The original thread is old, so starting a fresh one.  Original thread:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=49828.0

Daniel Penny's fate is now in the hands of the jury - or is it?  The prosecution and defense rested, and the jury has been deliberating over the 1st count of Manslaughter before considering the 2nd count of Negligent Homicide.

Today, news has it that the jury is deadlocked on the 1st charge, which is the more serious one. 

Here's the nutshell summary of the courtroom shenanigans:

What should have happened in the jury room:
step 1 - deliberate on the 1st charge
step 2 - agree on a verdict on the 1st charge, either guilty or not guilty. A hung jury on the 1st count means a mistrial, so they never get to step 3.
step 3 - deliberate on the 2nd charge
step 4 - agree on a verdict on the 2nd charge

Here's where the prosecution and judge show how evil they are.  In any other trial, when a jury is unable to reach a decision on the primary charge, the entire case is declared a mistrial and all charges are unresolved.  The prosecutor can refile to retry the case either the same as the first time, or they can refile with only the lesser charge/s in order to make a conviction more likely.

However, when the prosecutor heard about the deadlock (before the judge was able to declare a mistrial),  they made a motion to drop the 1st count of Manslaughter and to allow the jury to deliberate on the 2nd (lesser) charge of Negligent Homicide.  And, since this is New York where rules and precedents don't really matter (re: Trump prosecutions, SCOTUS Bruen decision, ...), the judge granted the motion.

That's not how the system is supposed to work.

The defense of course objected to the motion to drop the 1st charge and asked to continue the trial to a verdict, as they were right to do.  Even though I think he'll have a great basis to appeal the verdict if convicted, this is a sleazy move by the state to salvage a case that was about to be declared a mistrial.

What really sucks about this is the state presented a case to try and prove manslaughter.  How much of that evidence would not have been presented, or presented in a different manner, or been disputed differently by the defense, had the trial started out with only the 2nd charge?  Courtroom strategies often hinge on what the elements of the crime are.  it's impossible to instruct the jury to now disregard any evidence that only pertains to the Manslaughter charge and not the Negligent Homicide charge.

The NY justice system needs a complete overhaul.

Either the prosecution is corrupt or "just following orders".  NYPD should have refused to arrest him or escort to and from the courthouse. But NYPD are cucks and do as they're told as majority of cops do.

Soros-funded prosecutors. 

Either the prosecution is corrupt or "just following orders".  NYPD should have refused to arrest him or escort to and from the courthouse. But NYPD are cucks and do as they're told as majority of cops do.

there's that dental plan, again.

and their pensions.

I'm late to this incident, haven't paid attention to it.  It's not murder or manslaughter and Penny had good intentions.  However I think he just screwed up and held the VNR too long and it wasn't an incident calling for lethal force.  If that was the case, then negligent homicide could be possible and it would be at the discretion of the prosecutor and jury.  I would see him as being covered by the good samaritan law and let him go.  Another option would be for guys to just pin him down without the VNR.

I'm late to this incident, haven't paid attention to it.  It's not murder or manslaughter and Penny had good intentions.  However I think he just screwed up and held the VNR too long and it wasn't an incident calling for lethal force.  If that was the case, then negligent homicide could be possible and it would be at the discretion of the prosecutor and jury.  I would see him as being covered by the good samaritan law and let him go.  Another option would be for guys to just pin him down without the VNR.

Good Samaritan law?  I think you have the wrong idea about what that means.  In NY, Good Samaritan laws are meant to shield someone who provides aid in an emergency situation from being sued and from other legal consequences.  It's also used to protect someone legally who calls 911 to assist a person overdosing, even if that person is the caller.  It does not cover the use of force to defend others from a deranged lunatic threatening to kill them. 

So, the forensic pathologist based the autopsy report, in part, off of the
footage itself of the fatal encounter, which Harris said she saw was clear-cut
evidence ruling out that Neely had died of a drug overdose.

"After watching it, I had no further questions as to why he was dead," Harris said.

Penny's defense attorneys questioned Harris about her initially writing
"inconclusive" for the cause of death on Neely's death certificate. One day
after Neely's death, the finding on May 2, 2023, said "pending further study."
The doctor said she eventually decided on asphyxiation, consistent with compression
of the neck, upon reviewing the video in question depicting Neely "dying."

Hence, Harris reached her conclusion before she ever received Neely's toxicology
report.

The toxicology report ultimately revealed that Neely, who had a history of abusing
the drug K2, which made him paranoid and prone to violent outbursts, had synthetic
substances in his system at the time that he died. "Two to 100 times more potent to
standard, natural occurring cannabinoids," K2 is classified as a stimulant similar to
the potency of cocaine, Harris remarked.

"We found in the blood a synthetic cannabinoid, a relatively new drug in the scheme
of drugs," she said. "They're synthetic and more potent than marijuana. In a class of
drugs, they fall under the category of stimulants. They rev the body up, fall into the
same class of drugs as, say, cocaine."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/11/18/daniel-penny-medical-examiner-n2647890

"I based my decision on the autopsy findings coupled with the video," she said.
"I didn’t wait for toxicology, because no toxicological report would change my
opinion. He could have come back with enough fentanyl to kill an elephant and
walked onto the train and got put in a chokehold, and that’s how he died."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/medical-examiner-says-subway-madman-had-drugs-system-marine-vets-chokehold-trial

How can any doctor be so sure of the cause of death when she couldn't determine a cause before seeing the video?  This is why jurors are told to avoid news reports involving the cases they are hearing.  It's had to not form an opinion based on what's in the media (including viral videos).  It taints the expected independence of any opinions formed.

He had a heartbeat after Penny released him.  Penny had no idea Neely was dead until long after he was being questioned by police.  It was a long time before he knew the situation was more serious than he believed.

Why is BLM still a thing? Didn’t people hear about the scams they were running?

https://nypost.com/2024/12/06/us-news/blm-head-accuses-daniel-penny-jurors-of-racism-report/

Why is BLM still a thing?

https://nypost.com/2024/12/06/us-news/blm-head-accuses-daniel-penny-jurors-of-racism-report/

BLM attracts lazy, self-entitled people.

It's a shame. They give nothing back to the black community but only use contrived prejudice as a platform to enrich themselves.

They are making the world a much more dangerous place. Thank goodness so many black men saw through the lies and voted for Trump.

Good Samaritan law?  I think you have the wrong idea about what that means.  In NY, Good Samaritan laws are meant to shield someone who provides aid in an emergency situation from being sued and from other legal consequences.  It's also used to protect someone legally who calls 911 to assist a person overdosing, even if that person is the caller.  It does not cover the use of force to defend others from a deranged lunatic threatening to kill them. 
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/miacathell/2024/11/18/daniel-penny-medical-examiner-n2647890
https://www.foxnews.com/us/medical-examiner-says-subway-madman-had-drugs-system-marine-vets-chokehold-trial

How can any doctor be so sure of the cause of death when she couldn't determine a cause before seeing the video?  This is why jurors are told to avoid news reports involving the cases they are hearing.  It's had to not form an opinion based on what's in the media (including viral videos).  It taints the expected independence of any opinions formed.

He had a heartbeat after Penny released him.  Penny had no idea Neely was dead until long after he was being questioned by police.  It was a long time before he knew the situation was more serious than he believed.

Self defense to help others shares a lot of elements of "good samaritan" law and this event appears to follow the spirit of the law even if not meeting the legal text of it.  Some states have some niche exemptions from criminal liability.  If an act is determined to fall under good samaritan law against civil liability, then it'd be difficult and unpopular to charge a person criminally with it.
I tried drafting and passing a law to protect self-defenders against civil liability but it's difficult, complex, and has a lot of controversy around it like "stand your ground."  Adding self-defense of others civil protections may be easier if connected to good samaritan.

I can see how it may be difficult to diagnose the cause of death from a VNR as there may not be physical injuries from it since it doesn't require a lot of pressure.  Perhaps injuries from the struggle but not the VNR.  What seemed like the person struggling could have been spams from lack of oxygen in the brain, the death throes.  It doesn't take long to get permanent brain damage and they could still have some pulse later.  The drugs in his system probably played a part in it too.

Is there a video available of the entire encounter?

It's sad what this Marine is going through.

Makes you wonder if it's worth it trying to protect others than your friends and loved ones.  Is there laws where if you do nothing you can also get in trouble?  Not sure.  Damn if you do and damn if you don't.

A flawed justice system is just as bad as criminal activity.

[snip]
Is there a video available of the entire encounter?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12051875/Video-shows-Marine-veteran-Daniel-Penny-ignoring-warnings-restraining-Jordan-Neely.html

Remember, it's not as cut and dried as one might believe, because one knows the outcome in advance and what the videos shows from a spectator's perspective.  In the moment, it's an adrenaline driven event with people talking and yelling from different directions.  Focus and attention can be taken away from Neely as others assist -- which seems to be the case while 2-3 people are helping Penny subdue Neely.

