of times when the mentally ill are on-board; I lived in NYC for over a decade. When that happens you GTFO, you move away from the person, you help others (elderly, disabled, pregnant) get to safety.

But ya'll are arguing that "vibes" are sufficiently to literally kill someone who hasn't assaulted anyone. That is moving the goalposts on Stand Your Ground waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is legal, reasonable, or moral.

Eyewitness account:

A witness is coming forward with information on the Jordan Neely case that might potentially exonerate defendant Daniel Penny of the charges he now faces due to the prosecution of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Daniel Penny is the Marine who put Jordan Neely in a chokehold on the NYC subway due to reports that the homeless man was threatening train passengers.

The 66-year-old woman, who did not wish to be identified, told the New York Post on Thursday that she was grateful for what Penny had done to protect the subway passengers.

“I hope he has a great lawyer, and I’m praying for him,” she reportedly said. “And I pray that he gets treated fairly, I really do. Because after all of this ensued, I went back and made sure that I said ‘Thank you’ to him.”

According to reports, Neely, who had a known history of mental illness, allegedly posed a threat to fellow passengers when he boarded an F train in Manhattan.

“He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train,” the woman said about Neely. “He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’”

The retiree stated that initially, Penny refrained from engaging with Neely during his disruptive outburst. However, as the situation escalated and became uncontrollable, Penny felt compelled to intervene.

“This gentleman, Mr. Penny, did not stand up,” the rider said. “Did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was … threatening the passengers. If he did not get what he wants.”

https://beckernews.com/witness-comes-forward-with-exculpatory-information-on-neely-death-that-could-blow-case-wide-open-50313/

This charging decision is going to come back to bite Bragg in the @ss. If this woman testifies at Penny’s trial that case is done.

That is if Penny doesn’t take a plea deal. I can’t expect him acting like a hero forever… he needs to think about himself as well

I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if he took a plea deal. Nope. And, not taking a plea deal IS thinking about himself.

I don’t know enough about legal issues so I hope you are right. I would be tempted for the whole ordeal just to end…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

PP here. Strawman argument? I think not. When someone feels threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves.

There’s a Grand Canyon between killing your rapist (ie, experiencing a physical act of violence) and killing the crazy guy on the train ranting to himself.

So yeah, it’s a dumb strawman argument to compare those two scenarios.

If I think you’re a rapist, am I allowed to kill you? I feel like you’re giving off rape’y vibes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense fund nearing 400K - yay! This prosecution is ridiculous/pure political theater and will go nowhere. But in the meantime, the poor kid will go through hell. Glad he at least will not have to pay for his defense.

Jury will convict when they are shown photos of Neely dead on the subway floor in pool of his own vomited blood, piss, and feces. Prosecution will tell jury that these results are disproportionate use of force relative to Neely’s lunatic ranting, lack of weapon, and lack of physical assault. Prosecution will play video of the crowd pleading with Neely to let go, thereby eliminating his excuse that he didn’t realize Neely was dying.

Penny is f#cked, but his lawyers will get rich. Yay?

Not when they see the actual video of them putting Neely in the "recovery position," calling 911 and having the passengers thank him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This situation is not a black-and-white (excuse the unintended pun) as it seems. Let's read what the most often quoted eye witness (Vazquez, the man who shot the video we've all seen) says. He was there. We weren't

"Vazquez said he had mixed feelings about the fatal encounter — particularly since he said Neely had not physically attacked anyone on the train before he was taken down.

“I think that in one sense it’s fine that citizens want to jump in and help. But I think as heroes we have to use moderation,” he said.

“This would never have happened if the police had shown up within five minutes,” he added. “Then we’d be talking about a true hero. It’s complicated.”

It’s mostly his very deep thoughts on the matter.
He needs to stick to the facts
I see him as a wishy washy guy who can see both sides blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

PP here. Strawman argument? I think not. When someone feels threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves.

There’s a Grand Canyon between killing your rapist (ie, experiencing a physical act of violence) and killing the crazy guy on the train ranting to himself.

So yeah, it’s a dumb strawman argument to compare those two scenarios.

If I think you’re a rapist, am I allowed to kill you? I feel like you’re giving off rape’y vibes.

He wasn't just ranting to himself. He was threatening passengers.
I have seen homeless people ranting to themselves. This was not that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO READ ABOUT THIS CASE!
Daniel Penny is a FLIPPING AMERICAN HERO! He stepped up to stop this monster before he could kill anyone on the train and now he is being attacked. What if he sat there and let this freak show kill someone?? He was out of his mind! Insane! Hell no. And I quote this from a news article:

“Neely was homeless, schizophrenic and had a record of 40 arrests that included punching a 67-year-old woman in the face.

On May 1, he was screaming that he wanted to 'kill a motherf****r' to get a ticket to jail where he'd receive meals.

Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, stepped in and put him in a chokehold. Neely died at the scene.”

So people who are mentally ill should be killed? Keep in mind that Penny didn't know Neely's mental health history. We don't condone vigilantes in the US.

Well if the government refuses to put them in humane institutions which they cannot leave what are people to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

PP here. Strawman argument? I think not. When someone feels threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves.

There’s a Grand Canyon between killing your rapist (ie, experiencing a physical act of violence) and killing the crazy guy on the train ranting to himself.

So yeah, it’s a dumb strawman argument to compare those two scenarios.

If I think you’re a rapist, am I allowed to kill you? I feel like you’re giving off rape’y vibes.

He wasn't just ranting to himself. He was threatening passengers.
I have seen homeless people ranting to themselves. This was not that.

+1 exactly

[Anonymous]

Honestly I think in a civilized developed country the paying customers of a transportation system should NOT encounter those who are: smelly, dirty, obviously mentally unwell (ranting to themselves), harassing others/panhandling. Let alone violent and dangerous.
I don’t care if the smelly dirty person next to me or even trying to engage me is harmless. They should not be there!
And they should not be on the public streets and public property.
Should they be killed? No. Should they be locked up and medicated until they get better, and put back in the second they are back to their usual selves if they are released? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: even if Neely had punched someone in the face, Penny would still be facing charges and likely get convicted.

Why? Because Penny’s use of force was disproportionate. Neely was subdued on the ground by 3 adult men and Penny continued to choke him until the life liquidated out of Neely’s orifices.

Those are the gruel facts. A claim of self-defense or defense of others has to be proportionate to immediacy and severity of the threat at hand. Once again, you can’t kill someone because of “bad vibes.” It doesn’t work like that.

What if a woman kills a person trying to rape her? Does she need to consider proportionate force?

Lordy this is a tortured Strawman argument. Do you even hear yourself?

PP here. Strawman argument? I think not. When someone feels threatened, they should have the right to protect themselves.

There’s a Grand Canyon between killing your rapist (ie, experiencing a physical act of violence) and killing the crazy guy on the train ranting to himself.

So yeah, it’s a dumb strawman argument to compare those two scenarios.

If I think you’re a rapist, am I allowed to kill you? I feel like you’re giving off rape’y vibes.

Kudos to you for being such a calm, rational person who thoughtfully employs proportionate violence in the face of danger. (I don't believe you really are.)