Jordan Neely killed by chokehold on subway

That's not what I said and you bloody well know it.

Exactly, this is not some massive stretch. It's literally the job of the defence lawyer to challenge the witness during cross examination.

You claimed earlier he thought he was going to be stabbed. Understandable that JRant mixed the witness up.

Also, I'm not sure what you keep saying "recant reality". The reality is that Neely died, that can't be recanted. Reality can't be changed. The witness didn't intervene, that is also reality. There is a reason why he didn't, known only to the witness, he has not yet explained it. I'm genuine confused why you think this could never be raised in court.

But say he also thought it might be dangerous and that he might be stabbed. They would prompt the follow up, "did you think Neely had a knife?" "I don't know, he might have"..."Is it possible that Penny also thought he might have a knife". Establishing the mindset of people in the area would seem very critical to be, the fact you that the witness statements should only one way is prejudiced. I doubt prosecution will go that route, would make more sense to put Penny on the stand imo.

I never said he was on trial. Pointing out that he didn't intervene is not his not attacking his character, it's factually recall of what occurred. Interesting that you think that amounts to blame, your words, not mine. Or are you just trying to make an other strawman?

The fact is that's what happened. I'm not sure why you are denying that. The defence will try utilise his testimony to reflect favourably on Penny - that's literally their goal in cross examination. I think the "Why didn't you intervene" angle is plausible as either of the two most likely responses open the door for Penny's actions - as you've proven if your response. I think the issue is that you are fixated on blame and unable to think more than one step ahead.

You disagree, but you haven't been able to form a coherent argument to back that up? "He's not on trial" "He wasn't legally obliged to" etc, etc. Not relevant, nobody claimed either of those things was the case.

Maybe re-read what I said, I think you've missed a word. Not claiming that anything was about to happen to anyone. I'm referencing the idea that maybe the witness didn't intervene as he was worried be be stabbed/choked/beaten up - any maybe that's the actually reason that multiple witness didn't intervene. How do you think that plays out in court?

As I said above, you need to re-read that. Are you missing the word thought or purposefully ignoring it? Admittedly there’s a typo, but I believe the suggestion was the witness may have thought he was at risk.

Did you not hypothesis that was maybe why he did it intervene? That he thought he could be attacked next?

We’re going in circles now. Either you aren’t reading my posts or you understand the words you are trying to use. What is the obsession with recant reality? You keep repeating that, but it’s makes no sense as you are using it. Reality is the state of existence. People can’t bend, suspend, reverse or recant reality. Nor have I suggested they could.

Maybe you mean history rather than reality. But they, that can’t be recanted also. No testimony has been given, nothing needs to be recanted.

Only an utter imbecile would use that phrasing. Seeing as you’ve come up with that, it only reflects pretty poorly on you. Even someone with only a count of courtroom movies under their belt would have a better idea of how it unfolds.

”You witnessed the incident but did not feel the need to intervene. Why was that?”

Opens with a fact, passive not accusatory, opens it up for the witness to explain. You’ve already given multiple multiple awful answers, and I’ve pointed out why they are awful. So you resort making up nonsense like the above.

Which proves my point. The witness is not some amazing trump card prosecution. You’ve now proven that too.

As I said above, you need to re-read that

It's your claim, quoted. Again.

You claimed earlier he though he was going to be stabbed

Where did I claim anyone would be stabbed?

They do have Good Samaritan laws, but I don't think that's how they work.

Typically Good Samaritan laws are there to give legal protection to bystanders that offer help. Protection from legal action where their help is unsuccessful say.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You are clearly not reading the posts you quoted.

Untwist your knickers. Read the post carefully. Then kindly respond to the multiple questions you've dodged.

Read post 467. It might become clear, unless you don't want it to.

Zero drama, perfectly apt.

No point debating with you, you will only end up going back editing your post anyway. 🤷‍♂️

Absolute dishonest time sink.

Only got around to watching that today. He has some good points, that for sharing. Some things he says/implies are slightly incorrect. But for the most part I agree, and it backs up what I said earlier in the thread. Neck restraint* is not inherently dangerous or fatal. Done correctly it is safe - knowing how to do it safely requires training. Police forces should be trained better in this regard - perhaps marines should too. Had Penny knew what he was doing, Neely likely would be alive.

*he uses the term LVNR, which is a branded, trademark training system for police in the US. The mechanics of a proper LVNR are no different to a properly applied rear naked choke.

Jesus Christ he sounds like an absolute lunatic.

What's his gofundme up to?

😕

Same quotes I read, textbook psychopath.

Although I can't be racist I wanted to go to Africa is a new one.

😕