The difference is whether a reasonable person would know if they are a danger to others. "Uncomfortable" was not what was going on here, the man threatened folks.
Penny used a long known pro wrestling "sleeper" hold on Neely.
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
The difference is whether a reasonable person would know if they are a danger to others. "Uncomfortable" was not what was going on here, the man threatened folks.
The whole defense case rides on words, not actions. Neely did not do any actions that were technically threatening. He did say, "I don't have food, I don't have a drink, I'm fed up. I don't mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I'm ready to die." There is no debate about what he said.
Now you could argue that why did he say he could get life in prison? The reason people get life in prison is they commit severe crimes, which could be an indirect threat to commit a severe crime. Or maybe he was crazy and thought panhandling would lead to a life in prison.
Alt right commentators often say they will be going to prison for the rest of their lives. That we will outlaw Christianity, or heterosexuality, and they will have to kill us all to keep from going to prison. They often say they will need to kill us all before these laws that will never even be proposed get passed.
Do we have the right to choke them out?
That is just a side point. In this case, there can be a workable argument for self defense, but it is not a particularly strong argument. I disagree with Damocles more on his certainty than on his opinion.
Walt is a lawyer this week...
There is no certainty. I said it would ride on what a reasonable person would understand. When a jury is seated, that will be the question they are answering. I have not said there should be no trail, I only pointed out why murder isn't the charges they chose to bring, and told you what the jury will be asked to speak to.
I prefer to wait for the trial before I make a judgement, and then I tend to read transcripts or watch video before I question (and provide a different opinion on) a jury's decisions on a criminal case.
Usually homicide cases are extreme cases. It usually takes a lot of determination to kill someone. This is a case of subtleties, and degrees.
I like to see warnings before a person is killed. I understand that we can not always warn the threat that he has gone too far, but I just feel in this case warnings were possible.
Neely said, "I don't have food, I don't have a drink, I'm fed up. I don't mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I'm ready to die." Neely was not armed, and made no violent actions. At that point Penny snuck up behind Neely and began choking him. There was no warning given to Neely that Penny felt he had gone too far. Neely could not even say anything more, because he was being choked out.
I am sure Penny's lawyers will argue that Penny did not feel safe giving Neely a warning. I worry it is a slippery slope where I will get on a subway one day screaming how angry I am, and get choked to death.
You are again "certain" about what happened, I am not. Folks were thanking Penny for what he did, that wasn't because he was telling them he was hungry, it was because they felt threatened.
My guess is, and it is only a guess, that even in NYC (actually especially in NYC because of what's lately been happening in the Subway with folks getting pushed down stairs, into oncoming trains, violently attacking older folks, etc.) you will find that the jury is open to hearing about whether it was reasonable, unlike you who believes what he "hears" in articles written by someone purposefully trying to make Penny look badly to make a political point. You should stop paying attention to the political columnists, and let the jury make the decisions, they will see evidence that you and I have not. What I do know here is that almost nothing about what folks who think "he's guilty" before a hearing said in this thread was true, and they got most of their information from "articles" written by folks who wanted to give them an opinion and were short on facts. You should avoid doing that if what you actually want is justice.
We are certain about what was said, and what actions happened. The length of the choking is not certain yet, but will probably be certain sooner or later. What we are uncertain about is what are the interpretations of what was said, and what happened.
There were folks that thanked Penny, and there were folks on the subway who called him a murderer. No one was happy with Neely for screaming, but some because it was rude, and some because they felt it was threatening.
So, now we are to the point where we are seeing that even you believe that some felt it was threatening. So my point... and it's been a long time getting here because you kept insisting you knew everything, will be whether it was reasonable to believe that he was a danger to others or himself. That's where we are now. Right back to what I said at the beginning.
Since he isn't law enforcement the laws that apply to them aren't in play and it becomes what a "reasonable person" could see. All it will take is convincing just one jurist that his actions could make a reasonable person believe that he was dangerous to himself or others. Do you think it is possible that even you could be convinced of that? If so, you could be a good jurist, if not because you "already know" what is "reasonable" and you've read an article or two so you know he is "guilty" you would not make a good jurist.
Actually, it is not. First off, killing someone because they are a threat to themselves makes no sense, and has no legal basis. Second, everyone is some level of threat to everyone, we cannot kill everyone in self defense.
The threat has to be immediate, certain, and extreme to justify taking a life. I just do not see angry, self threatening words as that.
The obvious defense here for Penny is that he did not realize he was taking a life. That would basically be that Penny that he was just holding Neely to stop him from hurting himself or others, and accidentally killed Neely.
That is always a tough defense. English common law makes killing hard to justify.
Here is where you have the issue, if his goal was to kill him then he would be charged with 1st degree homicide. It was not. He wasn't charged with that because even the prosecutor in a city where they overcharge in the hopes of getting a plea recognized that it was not his goal to kill Neely.
The reality is, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no reasonable person would see his (Neely's) actions as a threat to himself or others and therefore believe it to be reasonable to personally detain him to ensure the safety of others (or himself). Using a hold that is in no way something that regularly produces death. In this case we know that Penny and others have stated that there were threats, so in this case it is "to others"... we know that more than Penny thought that it was reasonable because he was helped (we see that in the video)...
Anyway, you and I got to the same thing for a second and then you went off on a tangent again.. and then you pretend to know more than you do again without regard to what you previously stated. That "some believed"...
The reality is: that is the question that will be answered by the jury. And I have told you why it will be the question they will be answering. All you have is "but that doesn't make sense because some article I read suggested something different"...
It doesn't matter. They will be answering that question when they go into deliberations even if you think that article you read was super convincing, and they will have more information than you when they do it. Even you noted that some of the folks felt threatened... So far we're doing pretty good for the defense.