Anonymous wrote:I hope he doesn't take a plea deal and he takes this to trial. I'd like to see a jury convict him. Because they won't.

Anonymous wrote:Okay everyone, you heard it from the anti-Neely crowd--if you are on public transportation and are feeling threatened--even if the person you are afraid of hasn't layed a hand on you--you will be morally justified in killing that person--just like in the ol' Wild West days. You heard it first here...go out and do what you need to do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these people thinking that Mr. Neely's behavior didn't warrant concern: Would you be willing to be locked in a room with someone behaving like Mr. Neely? Would you be willing to lock YOUR CHILD in a room with Mr. Neely?

Nobody was locked in a room. Everybody has the opportunity to leave the car.

I actually wouldn’t feel safe being locked in a room with you, can I kill you if I see you?

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these people thinking that Mr. Neely's behavior didn't warrant concern: Would you be willing to be locked in a room with someone behaving like Mr. Neely? Would you be willing to lock YOUR CHILD in a room with Mr. Neely?

Nobody was locked in a room. Everybody has the opportunity to leave the car.

I actually wouldn’t feel safe being locked in a room with you, can I kill you if I see you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

NP this man had 40 arrests and multiple assault charges. If you follow the pattern, he likely was going to assault someone.

+1 Yes

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

You know perfectly well that he had schizophrenia and had hurt and assaulted people. He wasn't just "a vagrant and not likely to assault.".it's tragic that his situation was allowed to continue, given his medical, emotional, and criminal history.

I’m sorry if you don’t like the laws but you can’t kill somebody who was violent a year ago.

Most people who are also schizophrenic rarely assault people.

His criminal history is that he gets arrested a lot for having no place to go. That’s his actual history on record.

Anonymous wrote:All these people thinking that Mr. Neely's behavior didn't warrant concern: Would you be willing to be locked in a room with someone behaving like Mr. Neely? Would you be willing to lock YOUR CHILD in a room with Mr. Neely?

Anonymous wrote:All these people thinking that Mr. Neely's behavior didn't warrant concern: Would you be willing to be locked in a room with someone behaving like Mr. Neely? Would you be willing to lock YOUR CHILD in a room with Mr. Neely?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Basically, you're saying that a person can't do anything until the moment of physical assault? At that point, innocent people die. Pushed in front on trains. Beaten in the face. Hit with objects. Why are we allowing mentally ill people to walk around freely at the expense of their own safety and others' safety? That's not showing kindness at all.

Self-defense laws have always hinged on proportionality. Choking a man for 15 min until he died wasn't a proportional response.

Not sorry, but the Marine is going to jail.

And this is why most people stand around in subway stations and DO NOTHING when innocent victims are assaulted, raped, and/or get killed by mentally ill criminals.

Nobody was assaulted in this scenario.

NP this man had 40 arrests and multiple assault charges. If you follow the pattern, he likely was going to assault someone.

+1 Yes

No, actually the law does not support your assertion.

Somebody arrested 35 times for being a vagrant is not likely to assualt.

You know perfectly well that he had schizophrenia and had hurt and assaulted people. He wasn't just "a vagrant and not likely to assault.".it's tragic that his situation was allowed to continue, given his medical, emotional, and criminal history.