Jordan Neely killed by chokehold on subway

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120594793#Comment_120594793

I literally referred to justifiable homicide as an example of why you were wrong.

Justifiable homicide, suicide, war, are all examples of homicide that contradict the definition you tried to use to argue a point. That's why you're incorrect. QED

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120597339#Comment_120597339

I think putting him in a choke hold was in self defence. If he had done that for 10 seconds, let go when he went out, and got up restrained him, waited for the cops etc. We wouldn't ne talking about it. The entire case that he apparently held him or 15 mins. Which is beyond excessive.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120597839#Comment_120597839

If those reasonable people actually though they were about to see a person be killed, they did very little to intervene. I'm not saying it undermines the idea that's what they thought. But in a court room, the defence asking them on the stand "why didn't you try help, intervene, stop Penny" etc it becomes harder to sell to a jury that they thought they were about to see a homicide.

Unlike the George Floyd case, where people were saying arguing with the cops, but they pull authority on bystanders.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598532#Comment_120598532

If those reasonable people actually though they were about to see a person be killed, they did very little to intervene. I'm not saying it undermines the idea that's what they thought. But in a court room, the defence asking them on the stand "why didn't you try help, intervene, stop Penny" etc it becomes harder to sell to a jury that they thought they were about to see a homicide

I doubt a decent attorney would even contemplate going down that route with an impartial eye witness. A good lawyer will only ask questions they already know the answer to, they want to illicit a response they want the Jury to hear that helps their client.

The question of "why didn't you help" could be interrupted as "why were you cowardly when a man was being killed". You could possible go from an impartial eye witness that you can control to one immediately on the defensive where the answer could possibly be anything.

e.g. Because I was afraid I'd be choked next.

That would be fatal to the defence.

Either way an eye witness told him he will kill him, I don't think recklessness will be that hard to prove even without the eye witness.

It was captured on camera, this is not solely a he said, she said case.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598179#Comment_120598179

So there are self defense laws and there is no absolute duty to retreat, glad we cleared all that up.

The language you used is very interesting, sneaking up and not threatening, as if this was just some random person he came upon for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Why on earth would I go over points again when you keep arguing things that you can't know.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598803#Comment_120598803

My description of what happened is accurate based on the video.

If you have a different interruption by all means give it.

I see you also failed to answer my pretty simple pertinent question.

Either way sneaking up behind someone and choking them to death who was not armed and not specifically threatening anyone is not a lawful homicide anywhere, but particularly in NY under their penal codes.

Unless you can show me how it would be?

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598866#Comment_120598866

I think a mentally ill man got on a train and was acting in a way that others felt threatened. Three people intervened and placed him in a restaint that tragically led to Neely losing his life. I don't think anyone involved wanted to kill him. It's an awful event that led to the loss of one man's life and another man's life will be destroyed. There are no winners in this situation. It does show how little is done to help people with mental illness, not only over there but the same applies here in Ireland as well.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598949#Comment_120598949

 There are no winners in this situation

I wouldn't have thought for a second it was a win or lose situation.

But there is only one victim right, Jordan Neely the person who was brutally killed, correct?

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598978#Comment_120598978

Well, no, and I would have thought that was obvious. Yes, Neely's death is truly awful and he was a victim. But there were others on that train who witnessed it and will have to deal with those event's for a long time. Penny will suffer the consequences for his actions. The two other people holding Neely down should also be charged. There were many victims from this event, some paid a far higher price unfortunately, but there was more than one on the day.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598997#Comment_120598997

I think the other 2 are fine, you can't assist in strangulation or choking apparently. Although Pennys defence team are going out of their way to suggest they "helped".

Anyway given the amount of money he is getting, the victims are going to come after him thick and fast with civil suits after he gets his plea deal.

