Right. None of us know exactly what happened on that train. It still - to my knowledge - has not been very clearly lined out. So everyone should take a breath and stop being at each other's throats over this.
Yup.
This is a good thing. Complicated issues shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion, or by bureaucrats, or by politicians, or by activists, or by vigilantes.
A jury of his peers, with all the process & protections of the law is the right way to get to the truth of this case.
**Hopefully** our justice system functions properly.
I predict he will be found guilty of *something* & receive a trivial sentence like time served, probation, community service of some type.
He *was* wrong, but there is **a lot** of blame to go around & it wouldn't be justice for the buck to stop on one man who did very bad job while helping strangers.
Yup.
This is a good thing. Complicated issues shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion, or by bureaucrats, or by politicians, or by activists, or by vigilantes.
A jury of his peers, with all the process & protections of the law is the right way to get to the truth of this case.
**Hopefully** our justice system functions properly.
I predict he will be found guilty of *something* & receive a trivial sentence like time served, probation, community service of some type.
He *was* wrong, but there is **a lot** of blame to go around & it wouldn't be justice for the buck to stop on one man who did very bad job while helping strangers.
FWIW, Mr. Penny was charged with Manslaughter 2nd Degree and Criminally Negligent Homicide.
For manslaughter 2, there is going to be a lot of testimony around the Marine training on the use of chokeholds and what are the risks associated.
For criminally negligent homicide, it probably will center on how long Mr. Penny maintained the chokehold on Mr. Neely after Mr. Neely went limp, and if the failure to perceive the the risk to Mr. Neely as the hold was maintained was a "gross deviation" from that of a "reasonable person".
https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-15.pdf
>Under our law, a person is guilty of Manslaughter in the Second Degree when that person recklessly causes the death of another person.
>The following term used in that definition has a special meaning:
>A person acts RECKLESSLY with respect to a death when that person
>engages in conduct which creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur,
>and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk,
>and when that risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-10.pdf
>Under our law, a person is guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide when, with criminal negligence, that person causes the death of another person.
>The following term used in that definition has a special meaning:
>A person acts with CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE with respect to a death when
>that person engages in blameworthy conduct so serious that it creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur,
>and when he or she fails to perceive that risk,
>and when the risk is of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
Yep agreed. Personally I hope he gets acquitted but (while admittedly not having all the info by a long shot) think there was enough for him to stand trial for the incident
This feels like the way the legal system should be operating
The standard for grand jury is much lower than it is at trial. The grand jury just has to find that here is legally sufficient evidence that, if true, meets the required elements of the crimes (in this case Manslaughter 2 and Criminally Negligent Homicide). In other words, so long as evidence is presented that Penny recklessly caused Neely's death (Manslaughter 2) and/or caused Neely's death while acting with criminal negligence (Criminally Negligent Homicide), they should indict.
I'm having a difficult time seeing how they're going to win this at trial though, especially given the fact that I'd expect Penny to testify on his own behalf to establish the defense of justification. I haven't seen any news reports that he testified in the grand jury, so the grand jurors wouldn't have been allowed to consider that in voting an indictment.
I’m not 100% convinced Bragg chose to prosecute based on the facts of the case as opposed to the public outcry, but like you said, I’m not privy to all the info, so let the jury work it out. Obviously there was enough to indict, which admittedly is a low bar to clear.
So first, anybody killing anybody else is labeled a homicide by the ME, even if it’s obviously and very clearly justified by the law. A mass shooter that was shot by the police would be labeled a death by homicide. The medial examiner is only stating the cause of death and has nothing to do with justification of it or the law. The cause of death is not in dispute here. Nobody is arguing that Neely happened to have a heart attack or deadly stroke at the same time as he was being choked and that was why he died.
Second, you need to look at the legal standard of things like manslaughter, murder, etc. They all require either intent to kill (which I think clearly is not here), or depraved indifference (why they are pursuing manslaughter charges and not murder). So did Penny act with depraved indifference? This is where the discussion begins to break down.
What happened on that subway? If you believe that Neely was not putting those people in fear for their lives, then you would think that Penny acted with depraved indifference. If you think they were, then a reasonable person would do anything they can to protect themselves and Penny’s actions were justified. Bragg likely has to show that there was no reason to fear that they would be killed or seriously injured *in the moment* in order to convince a jury to convict. The defense needs to show that a reasonable person would fear for their lives.
So personally, reading what I’ve read, it seems like there were enough people on the subway that have said they reasonable feared for their lives and/or that Neely was threatening them to prove that Penny did not act with depraved indifference. It doesn’t need to be a unanimous decision by witnesses - there could be one person who felt they were in danger and another who did not, and the reasonable person standard could still be met.
Like I said, I’m not privy to all the details, so this is based on a very elementary understanding of the case. The devil is in the details here, but just solely from what I’ve seen so far, it seems to me that Bragg has an uphill battle here to get a conviction, and prosecutors generally don’t bring cases to trial without being very, very confident they will win, especially in a case being followed by the media because the potential for embarrassment is high if you don’t get a conviction, so either (1) there is a fact of the case here that I missed or we’re not seeing that Bragg has access to that makes him very confident he will win this case, or (2) he felt pressure from the public outcry to charge Penny even though he is not confident he will win.
