• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Daniel Penny acquitted in the death of Jordan Neely

 
 
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
RVonse said:
laughing dog said:
thebeave said:
Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Of course it would. Stopping any rape would involve extreme exposure to the legal system. You would have to be an idiot to even touch someone without risk of being blamed and prosecuted by the all the do gooder lawyers. And you are not going to stop a rape without touching that person.
Click to expand...
What nonsense. Intervention can take all forms. Hell, just photographing the perp might stop it.
Click to expand...
And might get your phone smashed and you hurt.
Click to expand...
Which is not relevant to the point of possible legal action from intervention.
Click to expand...
The point is that intervention even to the level of taking a picture can be dangerous.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant to the point of legal action from intervention.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Derec said:
TomC said:
Nevertheless, closing the mental hospitals and dumping the patients was a police of his party and administration.
Tom
Click to expand...
Placing the blame on one man is ridiculous. The legislation in question (repeal of MHSA?) was passed by Congress, and Democrats had a majority in the House.

Besides, that was over four decades ago. Many presidents and congresses came and went in that time.
Click to expand...
It is easier to complain about the problem than to fix the problem. Especially when those who oppose what Reagan did were in power and could have fixed this.
Click to expand...
The people complaining about it are in the thread. The general populace doesn't give enough of a fuck or at least not enough to pay for it, so the problem is ignored.
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The Democrats have had near solid control of California for over 20 years. They've had the supermajority in their legislature a few times recently. They could have reversed what Reagan did as governor half a century ago. "Look what Reagan did so long ago" appears to be more effective than "I propose to fix a problem."
Click to expand...
You keep rambling on as if the Democrat Party are worshipped as the do no wrong, high morality party here. Most in his forum feel the Democrats are far too centralized politics wise, since Bill Clinton was President. Seeing the right-wing media portrayal of the Democrats for the bullshit it is, shouldn't be mistaken for reverence of the Democrats. The fact is, it is the only party that is remotely close enough to being some level of empathetic to the average voter. So from a pragmatic level, we are left with no other option.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
The fact that no one called in the police has absolutely nothing to do with Penny's situation. I understand that there are people who feel like that in your argument - they wouldn't get involved in any event.
Click to expand...
Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
laughing dog said:
Mr Penny was charged with negligent criminal homicide for harming anyone. He was charged because his actions caused the death of Mr. Neely. Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Click to expand...
But here you are wrong. You seem to have some notion that people can magically be restrained without harming them. That's not how it works--in a one-on-one situation without a big force superiority you can't do it. Look at how the cops handle it--pile on. Because that's what works. They don't have ways to control a person without harming them in a one-on-one type situation, you're holding civilians to a higher standard.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.
Click to expand...
He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.
Click to expand...
Show your work because it makes mo sense.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Loren Pechtel said:
He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.
Click to expand...
How do Suicide Hotlines work without an ability to put the suicidal in a chokehold?
Click to expand...
In other words, you don't have an answer.
Click to expand...
What? I provided several things in there, alternatives applications of force as well as talking.
Click to expand...
You have provided handwaved applications of force. Hint: there's a reason the police do not use anything of what you're suggesting.

Jimmy Higgins said:
Where did you get nothing? The best option? Try to talk to him. Someone with empathy to talk him down, by not trying to talk him down.
Click to expand...
And what reason is there to think it would work? Remember, he had no way to passively defend others. And to talk removes the positional advantage he had.

Jimmy Higgins said:
Loren Pechtel said:
And I don't see this as suicidal. but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.
Click to expand...
What he wanted? He didn't want anything. Except probably some peace. He just lacked the capacities to get there. He needed someone to step up and offer help... not kill him. I understand why you don't get that.
Click to expand...
Once again, the fundamental flaw in assuming there's an answer if people would just look hard enough. That's not how it works with people like that--they aren't coming from a rational position in the first place and thus an offer of help isn't going to work even if there was help to be offered.
 
TomC said:
Loren Pechtel said:
And I don't see this as suicidal, but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.
Click to expand...
I do.
I see it as a lot like "suicide by cop".