Several people testified they were afraid for their safety, and some for their lives.  Neely was threatening to kill them (men, women and children) and was obviously not in his right mind.  How much Monday morning quarterbacking is acceptable when second-guessing the actions Penny took?  This wasn't a refereed wrestling match or military training class.  It's a judgement call, and what matters is what Neely was thinking at that moment. 

The videos include some of the statements he made to police.  He only wanted to stop the threat, not injure or kill anyone.

I'm late to this incident, haven't paid attention to it.  It's not murder or manslaughter and Penny had good intentions.  However I think he just screwed up and held the VNR too long and it wasn't an incident calling for lethal force.  If that was the case, then negligent homicide could be possible and it would be at the discretion of the prosecutor and jury.  I would see him as being covered by the good samaritan law and let him go.  Another option would be for guys to just pin him down without the VNR.

The bad guy stated "im gonna take u all with me". This is in a city where 9/11 happened with the suicide highjackers.

A reasomable use of deadly force sounds fine. But im not a corrupt prosecutor looking to screw over a white guy.

Unless the bad guy meant hes taking everyone to Burger King.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why does it seem everything is skewed against the good guys nowadays.

When you do good, it's bad.

When you do something bad, society has to understand.  And administer kumbaya, kindness, and tolerance to your behavior.

Never mind that there are innocent people dead or injured.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12051875/Video-shows-Marine-veteran-Daniel-Penny-ignoring-warnings-restraining-Jordan-Neely.html

Remember, it's not as cut and dried as one might believe, because one knows the outcome in advance and what the videos shows from a spectator's perspective.  In the moment, it's an adrenaline driven event with people talking and yelling from different directions.  Focus and attention can be taken away from Neely as others assist -- which seems to be the case while 2-3 people are helping Penny subdue Neely.

Several people testified they were afraid for their safety, and some for their lives.  Neely was threatening to kill them (men, women and children) and was obviously not in his right mind.  How much Monday morning quarterbacking is acceptable when second-guessing the actions Penny took?  This wasn't a refereed wrestling match or military training class.  It's a judgement call, and what matters is what Neely was thinking at that moment. 

The videos include some of the statements he made to police.  He only wanted to stop the threat, not injure or kill anyone.

I counted 50 seconds from when Neely went limp to Penny completely releasing him.  Depends when he released or relaxed the hold and can't tell from the videos.  Holding the VNR for 50 seconds after going limp would be going into negligence.  I think a normally fit person would most likely recover without permanent injury tho.

Most likely the hold and excitement combined with the drugs and other ailments did him in.

Why does it seem everything is skewed against the good guys nowadays.

When you do good, it's bad.

When you do something bad, society has to understand.  And administer kumbaya, kindness, and tolerance to your behavior.

Never mind that there are innocent people dead or injured.

The answer is black and white.

I'm not one to blame all government decisions on DEI/race in all cases, but the media helps fuel these attitudes.  When Democrat-run states have already had riots in the streets, buildings and businesses destroyed, stores looted, city blocks taken over by protestors, cops assassinated in cold blood and so on, the people in charge become conditioned to try and prevent the next occurrence.  Their actions are "skewed" not so much against the good guys, but more like skewed for the black (or other minority) person and against the Caucasian individual.

White man wins fight with deranged Black man, so it must have been racially motivated.  Even if it wasn't, people can be convinced it was, because Black Lives Matter and White Privilege. 

i'm not saying the powers that control NYC aren't looking to stop violence by punishing people who defend themselves and others.  After all, the good guy will stay on scene while the criminal will flee, making the good guy easier to prosecute than the evasive criminal. 

I'm just saying the government has the safety of the entire city at large to manage, and preventing another backlash from what can be perceived as a murdering White man walking without charges for killing an "unarmed black man" could be a higher priority than actual justice.

I counted 50 seconds from when Neely went limp to Penny completely releasing him.  Depends when he released or relaxed the hold and can't tell from the videos.  Holding the VNR for 50 seconds after going limp would be going into negligence.  I think a normally fit person would most likely recover without permanent injury tho.

Most likely the hold and excitement combined with the drugs and other ailments did him in.

i'm curious if you would have come a definitive conclusion that the choke hold was unquestionably the cause of death after watching that video but before any tox reports were available?  Would the fact he was positive for drugs have made you change that conclusion?

That's what the medical examiner did.  She said a cause of death could not be found from the physical evidence obtained at autopsy, but the video she watched afterward was the evidence that proved Penny killed him.  She said no amount of drugs in Neely's system would have changed her mind.

watching Quincy, House, Doogie Howser or Googling WebMD does not make anyone a doctor

i'm curious if you would have come a definitive conclusion that the choke hold was unquestionably the cause of death after watching that video but before any tox reports were available?  Would the fact he was positive for drugs have made you change that conclusion?