BruteStock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599047#Comment_120599047

No suggestion is needed. It's on film the other guy restraining Neelys arms. There is no way to argue he didn't help when he was preventing Neely from using his own arms.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599047#Comment_120599047

Yet, more police officers were charged with GFs death and they weren't kneeling on his neck. The other two men here are in hot water, no doubt. One is clearly on camera holding his arm.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598642#Comment_120598642

A witness for the prosecution is not impartial. Nor is it one the defence controls. The defence would probably rather they were not there at all. But they likely will be, and they likely will testify that they say to Penny that he was about to kill Neely. That's the situation that the defence are facing.

The question of "why didn't you help" could be interrupted as "why were you cowardly when a man was being killed".

Who mentions cowardly? The witness didn't help, that's a fact. It's perfectly reasonable to ask, why he acted the way he did.

You could possible go from an impartial eye witness that you can control to one immediately on the defensive where the answer could possibly be anything. e.g. Because I was afraid I'd be choked next.

The lawyer isn't accusing, he is looking for his proception at the time. I highly doubt the witness actually thought the he would be choked next, and I believe that most decent people would not lie under oath during a murder trial.

Either way an eye witness told him he will kill him, I don't think recklessness will be that hard to prove even without the eye witness.

The witness did say that. And then did nothing all all to prevent that death they predicted. That undermines their warning imo. If they told him that, then tried and failed to intervene they would be much more convincing as a witness. The fact they did nothing, could be interpreted that they didn't really believe it. Penny doesn't have to confirm he heard them.

I agree he acted recklessly on his own. Anyone who has training that involves chokes*, should know the mechanism of how they work and the risk time presents. I think that is much more damning than a randomer shouting out.

*Skeptical as to what, if any, training he had. But the prosecution can easily present the idea that marines are trained in unarmed fighting (they do a tiny bit, and they aren't very skilled, unless they have prior training)

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599143#Comment_120599143

The witness did say that. And then did nothing all all to prevent that death they predicted. That undermines their warning imo. If they told him that, then tried and failed to intervene they would be much more convincing as a witness.

I can't see how it undermines their warning when they were completely accurate about what would and did happen.

As for doing nothing to prevent their death, they did nothing physical to get involved but there was nothing in law compelling them to.

They are an impartial witness who was present and gave a running commentary on the situation as he saw, a commentary that proved completely accurate.

It certainly won't be the witness who is on trial having to proved Penny was reckless, that is already on video.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120597825#Comment_120597825

I never said the current NY coroner is not qualified. That's just you putting words into my mouth. It is you making the noise rather than accepting the source from the CDC which says that a NY coroner does not need to be medically trained (qualified); a fact you seem to find hard to swallow after you insisting that the coroner in the NY jurisdiction must be duly licensed (qualified....medically trained..etc etc) when the truth is he/she needs zero medical training or license. This one didn't come from the jurisdiction of New Mexico.

If you continue to find it difficult to accept facts, that's on you. Maybe you are still reeling that there is no murder charge on the white man and can't take anymore truth.

What's the fund at now?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599190#Comment_120599190

If I was witnessing what I thought was some wannabe hero about to kill somebodies. I would intervene, I expect most decent people would intervene. If bystanders truely believed he was about to die, they probably should have intervened. Al that is needed is to slightly loosen the grip. The fact they stood watching could be used to call into question whether they believed he was about to kill him, even if they have a valid reason so not intervening.

As for doing nothing to prevent their death, they did nothing physical to get involved but there was nothing in law compelling them to.

Of course they didn't legally have to. That is pretty weak justification. They definitely should not say that.

They are an impartial witness who was present and gave a running commentary on the situation as he saw, a commentary that proved completely accurate.

If that are subpoenaed, they are probably impartial. If they are a witness for the prosecution, less likely to be impartial.

kaftan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598161#Comment_120598161

Like others I misinterpreted what you meant by "no self defense here in New York".