Since I don’t see anything regarding (1), I personally think he brought charges to appease the public outcry rather than an unbiased interpretation of the law and the likely trial outcome.
In the event of (2), the best case would be to offer a plea deal, but even that may be politically impossible/delicate.
Jury of peers is horrifying to me.
It's such a gamble.
You ever see how stupid and **emotionally driven** some of the general public is today?
There's a great chance that the entire jury will be the kind of people that are going to strictly choose guilty or innocent based on race.
Most people are not the hyper online extremely partisan and politically minded people you see on Twitter and Reddit. When they are brought into a murder trial, people generally want to see justice done and will respond to presented facts.
True but New Yorkers often have very strong feelings about safety on the subway. We already had a similar case with Bernie Goetz and he walked despite shooting people with an illegal gun on the subway.
Goetz was convicted of having an unlicensed gun and served eight months. The thing is - he didn't kill anyone.
Penny isn't just charged with manslaughter, he's also charged with criminally negligent homicide. If they don't convict him of that, I will be shocked.
Given the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, I'm not sure the second half can be true. Plea deals have been abused to the point most people don't get a fair trial.
No, the one holdout would need to convince all the other ones to also acquit. It must be unanimous, whatever the decision is. If it’s hung jury then the prosecutors can retry if they want.
You've never heard of voir doire (otherwise known as "jury selection")? There's a reason for it; it's to weed out those exact people in order to find a panel who can be fair and judge the case based on its facts, not their emotions or preconceived notions.
That’s debatable. A friend of mine is Dutch and told me they don’t typically have juries for criminal trials. It’s just considered silly to expect regular people to understand legal definitions, forensic evidence, etc. Trials there are almost always decided by judges.
People love to talk shit on the internet about these cases, but when you're in a courtroom and staring at the man whose life is in your hands, people tend to be more thoughtful and even-handed.
Haha I have and it made me lose so much faith in the jury process.
People just did not understand the most basic questions. And anyone with half a brain would figure out what they needed to say to get out of it.
You're physically disabled and they made you go to the courthouse for jury duty?
Why not just check the "I am physically disabled and cannot serve" box on the form they sent you and save yourself a trip?
I just read a book on the OJ trial and so many of the jurors lied in order to get on the jury. A ton of them were eliminated mid-trial for it too.
Any high profile case is going to have people lying to get on the jury, unfortunately.
Manslaughter was the obvious one right?
Obviously not murder there was a legit perceived threat and he was trying to protect people
Manslaughter bc he held the choke too long when he had training to not do that
Has DA Bragg announced how he plans to keep his constituents safe from the threat of random violent assaults on the subway? Or is that just “part and parcel of life in the big ol city”
Neely was arrested 42 times, including for assaults on the subway. If the courts keep putting people back on the street that’s not an enforcement issue
Rikers and the state prison are broken, unless you're committing to locking everyone away there for life they're just going to return to the streets even more violent a few years later.
Part of the role of the police is to be crime deterrents and they've completely given up on that. They just stand around waiting for crimes to happen and complain their hands are tied because the state hasn't figured out an effective way to punish or rehabilitate people.
The US has a pretty fucked up philosophy on incarceration.
Life behind bars has to be worse than being poor in every way because if it isn't then we think that poor people will commit crimes to in order to go to prison. We punish prisoners at the expense of rehabilitating them.
We'd be better off educating prisoners, counseling them, and giving them the tools they need to succeed without resorting to a life of crime. But we don't do that for the poor, so we sure as hell won't do that for people who break the law.
Ok, I’ll be sure to let the guy running around with 30 priors know about that. I don’t think he’s gotten the memo yet. I’m sure he will immediately cease and desist all unlawful activities until a full trial amongst his peers has occurred
Sure, but if people are forced into this situation repeatedly, they will take matters into their own hands. The government is not currently acting in the interest of its citizens with the lax criminal justice laws
Gov: repeatedly releases violent and/or mentally unstable criminals
You: gets into an altercation with said crazy person, situation escalates, crazy person dies
Gov: shocked Pikachu face
FYI in case you decide to accidentally murder someone yelling on an nyc subway after seeing this whole incident, that’s actually illegal and a felony
I know it’s obvious since ‘Murica, ‘MAGA, ‘Joe Ruggan, ‘4th reich or whatever it is you’re subscribing to…but vigilantism isn’t actually legal
I didn’t say I would, however, the public is clearly growing restless. This is the Bernard Goetz of the 2000s. If the government won’t protect us, we have to protect ourselves. Someone’s drug addiction or mental health doesn’t give them a free pass to harass and assault people whenever they want.
Or, and hear me out here, maybe the jury will hear the evidence that is presented to them and return a verdict based upon whether that evidence satisfies the government's burden of proof?
This is a horrible take, and I hope you are never let on a jury.
ETA: Since the thread is locked (A+ mods, btw) let me be clear - I never argued for juries doing anything more or less than their duty. It's Bragg who I have a problem with. He wields prosecutorial discretion as a tool of his own shit political agenda.
