Daniel Penny acquitted in the death of Jordan Neely

[Jimmy Higgins]

Was his only ability of restraining the guy a chokehold?

What do you suggest when a violent subway rider starts causing trouble for the peaceful and civil riders? Why didn't the people who know Neely provide enough information for Penny to deal with the problem in a better way?

Have you ever had to deal with a crazy person who poses a threat to the folks around you, without knowing anything about the threat?

As noted, I rode many subways while in NYC. The mentally ill are not uncommon on the subway. No one needed to be restrained or killed in the process of being restrained any of the times I rode the subway. While with my daughter in Chicago, a guy yelled a few things which definitely got my attention, a bit more muttering, and then nothing else happened. In "the City", you always need to be on guard. Criminals, the mentally ill, religious nuts, NY Jets fans. Never needed to lift a finger though, as nothing ever happened. link

Nobody got hurt that time. Doesn't mean there wasn't a threat.

Doesn’t mean there was. Doesn’t mean de-escalation shouldn’t be tried.

It's not some magic spell that makes the impossible happen.

The use of psychology and being humane certainly can be impactful when it comes to de-escalation. The more you require a person to think, the less raging and irrational they can become. It isn't a magic eraser, but it sure the heck is something that should be used before lethal force. You can only justify lethal force when lethal force by others is imminent. Being a pussy and thinking you are going to die because someone else is being irrational doesn't count as "imminent threat of lethal force."

It's this sort of attitude that's why America is now screwed--people are tired of appeasement becoming the normal approach and drove us to jump from the frying pan to the fire.

Not killing a person isn't "appeasement". You should be ashamed to make such a void argument. The word you should be reaching for pragmatic and humane. Treating people that are of ill mind like human beings can actually go a lot farther than you appreciate (are capable of appreciating?). Remember the whole "whatever it takes" justification for "enhanced interrogation"? The pro's were protesting, indicating that there are much easier ways to get into a the mind of suspect using psychology. The goal in these situations isn't to appeasement anything, but to prevent violence. Killing someone isn't preventing violence. Of course, not everyone is trained in de-escalation techniques. In fact, it seems more people in the US are trained to kill than to de-escalate.

 

[thebeave]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

 

[BH]

i think the right decision was made in this case i hate the man died, and being mentally ill it wasnt entirely his fault, but yo cant expect others to let him hurt them

 

[ZiprHead]

i think the right decision was made in this case i hate the man died, and being mentally ill it wasnt entirely his fault, but yo cant expect others to let him hurt them

No one was hurt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i think the right decision was made in this case i hate the man died, and being mentally ill it wasnt entirely his fault, but yo cant expect others to let him hurt them

Agreed. If the person is lunging to attack, someone stepping in to prevent harm to a bystander is hard to argue against.

But the only physical violence that occurred on the train that day was against him, not by him.

 

[Gospel]

Most mentally deranged pose no threat. Some do.

It also depends on the circumstances.

Had Neely behaved the same way outside on the sidewalk Penny would have had no reason to get involved. People who felt scared and vulnerable could have walked away. That's probably why Neely chose to do it in a tightly constrained place.
Tom

I see no reason to attribute such motivations to him. He had a tendency towards hostility to those around him, there's no reason to think he chose the subway to corner victims. It's just the subway made it much more of a problem because it was impossible to get away.

Just wanted to point out that you can walk between cars on those trains anytime. Even while it is moving.

Edit: In most cases when I've done it or seen someone else do it, they aren't followed.

Walk while sitting??

And to stand and walk is to approach him. And put herself in more danger in the process.

I agree, however that's not the case while he was being held down nor was it the case when Neely became limp and unresponsive, in fact everyone could have left the car at that point (including Daniel Penny if he released the hold) and held the door if Neely regained consciousness and attempted to follow while someone else had law enforcement on the line. Just to be clear here, I'm not arguing that the acquittal was incorrect nor am I arguing against Daniel Penny in hindsight. I'm specifically address your argument (which seems to be that there were no other options) being made here.

 

[RVonse]

Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.

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.

 

[thebeave]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

 

[laughing dog]

Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.

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.

What nonsense. Intervention can take all forms. Hell, just photographing the perp might stop it.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

It is a shame but to pin it on prosecutions of people like Penny is absurd.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Conservatives: "Guns aren't the problem! We need to do something about the mental health problem in this country!" I guess this is what they mean by that. Also cue some dumbass who misses the point and says "this wasn't about gun violence!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.
It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

The two cases aren't relatable. One involves a person using pre-emptive force, the other would have involved force to stop an attempted sexual assault.

 

[Gospel]

I agree with Daniel's use of preemptive force because Neely's gestures appeared threatening. To my understanding, such behavior itself may violate the law, making Daniel's actions, in my opinion, not unlawful. However, I do hold him partially at fault for failing to release the hold when it was no longer necessary. That said, I cannot, beyond reasonable doubt, conclude that this failure was intentional rather than a consequence of adrenaline and insufficient training to manage unpredictable situations. He also wasn't aware of Neely's mental health, physical health conditions or of any prior criminal record. Those are just my thoughts; I do not condone the unnecessary loss of any life.

 

[thebeave]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

It is a shame but to pin it on prosecutions of people like Penny is absurd.

No, its a very real thing. Fear of legal action against oneself is often a reason why people choose not to get involved in lifesaving action. Consider this:

Why people fear performing CPR on women – and what to do about it

Women are less likely than men to receive CPR from a bystander. But why?

The reluctance, new research suggests, may be fueled by worries of being accused of sexual assault or doing physical harm. Knowing people's secret fears is the first step to dispelling them, experts say.

The insights come from a new survey of 520 men and women who were asked to rank potential reasons someone might not want to provide bystander CPR to a woman, based on the sex of the rescuer. The survey built upon previous findings from the same research team that had respondents use their own words to describe why someone might hesitate to provide lifesaving care to a stranger.

The new survey compiled the open-ended responses into themes, which respondents were asked to rank. Both men and women said the biggest reason male rescuers would refrain from giving CPR to a woman was fear of being accused of sexual assault or inappropriate touching, whereas the biggest reason a female rescuer might not provide assistance was fear of harming the victim. Less often, respondents said a male or female rescuer might have a misconception that women don't have cardiac arrests or think a woman was being overdramatic.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

It is a shame but to pin it on prosecutions of people like Penny is absurd.

No, its a very real thing. Fear of legal action against oneself is often a reason why people choose not to get involved in lifesaving action. Consider this:

Why people fear performing CPR on women – and what to do about it

Women are less likely than men to receive CPR from a bystander. But why?

The reluctance, new research suggests, may be fueled by worries of being accused of sexual assault or doing physical harm. Knowing people's secret fears is the first step to dispelling them, experts say.

The insights come from a new survey of 520 men and women who were asked to rank potential reasons someone might not want to provide bystander CPR to a woman, based on the sex of the rescuer. The survey built upon previous findings from the same research team that had respondents use their own words to describe why someone might hesitate to provide lifesaving care to a stranger.

The new survey compiled the open-ended responses into themes, which respondents were asked to rank. Both men and women said the biggest reason male rescuers would refrain from giving CPR to a woman was fear of being accused of sexual assault or inappropriate touching, whereas the biggest reason a female rescuer might not provide assistance was fear of harming the victim. Less often, respondents said a male or female rescuer might have a misconception that women don't have cardiac arrests or think a woman was being overdramatic.

A survey asking people about their perceptions in why someone else may act only provides insight on their perceptions, not on actual motivations.

 

[thebeave]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

It is a shame but to pin it on prosecutions of people like Penny is absurd.

No, its a very real thing. Fear of legal action against oneself is often a reason why people choose not to get involved in lifesaving action. Consider this:

Why people fear performing CPR on women – and what to do about it

Women are less likely than men to receive CPR from a bystander. But why?

The reluctance, new research suggests, may be fueled by worries of being accused of sexual assault or doing physical harm. Knowing people's secret fears is the first step to dispelling them, experts say.

The insights come from a new survey of 520 men and women who were asked to rank potential reasons someone might not want to provide bystander CPR to a woman, based on the sex of the rescuer. The survey built upon previous findings from the same research team that had respondents use their own words to describe why someone might hesitate to provide lifesaving care to a stranger.

The new survey compiled the open-ended responses into themes, which respondents were asked to rank. Both men and women said the biggest reason male rescuers would refrain from giving CPR to a woman was fear of being accused of sexual assault or inappropriate touching, whereas the biggest reason a female rescuer might not provide assistance was fear of harming the victim. Less often, respondents said a male or female rescuer might have a misconception that women don't have cardiac arrests or think a woman was being overdramatic.

A survey asking people about their perceptions in why someone else may act only provides insight on their perceptions, not on actual motivations.

It makes sense. Men really do receive more bystander CPR than women. Per the same article...

But women are less likely to get such help. A 2018 study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes found 45% of men received bystander CPR compared with only 39% of women. Men had 23% higher odds of survival than women.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, without people like Daniel Penny stepping in, we have this. And if Daniel Penny had got locked up for years, you would see a lot more people thinking to themselves, "I ain't getting involved in that. If I harm or kill the guy while trying to subdue him, I could get locked away. You're on your own, lady...good luck to ya."

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.

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.

First of all, its not just about not calling 911/police (which of course, is baffling and disturbing). Watch the video at around the 50 second mark. The spokesman is describing the video footage showing the rape with people nearby and not intervening, and he explicitly condemns that lack of action. And no, stopping a rape does not require killing or harming the rapist, but its certainly a possible outcome, especially if the rapist is on drugs or has health issues. Penny had the advantage of being a fairly large guy and a Marine. Someone less physically built or trained, might have to do something more desperate to gain control of the situation, like hit him with a blunt object. A hard hit on the head during a scuffle could easily kill.

It used to be there was an unwritten social contract that strangers (especially men, when the circumstances are risky) would intervene to help out someone in trouble, but it seems we may be losing that as a society. A shame, really.

It is a shame but to pin it on prosecutions of people like Penny is absurd.

No, its a very real thing. Fear of legal action against oneself is often a reason why people choose not to get involved in lifesaving action. Consider this:

Why people fear performing CPR on women – and what to do about it

Women are less likely than men to receive CPR from a bystander. But why?

The reluctance, new research suggests, may be fueled by worries of being accused of sexual assault or doing physical harm. Knowing people's secret fears is the first step to dispelling them, experts say.

The insights come from a new survey of 520 men and women who were asked to rank potential reasons someone might not want to provide bystander CPR to a woman, based on the sex of the rescuer. The survey built upon previous findings from the same research team that had respondents use their own words to describe why someone might hesitate to provide lifesaving care to a stranger.

The new survey compiled the open-ended responses into themes, which respondents were asked to rank. Both men and women said the biggest reason male rescuers would refrain from giving CPR to a woman was fear of being accused of sexual assault or inappropriate touching, whereas the biggest reason a female rescuer might not provide assistance was fear of harming the victim. Less often, respondents said a male or female rescuer might have a misconception that women don't have cardiac arrests or think a woman was being overdramatic.

A survey asking people about their perceptions in why someone else may act only provides insight on their perceptions, not on actual motivations.

It makes sense. Men really do receive more bystander CPR than women. Per the same article...

But women are less likely to get such help. A 2018 study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes found 45% of men received bystander CPR compared with only 39% of women. Men had 23% higher odds of survival than women.

I did not dispute the statistic. I pointed out that people's perceptions of the motivations or fears of others is not evidence of the actual motivations or fears of others. IMO, that survey does not provide evidence for the hypothesis.

Moreover, there is a distinct difference between acting violently (CPR is violent) to deal with an unknown health issue and intervening to stop a crime.

 

[Derec]

A similar case on NYC subway led to charges being dismissed.

Charges dropped against NYC man accused in fatal subway stabbing

Can you guess the difference between the two cases?

 

[laughing dog]

A similar case on NYC subway led to charges being dismissed.

Charges dropped against NYC man accused in fatal subway stabbing

Can you guess the difference between the two cases?

No. Enlighten us.