But we don't have the full facts of the case, we have partial facts. What happened in the period before the video that resulted in three men intervening to restrain Neely? We do have one witness who descibes Neely's behavior and thanked Penny after the incident. I'm sure there are other witnesses and possibly other videos. Was he threatening to rob or attempt a robbery? That would be grounds for self defense, although not the use of deadly physical force. Were some in the carriage aware of his prior history of ramdom attacks on the subway? Although some media accounts are portraying him as a harmless entertainer, he was convicted in 2019 for an assault on the subway, convicted agian in 2021 for punching a 67 year old woman as she exited the subway, breaking her nose and eye socket. He didn't serve any time for either offense, but there was a warrant out for him for breaking the terms of his "alternatiove to incarceration" program.

I agree it's unlikely to go to trial. I'm not sure Bragg wants a trial either, as it could become a referendum on himself. Remember this is a DA who doesn't believe in incarceration except for extreme cases like homicide, doesn't believe armed robbery is a felony, and has a lead prosecotor who doesn't believe violent criminals are necessarily '"bad guys". In an environment where increasingly people do not feel safe on the streets and certainly not safe on the subway, the prosecution might struggle to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

I think Neery was foolish to intervene, even in the case there was valid grounds for self defense. The vast majority of people wouldn't intervene, even if an assault or attempted murder were occuring. This case will further dissuade anyone from intervening. The reality in US cities is if you are attacked on the streets or on the subway by a violent maniac, you are on your own.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599838#Comment_120599838

What someone claims they would do on the internet would be moot in the extreme.

You believe there is only one answer to the question "Why did you not intervene?" - 'Because I didn't think he would be killed'

It would be beyond illogical for the eye witness who gave the commentary and was proved 100% correct that he would completely change his mind when questioned after the fact.

Fact - He said it at the time.

Fact - What he said was the result.

Fact - It's on video.

The reality is in answer to the "Why did you not intervene?"

I was scared, I regret not intervening, etc, etc, etc.

Not ah shure I didn't think he would be killed which again is illogical to reality.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598453#Comment_120598453

Except I linked to justifiable homicide days ago? The coroner didn’t rule his death an act of suicide or war, what are you like.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599867#Comment_120599867

But we don't have the full facts of the case, we have partial facts

Ah Here, lets not pretend we only a vague summation of facts.

Several interviews have already been given and the actual killing is recorded. No one has suggested he was threatening robbery, that is just pure fantasy.

I think Neery was foolish to intervene, even in the case there was valid grounds for self defense

Please explain. What grounds are there for Justifiable Homicide in this case given the actual facts as we know them?

The only valid grounds for self defence that day is that if someone used violence to save Neely. As he was the only true victim in this.

The reality in US cities is if you are attacked on the streets or on the subway by a violent maniac, you are on your own.

As Jordan Neely found out ultimately.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599463#Comment_120599463

I never said the current NY coroner is not qualified.

then there’s been no point to your hip firing assertions that the coroners of the state might not be qualified. QED.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599922#Comment_120599922

They were examples of non criminal homicide, I'm surprised I have to point that out.

You claimed homicide means murder or manslaughter. That claim is incorrect. It's really that simple.

The fact you contradicted that claim doesn't it any less incorrect. You've two days now trying to dig up. Just give up, you were wrong, move on.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120600167#Comment_120600167

You are in error: I simply cited New York law and its definition of homicide. You’re saying the New York Law is wrong?

“Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally negligent homicide. N.Y. Penal Law § 125.00”

Penny will have to convince a court that his homicide of Neely was justified. It’s that simple. Leave your scoreboard to yourself.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599902#Comment_120599902

What the average person believes a reasonable person would do is for from moot. It's fundamental to the legal system.

You believe there is only one answer to the question "Why did you not intervene?" 

Nope. I've never suggested that. I've said it's a question the defence will possibly ask. The defence will try to undermine the witnesses. I'm not claiming they are guaranteed to succeed.

It would be beyond illogical for the eye witness who gave the commentary and was proved 100% correct that he would completely change his mind when questioned after the fact.

Fact - He said it at the time.

Fact - What he said was the result.

Fact - It's on video.

Has anyone disputed those facts? No.

Fact - The Witness did not intervene.

The reality is in answer to the "Why did you not intervene?"

I was scared, I regret not intervening, etc, etc, etc.