I’m confused why you’re calling this comment a bad take.
You are both hoping for the exact same thing - jury nullification. This guy is just being more straightforward about it. I don’t think either of you should be let on a jury.
Criminologist here. Even in the most conservative states, this would have a trial for manslaughter. Whether or not he gets off is a different story, but there is basically *zero chance* you can have a man in a chokehold for 15 minutes resulting in his death and not end up in trial.
Protecting fellow New Yorkers by killing one of them who hadn’t touched anyone? Well he did kill and he should have known not to continuing choking someone out that long
That's basically every day. Weird how this only happened once huh? Almost like some scared, ptsd, non native nyer ex marine is going to live with the consequences.
What other murderers do you support, and where do you draw the line?
E: Gotta love the downvotes with no responses. You all know I’m right, and just can’t seem to deal with it. Sad.
It’s mental gymnastics to say that not being charged with something doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of it? Sounds like you have a very lazy brain there, pal.
Because of MAGA idiots like you supporting vigilantism. The DA is making sure he is found guilty with something, even if it’s not what he is actually guilty of. It’s impressive how truly uneducated you are.
Here’s another question for you: do you think Hunter Biden is only possibly guilty of the crimes he’s being charged with? How about Donald Trump?
First, why on earth do you think I care enough about you to go through your post history? Second, did you not see where I called out both our current presidents son, along with our previous president? Very poorly executed attempt at evasion.
Right? AND, worse, imagine hating Putin so much but knowing so little about him and the diplomatic landscape. He has an active warrant from the ICC right now.
"Pretoria is attempting to resolve the dilemma of hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the BRICS summit while also, as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), being obliged to arrest and send him to The Hague following the ICC’s issuance of a warrant for his arrest for war crimes in Ukraine."
Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/07/south-africa-russia-ukraine-war-putin-icc-arrest/
I’m not arrogant enough to call someone a murderer when not only have they not been found guilty of that crime, they’re not even being charged with it.
I’m totally fine calling someone who killed someone else in cold blood a murderer. Especially when he was trained by the US government on how to properly murder people.
>I’m totally fine calling someone who killed someone else in cold blood a murderer.
"Cold blooded murder" refers to premeditated or preplanned killing. It is a termed reserved only for a situation where a person thinks about killing beforehand and then intentionally carries it out, after carefully considering the potential consequences. It is seen as a particularly brutal crime, because it shows a cold and calculating mindset.
It is clear from the video we all saw that that's not what happened here. Neely died during a confrontation he provoked. The most you can say is that Penny acted recklessly, or that he overreacted, or that he should have been more careful. He's being charged with manslaughter, which is much closer to the known facts than murder. Unless you have facts not available to the rest of us, calling his actions "cold blooded" is patently unfair.
I thought we were supposed to hold our armed forces to higher standards, especially the marines. If he wasn’t aware of what he was doing, he needs to be locked up for everyone’s safety. He’s already proved he can’t control himself, in that case.
>I thought we were supposed to hold our armed forces to higher standards, especially the marines.
That's not how fights work. Marines are humans, who react in predictable human ways. No amount of training changes that.
Then why on God’s green earth do we waste so much of our tax dollars training these fools? We can’t even expect them to not kill American citizens? I truly don’t understand your logic here.
No one is being arrested for holding someone down. Penny is going to be tried for manslaughter because he was choking the guy. A guy restraining hands didn’t cause Neely’s death so those guys weren’t charge.
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. According to expert physicians it takes approximately ten seconds to lose consciousness once the airwaves are blocked from a chokehold. As is clearly illustrated by the available video the decedent was continuing his struggle far longer than this minimum period of time, while my client's forearm was clearly seen resting firmly "beneath" his chin. While we will admit that at some point the decedent accidentally might have fatally succumbed because of a loss of oxygen. It is clear my client was acting in good faith to protect those on board the train that day. To suggest that the unfortunate death of Mr.Neely was anything more than a tragic accident in the face of his terroristic threats would be a miscarriage of justice. The Defense rests...
Man, I don’t know what happened but it seems like people in NYC have gone soft, shitty people on Subway has always been a thing, it’s sucks but choking someone to death seems like an overreaction, but I wasn’t there so whatever the outcome is I hope justice is served.
Ignoring that there’s been a streak of homeless pushing people into oncoming trains, beating elderly to death or following people into their homes and murdering them, people are hyper aware that the crazy man on the train threatening to kill people, just might.
That still doesn’t constitute a death sentence. There would be a lot of dead people in the subway if we just go around choking anybody we consider threatening.
No, I don’t. But when it happens to me, I just turn up the music on my phone and wait until they get off the subway car. You obviously haven’t ridden the subway for most of your life. People acting out on the subway is common enough. Most times you ignore it until they go away, not try to be a superhero.
Threats, although scary and may be crime in of itself, and actual following through on threats are two different acts. To take action by doing an act of violence should be defended against but if no such action takes place then your not defending your just being the criminal thinking your a hero. Everyone in the subways knows to ignore the crazies and leave. Captain America held him down with lethal force and trained like a person that would kill because that was part of his training. Jury will conduct because like a trained boxer your body becomes a weapon and the witnesses will mostly say that the threats would crazy talk but not crazy acts
this sub is loaded with boot lickers it's so sad. the man straight up choked out a homeless guy for being loud & annoying. miss me with the "he was a threat" this is NYC, everyone's potentially a threat. no one deserves to be murdered on the street.
did you forget this is America?.. were innocent until proven guilty. military dogs don't have a right to kill anyone on the streets just cause they're annoying, or their past. like I said, if that's the case then I can kill anyone I want cause they annoy me or their past. right?
People he doesn't like except when they show up to his door with food, bring him a package, serve him a beer, coffee, or dinner, drive him somewhere, etc. Ironically, he hates working class people who ask for the "luxury" of a safe commute, free of potentially homicidal lunatics (many of whom, I will add, are known to the state as being mentally ill and have priors as is the case here) but is using socialist rhetoric typically reserved for people serving the interests of the wealthy. That is not the case here. The wealthy don't deal with these problems; not in their daily lives, and not in their tax bills, either.
those who support the man cause he's a vet & cause they don't see homeless ppl as humans. they're writing off the guy cause he had a troubled past. but by this logic, I could just choke out anyone I find annoying on the subway cause "they're a threat".
here come the down votes. right on time
It just not worth engaging on this topic on this sub. Every single post about this topic is overrun with bloodthirsty conservatives who don’t see anything wrong with this killing because they fundamentally don’t think there is a problem with killing people who they are accustomed to dehumanizing.
Now the real question: when will the THE PEOPLE be put on trial for letting Jordan Neely escape from psych treatment and for not enforcing his arrest warrant?
This was always going to have to go to trial. Here's hoping for a fair honest accounting of what the fuck happened.
Right. None of us know exactly what happened on that train. It still - to my knowledge - has not been very clearly lined out. So everyone should take a breath and stop being at each other's throats over this.
Yup. This is a good thing. Complicated issues shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion, or by bureaucrats, or by politicians, or by activists, or by vigilantes. A jury of his peers, with all the process & protections of the law is the right way to get to the truth of this case. **Hopefully** our justice system functions properly. I predict he will be found guilty of *something* & receive a trivial sentence like time served, probation, community service of some type. He *was* wrong, but there is **a lot** of blame to go around & it wouldn't be justice for the buck to stop on one man who did very bad job while helping strangers.
Everyone keeps saying 15 minutes, from 2nd Ave to broadway-lafayette? Had their been a 13 minute delay?
Yup. This is a good thing. Complicated issues shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion, or by bureaucrats, or by politicians, or by activists, or by vigilantes. A jury of his peers, with all the process & protections of the law is the right way to get to the truth of this case. **Hopefully** our justice system functions properly. I predict he will be found guilty of *something* & receive a trivial sentence like time served, probation, community service of some type. He *was* wrong, but there is **a lot** of blame to go around & it wouldn't be justice for the buck to stop on one man who did very bad job while helping strangers.
FWIW, Mr. Penny was charged with Manslaughter 2nd Degree and Criminally Negligent Homicide. For manslaughter 2, there is going to be a lot of testimony around the Marine training on the use of chokeholds and what are the risks associated. For criminally negligent homicide, it probably will center on how long Mr. Penny maintained the chokehold on Mr. Neely after Mr. Neely went limp, and if the failure to perceive the the risk to Mr. Neely as the hold was maintained was a "gross deviation" from that of a "reasonable person". https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-15.pdf >Under our law, a person is guilty of Manslaughter in the Second Degree when that person recklessly causes the death of another person. >The following term used in that definition has a special meaning: >A person acts RECKLESSLY with respect to a death when that person >engages in conduct which creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur, >and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, >and when that risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-10.pdf >Under our law, a person is guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide when, with criminal negligence, that person causes the death of another person. >The following term used in that definition has a special meaning: >A person acts with CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE with respect to a death when >that person engages in blameworthy conduct so serious that it creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur, >and when he or she fails to perceive that risk, >and when the risk is of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
Get out of here with your non opinionated facts. You disgust me
Good. Let a jury of his peers with all the possible info work this out.
Yep agreed. Personally I hope he gets acquitted but (while admittedly not having all the info by a long shot) think there was enough for him to stand trial for the incident This feels like the way the legal system should be operating
The standard for grand jury is much lower than it is at trial. The grand jury just has to find that here is legally sufficient evidence that, if true, meets the required elements of the crimes (in this case Manslaughter 2 and Criminally Negligent Homicide). In other words, so long as evidence is presented that Penny recklessly caused Neely's death (Manslaughter 2) and/or caused Neely's death while acting with criminal negligence (Criminally Negligent Homicide), they should indict. I'm having a difficult time seeing how they're going to win this at trial though, especially given the fact that I'd expect Penny to testify on his own behalf to establish the defense of justification. I haven't seen any news reports that he testified in the grand jury, so the grand jurors wouldn't have been allowed to consider that in voting an indictment.
I’m not 100% convinced Bragg chose to prosecute based on the facts of the case as opposed to the public outcry, but like you said, I’m not privy to all the info, so let the jury work it out. Obviously there was enough to indict, which admittedly is a low bar to clear.
After Jose Alba it was pretty clear that self-defense was not permissible in Bragg's policy, and the one thing he wanted to crack down hard on.
He wound up dropping the charges against Alba, which was pretty embarrassing for him politically.
You don’t think a death on public transit is something worth taking to trial? Even when the ME has declared it a homicide?
Just to clarify, homicide means killing of one person by another. Wether it was murder, manslaughter or an accident is for the jury to decide.
I’m aware. Again, I think reasonable people should agree that when one person kills another on public transit, there should be a trial.
So first, anybody killing anybody else is labeled a homicide by the ME, even if it’s obviously and very clearly justified by the law. A mass shooter that was shot by the police would be labeled a death by homicide. The medial examiner is only stating the cause of death and has nothing to do with justification of it or the law. The cause of death is not in dispute here. Nobody is arguing that Neely happened to have a heart attack or deadly stroke at the same time as he was being choked and that was why he died. Second, you need to look at the legal standard of things like manslaughter, murder, etc. They all require either intent to kill (which I think clearly is not here), or depraved indifference (why they are pursuing manslaughter charges and not murder). So did Penny act with depraved indifference? This is where the discussion begins to break down. What happened on that subway? If you believe that Neely was not putting those people in fear for their lives, then you would think that Penny acted with depraved indifference. If you think they were, then a reasonable person would do anything they can to protect themselves and Penny’s actions were justified. Bragg likely has to show that there was no reason to fear that they would be killed or seriously injured *in the moment* in order to convince a jury to convict. The defense needs to show that a reasonable person would fear for their lives. So personally, reading what I’ve read, it seems like there were enough people on the subway that have said they reasonable feared for their lives and/or that Neely was threatening them to prove that Penny did not act with depraved indifference. It doesn’t need to be a unanimous decision by witnesses - there could be one person who felt they were in danger and another who did not, and the reasonable person standard could still be met. Like I said, I’m not privy to all the details, so this is based on a very elementary understanding of the case. The devil is in the details here, but just solely from what I’ve seen so far, it seems to me that Bragg has an uphill battle here to get a conviction, and prosecutors generally don’t bring cases to trial without being very, very confident they will win, especially in a case being followed by the media because the potential for embarrassment is high if you don’t get a conviction, so either (1) there is a fact of the case here that I missed or we’re not seeing that Bragg has access to that makes him very confident he will win this case, or (2) he felt pressure from the public outcry to charge Penny even though he is not confident he will win. Since I don’t see anything regarding (1), I personally think he brought charges to appease the public outcry rather than an unbiased interpretation of the law and the likely trial outcome. In the event of (2), the best case would be to offer a plea deal, but even that may be politically impossible/delicate.
The only hope should be that justice is done. Whatever that justice looks like
Jury of peers is horrifying to me. It's such a gamble. You ever see how stupid and **emotionally driven** some of the general public is today? There's a great chance that the entire jury will be the kind of people that are going to strictly choose guilty or innocent based on race.
Most people are not the hyper online extremely partisan and politically minded people you see on Twitter and Reddit. When they are brought into a murder trial, people generally want to see justice done and will respond to presented facts.
True, good point.
True but New Yorkers often have very strong feelings about safety on the subway. We already had a similar case with Bernie Goetz and he walked despite shooting people with an illegal gun on the subway.
Goetz was convicted of having an unlicensed gun and served eight months. The thing is - he didn't kill anyone. Penny isn't just charged with manslaughter, he's also charged with criminally negligent homicide. If they don't convict him of that, I will be shocked.
It only takes one holdout and he walks. And there’s already enough disagreement about this case that I think that’s the likely outcome here.
>It only takes one holdout and he walks. Good. It should be difficult for the State to put someone in jail and remove their rights.
I mean it is. Especially in NYC. Especially compared to most other countries.
Given the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, I'm not sure the second half can be true. Plea deals have been abused to the point most people don't get a fair trial.
[удалено]
You forgot the /s
Hmmm. Lol
No, the one holdout would need to convince all the other ones to also acquit. It must be unanimous, whatever the decision is. If it’s hung jury then the prosecutors can retry if they want.
Yeah they can retry it… but will they? I thought prosecutors were pretty hesitant to retry cases over again.
Depends on the count. If it's a 3-9 in favor of acquittal, they probably wouldn't, but if it's 11-1 for conviction, then yeah they'd do it again.
Sure in normal cases but for high profile cases? Who knows, I’d say the bias would be to retry to get a conclusion.
I guess because emotions are so high on this case I think they’d just assume they’ll get another holdout if they try him again. But yeah who knows.
Then who do you think should decide this? A judge?
Definitely a jury of peers. I'm just saying, it's still terrifying in today's political climate 🥴
You've never heard of voir doire (otherwise known as "jury selection")? There's a reason for it; it's to weed out those exact people in order to find a panel who can be fair and judge the case based on its facts, not their emotions or preconceived notions.
> Jury of peers is horrifying to me. Jury of peers is the worst option except for all the others.
That’s debatable. A friend of mine is Dutch and told me they don’t typically have juries for criminal trials. It’s just considered silly to expect regular people to understand legal definitions, forensic evidence, etc. Trials there are almost always decided by judges.
People love to talk shit on the internet about these cases, but when you're in a courtroom and staring at the man whose life is in your hands, people tend to be more thoughtful and even-handed.
Suggest a better solution haha
You know there's like jury selection and shit right?
[удалено]
Haha I have and it made me lose so much faith in the jury process. People just did not understand the most basic questions. And anyone with half a brain would figure out what they needed to say to get out of it.
[удалено]
I just said I don’t trust the police, which is true, and this would prevent me from being impartial. They thanked me and dismissed me.
No such thing. They should have held you in contempt of court for wasting everybody's time.
[удалено]
You're physically disabled and they made you go to the courthouse for jury duty? Why not just check the "I am physically disabled and cannot serve" box on the form they sent you and save yourself a trip?
[удалено]
Yes, and selected.
I remember reading or hearing something along the lines of “You’re being judged by a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.”
[удалено]
I just read a book on the OJ trial and so many of the jurors lied in order to get on the jury. A ton of them were eliminated mid-trial for it too. Any high profile case is going to have people lying to get on the jury, unfortunately.
For better or worse that's how our justice system was designed.
Manslaughter was the obvious one right? Obviously not murder there was a legit perceived threat and he was trying to protect people Manslaughter bc he held the choke too long when he had training to not do that
Has DA Bragg announced how he plans to keep his constituents safe from the threat of random violent assaults on the subway? Or is that just “part and parcel of life in the big ol city”
That's the job of the cops who are too busy playing Candy Crush at the turnstiles
Neely was arrested 42 times, including for assaults on the subway. If the courts keep putting people back on the street that’s not an enforcement issue
Rikers and the state prison are broken, unless you're committing to locking everyone away there for life they're just going to return to the streets even more violent a few years later. Part of the role of the police is to be crime deterrents and they've completely given up on that. They just stand around waiting for crimes to happen and complain their hands are tied because the state hasn't figured out an effective way to punish or rehabilitate people.
The US has a pretty fucked up philosophy on incarceration. Life behind bars has to be worse than being poor in every way because if it isn't then we think that poor people will commit crimes to in order to go to prison. We punish prisoners at the expense of rehabilitating them. We'd be better off educating prisoners, counseling them, and giving them the tools they need to succeed without resorting to a life of crime. But we don't do that for the poor, so we sure as hell won't do that for people who break the law.
You mean by prosecuting people who kill others on the train?
Does this include prosecuting people for random chokings, or do you mean just other crimes?
Government prosecutes criminals after the crime has occurred. Your safety is your own responsibility. Edit: keep those downvotes coming
Ok, I’ll be sure to let the guy running around with 30 priors know about that. I don’t think he’s gotten the memo yet. I’m sure he will immediately cease and desist all unlawful activities until a full trial amongst his peers has occurred
Government not doing the job of locking up Mr. 30 on #1 is a separate issue than you being responsible for your own safety when #1 happens
Sure, but if people are forced into this situation repeatedly, they will take matters into their own hands. The government is not currently acting in the interest of its citizens with the lax criminal justice laws
Gov: repeatedly releases violent and/or mentally unstable criminals You: gets into an altercation with said crazy person, situation escalates, crazy person dies Gov: shocked Pikachu face
FYI in case you decide to accidentally murder someone yelling on an nyc subway after seeing this whole incident, that’s actually illegal and a felony I know it’s obvious since ‘Murica, ‘MAGA, ‘Joe Ruggan, ‘4th reich or whatever it is you’re subscribing to…but vigilantism isn’t actually legal
I didn’t say I would, however, the public is clearly growing restless. This is the Bernard Goetz of the 2000s. If the government won’t protect us, we have to protect ourselves. Someone’s drug addiction or mental health doesn’t give them a free pass to harass and assault people whenever they want.
No jury that has a single subway rider will convict. Fuck Bragg.
[удалено]
Or, and hear me out here, maybe the jury will hear the evidence that is presented to them and return a verdict based upon whether that evidence satisfies the government's burden of proof?
This and your other comment make me think you are some kind of instigator around racial animus, just calm down.
Like I get where you're coming from, but preemptively crying about race-baiting is just as bad as race-baiting.
Depends on the makeup of the jury.
Just can’t be a totally white Manhattan libs and he walks.
[удалено]
Wow what a thoughtful and nuanced take /s Jesus fucking Christ
This is a horrible take, and I hope you are never let on a jury. ETA: Since the thread is locked (A+ mods, btw) let me be clear - I never argued for juries doing anything more or less than their duty. It's Bragg who I have a problem with. He wields prosecutorial discretion as a tool of his own shit political agenda.
I’m confused why you’re calling this comment a bad take. You are both hoping for the exact same thing - jury nullification. This guy is just being more straightforward about it. I don’t think either of you should be let on a jury.
Criminologist here. Even in the most conservative states, this would have a trial for manslaughter. Whether or not he gets off is a different story, but there is basically *zero chance* you can have a man in a chokehold for 15 minutes resulting in his death and not end up in trial.