That's what the medical examiner did.  She said a cause of death could not be found from the physical evidence obtained at autopsy, but the video she watched afterward was the evidence that proved Penny killed him.  She said no amount of drugs in Neely's system would have changed her mind.

Depends on what their policy and procedures are, or whatever the industry standard is.

I counted 50 seconds from when Neely went limp to Penny completely releasing him.  Depends when he released or relaxed the hold and can't tell from the videos.  Holding the VNR for 50 seconds after going limp would be going into negligence.  I think a normally fit person would most likely recover without permanent injury tho.

Most likely the hold and excitement combined with the drugs and other ailments did him in.

I watched the video and here are my thoughts. For the sake of focusing on the "choke hold", lets accept that the circumstance justified the initial application.

The difference between having a headlock and applying a choke of some sort can be so subtle as to be nearly impossible to visually tell whether Penny was closing off the blood flow or the airway. The choke wasn't in quite as deep as a good VNR should be but looking at Penny's left bicep, it looked like it was not far down his head enough to get good pressure on the sides of neck. If your bicep is too high on the head you end up squeezing their jaw bone and wont have much effect. Maybe he was still able to get sufficient pressure though. The video does show that the guy had clearly lost consciousness at a certain point but prior to that we don't know if his stillness was exhaustion or being unconscious. If he had crushed the trachea or yanked on his head causing a spinal injury I would think the coroner would be able to tell but there is no way the coroner can look at the video and determine the hold was the cause of death because we can't tell how much pressure Penny applied or when he applied the pressure and when he released the pressure. I have done mat-work with people who can turn light purple from a choke and still be consciously fighting and do so for a good 30 seconds because the choke is not quite closed enough.

From the point that Penny realizes the guy has lost consciousness he quickly lets go and they try to get him to a recovery position. If he had held the choke knowing that the male had lost consciousness then there could be a stronger case for a manslaughter type crime but his actions don't look negligent or reckless to me.

This is just a breakdown of the choke itself. There are so many other variables which can weigh on whether the choke was justified, whether it's length was justified, etc. I haven't dove into what lead up to the application of the choke hold so I don't have an opinion on that part. For Penny though, he has to be able to justify every step from beginning to end.

The original thread is old, so starting a fresh one.  Original thread:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=49828.0

Daniel Penny's fate is now in the hands of the jury - or is it?  The prosecution and defense rested, and the jury has been deliberating over the 1st count of Manslaughter before considering the 2nd count of Negligent Homicide.

Today, news has it that the jury is deadlocked on the 1st charge, which is the more serious one. 

Here's the nutshell summary of the courtroom shenanigans:

What should have happened in the jury room:
step 1 - deliberate on the 1st charge
step 2 - agree on a verdict on the 1st charge, either guilty or not guilty. A hung jury on the 1st count means a mistrial, so they never get to step 3.
step 3 - deliberate on the 2nd charge
step 4 - agree on a verdict on the 2nd charge

Here's where the prosecution and judge show how evil they are.  In any other trial, when a jury is unable to reach a decision on the primary charge, the entire case is declared a mistrial and all charges are unresolved.  The prosecutor can refile to retry the case either the same as the first time, or they can refile with only the lesser charge/s in order to make a conviction more likely.

However, when the prosecutor heard about the deadlock (before the judge was able to declare a mistrial),  they made a motion to drop the 1st count of Manslaughter and to allow the jury to deliberate on the 2nd (lesser) charge of Negligent Homicide.  And, since this is New York where rules and precedents don't really matter (re: Trump prosecutions, SCOTUS Bruen decision, ...), the judge granted the motion.

That's not how the system is supposed to work.

The defense of course objected to the motion to drop the 1st charge and asked to continue the trial to a verdict, as they were right to do.  Even though I think he'll have a great basis to appeal the verdict if convicted, this is a sleazy move by the state to salvage a case that was about to be declared a mistrial.

What really sucks about this is the state presented a case to try and prove manslaughter.  How much of that evidence would not have been presented, or presented in a different manner, or been disputed differently by the defense, had the trial started out with only the 2nd charge?  Courtroom strategies often hinge on what the elements of the crime are.  it's impossible to instruct the jury to now disregard any evidence that only pertains to the Manslaughter charge and not the Negligent Homicide charge.

Was this in violation of some rule or standard or is it just an outside of the box strategy by the prosecutors?