I'm sure he does regret it. He could have prevented a death. Admit that chose not to prevent a death may not be a route he goes in court. He's not on trial, but people tend to not make themselves look bad.

And the reality is, you don't know that he was scared. You've invented that hypothetical. Maybe he panicked, again we don't know. You can't really decide what other people motive was. The people who decide to call them s a witness or not will likely have a much better insight.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120600212#Comment_120600212

”

Has anyone disputed those facts? No.

Fact - The Witness did not intervene”

what you’ve stated is categorically false. Witness who described it as a murder also attested that they attempted to render first aid and only got as far pouring some water in his head (ie. intervention) before Penny told him to stop and “shuffled” him away - this was linked to earlier in the thread

“And the reality is, you don't know that he was scared”

the witness said as much:

“I had my water bottle in my hand. I wanted to try to check him out. But I was intimidated by these people. I didn’t know anybody. I wasn’t not trying to get stabbed. I tried to move in. I poured a little water on his forehead. And Daniel Penny came over and told me to stop. He shuffled me off.”

kaftan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599945#Comment_120599945

We do not have much detail on what occured before Penny and the other two individuals intervened to restrain Neely. Most people don't voluntarily speak to the press. The witness who has spoken has said Neely at first sat there and did not intervene, but then did. That's the detail missing but should be filled in as others in the carriage are interviewed and perhaps testify. What happened to prompt three men to restrain Neely?, as intervening at all is a very unusual occurance.

It's not fantasy to suggest a man who has a history of random violent attacks on the NY subway, including smashing in the face of an elderly woman, may have been violent or attempted a robbery. Attacks by violent male maniacs are increasingkly common in US cities, especially on public transport, and they are almost always directled at defenseless women. Do you have much experience of US cities in recent years?

My comment on Neely being foolish to intervene is a general one, the vast majority of people would not intervene even if a violent assault is happening in front of them. Hard to blame them, based on the danger to themselves and a judiciary in US cities who are increasingly sympathetic to violent criminals.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120600293#Comment_120600293

”Attacks by violent male maniacs are increasingkly common in US cities, especially on public transport, and they are almost always directled at defenseless women. Do you have much experience of US cities in recent years?”

it’s pretty telling then that the witness said they were scared of being stabbed if they intervened to help Neely.

“But I was intimidated by these people. I didn’t know anybody. I wasn’t not trying to get stabbed.”

That fear of being attacked on public transport doesn’t just apply to Penny or those he may have tried to intervene on behalf of.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599950#Comment_120599950

Again, you are wrong. I didn't say the coroner might not be qualified. Had you been paying attention, you would have seen I was making an observation about the wildly varying requirements per jurisdiction. I corrected you when you said the NY coroner was required to be medically trained. You still haven't accepted that correction. If you don't see the subtle relevance of a politically appointed coroner with regards to a black/white homicide in a very blue state, then I don't think any explanation will illuminate you.

You also seem very focused on my alleged hip firing. It's getting a bit creepy now.

nachouser

The really messed up bit is that if Neely had managed to fight back and kill his assailant, he'd still be the f*cking bad guy. "Deranged black man brutally murders hero war veteran on a packed subway train."

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120600438#Comment_120600438

Again unless you're asserting this coroner is unqualified, or merely a political operative, you've failed to demonstrate that anything you have to say in this regard is relevant to the killing of Jordan Neely. Is your agenda just to cast naked ad hominem aspersions at the coroner?

If Penny's Defense Team has any concerns about the coroner, or the family has any concerns, they can solicit their own independent autopsy, as in the case of George Floyd there were multiple autopsies.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120600328#Comment_120600328

If attacks by violent male maniacs are increasingly common in US cities, why should citizens be required to live in fear?

If someone was acting crazy in front of me and you in a confined space such as a subway carriage, saying that they want to die, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be sh1tting myself and so would you too. You might be happy to have someone like Penney stand up for you and remove the danger. I'd hazard a guess that there were plenty of people very scared of Neeley on that subway carriage.