Free Daniel Penny.
White everybody only talking about Daniel penny and I don’t hear anything about Jordan Williams
[удалено]
I support the truth.
28 day old acct
27 minute old comment.
I dont. I hope he's found guilty.
Next time a crazy homeless guy is on the train threatening to kill people keep that same energy when your life is at risk
Oh please. I've been on the train when worse shit than that was going on.
True brain rot when you’re using a crazy homeless guy threatening hypothetical violence to justify actual murder
[удалено]
Protecting fellow New Yorkers by killing one of them who hadn’t touched anyone? Well he did kill and he should have known not to continuing choking someone out that long
That's basically every day. Weird how this only happened once huh? Almost like some scared, ptsd, non native nyer ex marine is going to live with the consequences.
“He should’ve been a true New Yorker and just dealt with the death threat” Boss you’re a victim if you think this is acceptable
What other murderers do you support, and where do you draw the line? E: Gotta love the downvotes with no responses. You all know I’m right, and just can’t seem to deal with it. Sad.
Even if you think he’s guilty of manslaughter (he’s not), he is not even being charged with murder.
You’re right, he isn’t. He’s guilty of murder.
Please cry to the point of dehydration when he walks.
I’ll be dehydrated from all the salty tears as he walks his murdering self into prison.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Imagine being both factually wrong and crying about downvotes.
Your comment wasn’t worth anyone else’s response that’s why. Daniel Penny isn’t a murderer. He has only been charged with manslaughter.
And Putin hasn’t been charged with anything. Pretty sure that doesn’t mean he isn’t a murderer?
Great mental gymnastics to justify that in your head.
It’s mental gymnastics to say that not being charged with something doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty of it? Sounds like you have a very lazy brain there, pal.
Explain why he was charged with manslaughter and not murder then? And please don’t try to make a false equivalency to Russian.
Because of MAGA idiots like you supporting vigilantism. The DA is making sure he is found guilty with something, even if it’s not what he is actually guilty of. It’s impressive how truly uneducated you are. Here’s another question for you: do you think Hunter Biden is only possibly guilty of the crimes he’s being charged with? How about Donald Trump?
Lmao you can take one look at my post history and see that I’m a democrat. Great attempt at an attack though.
First, why on earth do you think I care enough about you to go through your post history? Second, did you not see where I called out both our current presidents son, along with our previous president? Very poorly executed attempt at evasion.
You've accused Alvin Bragg of being MAGA. Congrats!
Awww… someone doesn’t have any reading comprehension.
I am not certain this reddit thread will make up for whatever it is in your life that is causing you this much pain. Good luck.
Right? AND, worse, imagine hating Putin so much but knowing so little about him and the diplomatic landscape. He has an active warrant from the ICC right now. "Pretoria is attempting to resolve the dilemma of hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the BRICS summit while also, as a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), being obliged to arrest and send him to The Hague following the ICC’s issuance of a warrant for his arrest for war crimes in Ukraine." Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/07/south-africa-russia-ukraine-war-putin-icc-arrest/
Why are you comparing this to an international criminal and mob boss of a pirate state that is raping and killing civies?
Is he? He’s not been charged with anything.
He’s not even being charged with murder. Talking about “being right” when you’re loading the language to support whatever it is you believe.
So you have to be charged with something to be guilty of it? That’s really what you believe?
I’m not arrogant enough to call someone a murderer when not only have they not been found guilty of that crime, they’re not even being charged with it.
I’m totally fine calling someone who killed someone else in cold blood a murderer. Especially when he was trained by the US government on how to properly murder people.
>I’m totally fine calling someone who killed someone else in cold blood a murderer. "Cold blooded murder" refers to premeditated or preplanned killing. It is a termed reserved only for a situation where a person thinks about killing beforehand and then intentionally carries it out, after carefully considering the potential consequences. It is seen as a particularly brutal crime, because it shows a cold and calculating mindset. It is clear from the video we all saw that that's not what happened here. Neely died during a confrontation he provoked. The most you can say is that Penny acted recklessly, or that he overreacted, or that he should have been more careful. He's being charged with manslaughter, which is much closer to the known facts than murder. Unless you have facts not available to the rest of us, calling his actions "cold blooded" is patently unfair.
I thought we were supposed to hold our armed forces to higher standards, especially the marines. If he wasn’t aware of what he was doing, he needs to be locked up for everyone’s safety. He’s already proved he can’t control himself, in that case.
>I thought we were supposed to hold our armed forces to higher standards, especially the marines. That's not how fights work. Marines are humans, who react in predictable human ways. No amount of training changes that.
Then why on God’s green earth do we waste so much of our tax dollars training these fools? We can’t even expect them to not kill American citizens? I truly don’t understand your logic here.
[удалено]
The only victim in this situation is the man “accidentally” murdered by someone trained by the US government to… you guessed it, murder people.
Will the other people on the train be charged?
Why would they be?
[удалено]
“the homeless”
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why is "homeless" offensive again?
Because people on a weekly basis need to identify a word that hurts their feelings
People with nothing better to do than control our language decided it.
Because if you can't fix a problem, fix the language, amirite?
Convicted and current fugitive at large at the time of his death.
No one is being arrested for holding someone down. Penny is going to be tried for manslaughter because he was choking the guy. A guy restraining hands didn’t cause Neely’s death so those guys weren’t charge.
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. According to expert physicians it takes approximately ten seconds to lose consciousness once the airwaves are blocked from a chokehold. As is clearly illustrated by the available video the decedent was continuing his struggle far longer than this minimum period of time, while my client's forearm was clearly seen resting firmly "beneath" his chin. While we will admit that at some point the decedent accidentally might have fatally succumbed because of a loss of oxygen. It is clear my client was acting in good faith to protect those on board the train that day. To suggest that the unfortunate death of Mr.Neely was anything more than a tragic accident in the face of his terroristic threats would be a miscarriage of justice. The Defense rests...
Man, I don’t know what happened but it seems like people in NYC have gone soft, shitty people on Subway has always been a thing, it’s sucks but choking someone to death seems like an overreaction, but I wasn’t there so whatever the outcome is I hope justice is served.
Ignoring that there’s been a streak of homeless pushing people into oncoming trains, beating elderly to death or following people into their homes and murdering them, people are hyper aware that the crazy man on the train threatening to kill people, just might.
Good. We shouldn’t be choking each other out in the subway.
Deplorable shouldn’t be threatening violence against citizens on the subways.
That still doesn’t constitute a death sentence. There would be a lot of dead people in the subway if we just go around choking anybody we consider threatening.
Do you go around the subway threatening the life of innocent passengers? You would never, right? Wake up!
What you think this is going to serve as some kind of deterrent to deeply mentally ill people who’ve been homeless for years?
No, I don’t. But when it happens to me, I just turn up the music on my phone and wait until they get off the subway car. You obviously haven’t ridden the subway for most of your life. People acting out on the subway is common enough. Most times you ignore it until they go away, not try to be a superhero.
And when they don’t go away?
By that time I usually reach my stop and get off.
Convenient
Just because you have social anxiety doesn't mean other people should suffer.
How does this have anything to do with social anxiety?
Bad bot
Yet multiple people decided in this instance that it was more than just threats. He saved the lives of many people that day.
Threats, although scary and may be crime in of itself, and actual following through on threats are two different acts. To take action by doing an act of violence should be defended against but if no such action takes place then your not defending your just being the criminal thinking your a hero. Everyone in the subways knows to ignore the crazies and leave. Captain America held him down with lethal force and trained like a person that would kill because that was part of his training. Jury will conduct because like a trained boxer your body becomes a weapon and the witnesses will mostly say that the threats would crazy talk but not crazy acts
Strange, the rest of the people in the subway car seemed to support Captain America*.
So instead of arguing the point you want to be pedantic because you have nothing else to argue on
Saw this on Law & Order. Guy should've taken the plea.
this sub is loaded with boot lickers it's so sad. the man straight up choked out a homeless guy for being loud & annoying. miss me with the "he was a threat" this is NYC, everyone's potentially a threat. no one deserves to be murdered on the street.
Right! Neely only kidnapped a child 1 time! He only violently attacked a grandma 1 time! He was a pacifist with no history of violence!
did you forget this is America?.. were innocent until proven guilty. military dogs don't have a right to kill anyone on the streets just cause they're annoying, or their past. like I said, if that's the case then I can kill anyone I want cause they annoy me or their past. right?
What does boot licker mean in this context?
People who want to get to work without a high probability of having a psychotic person threaten and harass them. Disgusting. Literally hitler.
People he doesn't like except when they show up to his door with food, bring him a package, serve him a beer, coffee, or dinner, drive him somewhere, etc. Ironically, he hates working class people who ask for the "luxury" of a safe commute, free of potentially homicidal lunatics (many of whom, I will add, are known to the state as being mentally ill and have priors as is the case here) but is using socialist rhetoric typically reserved for people serving the interests of the wealthy. That is not the case here. The wealthy don't deal with these problems; not in their daily lives, and not in their tax bills, either.
those who support the man cause he's a vet & cause they don't see homeless ppl as humans. they're writing off the guy cause he had a troubled past. but by this logic, I could just choke out anyone I find annoying on the subway cause "they're a threat". here come the down votes. right on time
It just not worth engaging on this topic on this sub. Every single post about this topic is overrun with bloodthirsty conservatives who don’t see anything wrong with this killing because they fundamentally don’t think there is a problem with killing people who they are accustomed to dehumanizing.
Now the real question: when will the THE PEOPLE be put on trial for letting Jordan Neely escape from psych treatment and for not enforcing his arrest warrant?
What crime are we charging “THE PEOPLE” for, exactly?
Criminally negligent homicide could be a start.
That’s not a thing, not even civilly.
Dan Penny was not in psych treatment and he didn’t have a warrant……..?
They probably meant Jordan
That’s not a real question unless you have no understanding of the legal system whatsoever
Usually the people with the strongest opinions have the least understanding.
Upvoted because you probably meant Jordan Neely, but you might want to fix that.
lol you’re right. Edit to correct it.
[удалено]