What Neely apparently wanted was to get out of hell and he didn't have any better options.
Tom
Click to expand...
I think it was more a matter of not understanding. To suicide by cop you need a cop or pseudo-cop, Neely had no idea Penny had combat training.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
He had done so in the past.
Click to expand...
Penny didn't know that so it's irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. He didn't know what violence Neely had committed in the past but the fact that Neely had multiple priors for exactly what Penny was worried about says that Penny probably had a reasonable assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...
When did Penny say that and how do you know that. That feels like substituting your opinion for facts in the matter.
Click to expand...
The point is that Penny recognized that Neely was someone who might attack without provocation. Yes, he didn't know Neely's history, but his evaluation of Neely turned out to be accurate: he had multiple priors for unprovoked, meaningless attacks. Blind luck, or skill derived from the battlefield, picking out insurgents from civilians?
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Derec said:
TomC said:
Nevertheless, closing the mental hospitals and dumping the patients was a police of his party and administration.
Tom
Click to expand...
Placing the blame on one man is ridiculous. The legislation in question (repeal of MHSA?) was passed by Congress, and Democrats had a majority in the House.

Besides, that was over four decades ago. Many presidents and congresses came and went in that time.
Click to expand...
It is easier to complain about the problem than to fix the problem. Especially when those who oppose what Reagan did were in power and could have fixed this.

The Democrats have had near solid control of California for over 20 years. They've had the supermajority in their legislature a few times recently. They could have reversed what Reagan did as governor half a century ago. "Look what Reagan did so long ago" appears to be more effective than "I propose to fix a problem."
Click to expand...
I doubt they could have. The problem is the standing legal ruling at that point was not to confine them. California couldn't have gone against that and with no power to confine there isn't really much they can do.
 
thebeave said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Derec said:
TomC said:
Nevertheless, closing the mental hospitals and dumping the patients was a police of his party and administration.
Tom
Click to expand...
Placing the blame on one man is ridiculous. The legislation in question (repeal of MHSA?) was passed by Congress, and Democrats had a majority in the House.

Besides, that was over four decades ago. Many presidents and congresses came and went in that time.
Click to expand...
It is easier to complain about the problem than to fix the problem. Especially when those who oppose what Reagan did were in power and could have fixed this.

The Democrats have had near solid control of California for over 20 years. They've had the supermajority in their legislature a few times recently. They could have reversed what Reagan did as governor half a century ago. "Look what Reagan did so long ago" appears to be more effective than "I propose to fix a problem."
Click to expand...
I was going to post the same thing about California. On the other hand, I wouldn't count on our California politicians being able to make a dent in any real societal problem. They've been throwing billions at the homeless issue for years and its only gotten worse. It would be no different regarding spending on mental health issues. These people are idiots.

Audit finds California spent $24B on homelessness in 5 years, didn't consistently track outcomes
Click to expand...
Track outcomes? Of course not!

It's an exercise in appearing to do something without any real ability to actually do it. Tracking outcomes would show it was farting in the wind, of course they didn't.
 
Derec said:
thebeave said:
This is horrific. Wasn't there even anyone around who could stop this monster in the act, or try to put out the flames?
Click to expand...
There is a video showing an MTA employee strolling past the scene.
I haven't seen anything about him being identified (and fired at the very least).
Click to expand...
Fired for what? He wasn't in a position to fight a fire. He called those who were. What else do you expect him to do?
 
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.
Click to expand...
He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.
Click to expand...
Show your work because it makes mo sense.
Click to expand...
What work needs to be shown? This is utterly obvious.

Identification is only a deterrence in possible future punishment. Someone willing to die to do something isn't going to be deterred by future punishment.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.
Click to expand...
He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.
Click to expand...
Show your work because it makes mo sense.
Click to expand...
What work needs to be shown? This is utterly obvious.

Identification is only a deterrence in possible future punishment. Someone willing to die to do something isn't going to be deterred by future punishment.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone take the words of a clearly distraught person as gospel?
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
He had done so in the past.
Click to expand...
Penny didn't know that so it's irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. He didn't know what violence Neely had committed in the past but the fact that Neely had multiple priors for exactly what Penny was worried about says that Penny probably had a reasonable assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...
When did Penny say that and how do you know that. That feels like substituting your opinion for facts in the matter.
Click to expand...
The point is that Penny recognized that Neely was someone who might attack without provocation. Yes, he didn't know Neely's history, but his evaluation of Neely turned out to be accurate: he had multiple priors for unprovoked, meaningless attacks. Blind luck, or skill derived from the battlefield, picking out insurgents from civilians?
Click to expand...
Dodging the question doesn't make you right. Penney didn't know a thing about this guy's past. The people in the train car pleaded with him to release the choke hold saying 'You're killing him.' He knew full well what he was doing at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom