Jordan Neely killed by chokehold on subway

Neeley wasn't exactly the good guy in this instance as he was acting aggressively on the train. Penney is also the bad guy, or hero, depending on your viewpoint.

The relevance is the increase in violence in most US cities in recent years, in particular on public transport. You don't think this has hightened levels of fear and anxiety? Don't know where you live in the US, but doesn't sound like you've been exposed to too much of the craziness. I would have ridden the SF BART hundreds of times over more than a decade and never felt unsafe, I wouldn't dream of getting on it now and wouldn't allow my kids on it. There is a genuine fear of encountering violent lunacy, a fear based on frequent and escalating random acts of violence.

Why are you speaking with such authority on what happened in this incident? None of us know the full details, only a few people have spoken to the press and yet you are giving enormous value to one account, while discounting the account of the woman who welcomed Penny's intervention and thanked him. Let's wait for more witnesses to testify before coming to conclusions.

You also seem to want to downplay this as something people should just accept. Fcuk that, no reason why people who are not bothering anyone should have to put up with aggression and lunacy in public places.

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

An anonymous person being an internet hero is not fundamental to anything.

Well I would have done this...

I’ve no idea why you keep referring to the internet. We are talking about a real life case potentially going to trial. Anonymous people will literally decided the outcome. A hypothetical “reasonable person” is fundamental to these cases.

Trying to twist that into “I would have just…” is pretty childish. If that’s your best reply it say a lot tbh. Why deal with facts when you can toss snide remarks.

You started with a self defence argument, granted you were wrong but at least it was based on the law. The above is just devolving into typical AH nonsense.

I’ve no idea why you keep referring to the internet

Because you decided to give your hot take on it and bizarrely claim it had some sort of relevance to this case over someone who actually witnessed the killing and made commentary during it.

If I was witnessing what I thought was some wannabe hero about to kill somebodies. I would intervene

Anonymous people will literally decided the outcome. A hypothetical “reasonable person” is fundamental to these cases.

We are talking about a specific eye witness, one who told Penny if he continued he would kill him, he continued and killed him.

Your contention is if was put on the stand, the defence lawyer would make him recant reality and tell him he never thought Neely was in grave danger because he didn't intervene.

The courts in the US are adversarial in nature so I would fully expect any defense lawyer to argue exactly that. Now, the prosecution would probably object and have it sustained as there's no legal requirement to intervene, but the question would definitely be asked anyway.

I've listened to that eye witness and I don't think he's the slam dunk you are making him out to be either. Said he feared he was going to be stabbed (there was no knife involved anywhere that we know of), wanted to help so poured water on him (fat lot of good that would do), was told to move away (I'm not surprised if he was standing there pour a bottle of water on him) and that Neely was killed because he was black. Hardly an unbiased observer in anyone's book. He can't possibly know what was going through the three people's minds that were restraining Neely but mind reading is all the rage these days.

Apologies, I thought it was the man they interviewed on tv you were talking about. Is it the person on the video you can hear talking in the background.

Again, I am asserting that the coroner in NY need not be qualified. You continue to ignore legitimate sources and not only from me. The level of twisting and squirming from you is impressive.

Interesting you bring up the George Floyd case. Notice that the second autopsy paid for by the family of Floyd ignored the contributing factors to his death, including his drug use. While these factors were not the main cause, the medical evidence was ignored by the medical examiner because that is what the party paying him wanted.

It's not a far stretch to suggest a politically affiliated coroner in a blue state might use colourful language in a left leaning report to paint a picture of bias. Perhaps that legal fund you mentioned Penny has will be needed to counter any report colouring the facts.

Classic case of FAFO. I'm not arguing the right or wrong if what happened however what happened is what happens when one acts the clown too often.

Would you treat someone with schizophrenia acting the fcuk on a train any differently than you'd treat me acting the fcuk on a train (I don't have schizophrenia)?

My point is that you probably wouldn't. If someone is a danger to you, they are a danger to you, schizophrenia or not.

What has the Charles Kinsey incident got to do with the incident on the train? I don't see the point of why you are quoting it. Other than trying to smear all cops.

You seem to have a problem identifying when I talk about things in general. So I'll be very clear. I'm not talking about the Neeley incident here. I'm talking about schizophrenia in general. So, if a cop sees someone with a knife acting the bollix, they usually don't know if the person has schizophrenia. But if they did know, how would they be supposed to act differently?