Daniel Penny acquitted in the death of Jordan Neely

[southernhybrid]

His father never tried to help him

How do you know this?

I already posted a link that described how his father refused to take him in after his mother was murdered, and never did a thing for him. He ended up in foster care etc.

 

[laughing dog]

If Penny had tried to de-escalate the situation, I’d have some sympathy for his situation. I didn’t hear and see all the evidence, so I assume the jury did their diligence.

But Penny is no hero in my view.

Since the threat was not directed specifically at him, nor triggered by any actions by anybody what magic deescalation can be done? You can only deescalate that which has been escalated.

It is very unlikely Mr Neely was in that state every waking minute, so deescalating his mood may be possible. Of course we will never know about it, since there are no reports of any attempt to do so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I worked with a lot of young women who had children, but the children's father was absent in many cases. One, who I was very close to, had twin boys and by the time they were 18, one had committed a crime. The mom was a dear person who probably did a good job of raising her boys, but why wasn't the father helping out? I agree with the quote, regardless if I don't agree with the religious aspects of it. I agree that a father plays an important part in raising a child, especially a child who has experienced trauma. But, Neely's father did absolutely nothing for him, he let him struggle with drugs and homelessness, after living in foster care. Foster care, is often a horrible experience for a kid. Neely's father could have and should have done more to help his son. Now, he has the nerve to ask for financial compensation due to his son's death.

Exactly. This makes a huge difference in outcomes. It's not specifically "father" but two parents--one gets stretched awfully thin trying to raise a kid properly. Few people want to look at it properly but what bits I've seen on it suggest it's the most important factor.

Let's not forget the trauma he suffered when his mother was murdered by her boyfriend. Two parents is a nice thing, but this particular case involved a person that suffered a massive trauma.

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.

Appeasement as in expecting everyone to tiptoe around the mine called Neely.

Neely was a human being who suffered a tremendous trauma. He needed help. People knew he needed help. But he couldn't help himself and was seemingly unwilling to get the help he needed, potentially incapable of understanding. He is broken, but he is still a human being.

You call it appeasement to "let" him throw stuff, instead of choking him to death.

Neely shouldn't be on that subway. Neely should be where he is safe. Where he can have the inevitable meltdown. But we don't have those luxuries in this nation because we prioritize a few hundred bucks a month higher than the well being of people that are mentally ill.

So that leaves us with the situation of whether we negligently restrain someone to death or try to do better so that all involved are best off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.

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.

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.

Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.

He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble here is that the chokehold is not the only possible way to subdue someone. Once enough control can be established, subduing a person can be modified into a less dangerous way. When combined with the fact that there was no battery by the person who died, it sets us up for a conclusion that people are okay with the mentally ill being killed because they are afraid of them.

Again, I don't think the aggressor should serve time in prison. He doesn't appear to be a threat to society. But his actions may have been well intended, they were negligently applied.

And what's your non-lethal way to keep somebody subdued?

You mean other than getting them on their chest to the floor, and leveraging weight appropriately? The trouble we run into is that in trying to restrain a man that is suffering from a mental episode, you are now justifying further restraint and force due what would be the anticipated reaction to someone trying to restrain a person who is having a mental episode. Kind of like telling an angry person to "calm down" usually doesn't work. You need to mentally work around the anger.

Kind of indicating that restraint as an initial action (in reaction to no immediate threat to life or limb of others) was probably stupid.

Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
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.

Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.

He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.

How do Suicide Hotlines work without an ability to put the suicidal in a chokehold?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And might get your phone smashed and you hurt.

Which is not relevant to the point of possible legal action from intervention.

The point is that intervention even to the level of taking a picture can be dangerous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I worked with a lot of young women who had children, but the children's father was absent in many cases. One, who I was very close to, had twin boys and by the time they were 18, one had committed a crime. The mom was a dear person who probably did a good job of raising her boys, but why wasn't the father helping out? I agree with the quote, regardless if I don't agree with the religious aspects of it. I agree that a father plays an important part in raising a child, especially a child who has experienced trauma. But, Neely's father did absolutely nothing for him, he let him struggle with drugs and homelessness, after living in foster care. Foster care, is often a horrible experience for a kid. Neely's father could have and should have done more to help his son. Now, he has the nerve to ask for financial compensation due to his son's death.

Exactly. This makes a huge difference in outcomes. It's not specifically "father" but two parents--one gets stretched awfully thin trying to raise a kid properly. Few people want to look at it properly but what bits I've seen on it suggest it's the most important factor.

Let's not forget the trauma he suffered when his mother was murdered by her boyfriend. Two parents is a nice thing, but this particular case involved a person that suffered a massive trauma.

There are lots of things wrong in his past. None of that is relevant in assessing what is the right response to a threat.

Neely was a human being who suffered a tremendous trauma. He needed help. People knew he needed help. But he couldn't help himself and was seemingly unwilling to get the help he needed, potentially incapable of understanding. He is broken, but he is still a human being.

The problem is that what he needed isn't available. Yes, that needs to be fixed but it has no bearing on what happened that day.

You call it appeasement to "let" him throw stuff, instead of choking him to death.

Neely shouldn't be on that subway. Neely should be where he is safe. Where he can have the inevitable meltdown. But we don't have those luxuries in this nation because we prioritize a few hundred bucks a month higher than the well being of people that are mentally ill.

Yes, he should. But that doesn't make it happen.

So that leaves us with the situation of whether we negligently restrain someone to death or try to do better so that all involved are best off.

People are only a collective entity?? No, Penny was an individual who had no power to get help for Neely and thus should not be blamed for the problem. I see this as a case of shoot the messenger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble here is that the chokehold is not the only possible way to subdue someone. Once enough control can be established, subduing a person can be modified into a less dangerous way. When combined with the fact that there was no battery by the person who died, it sets us up for a conclusion that people are okay with the mentally ill being killed because they are afraid of them.

Again, I don't think the aggressor should serve time in prison. He doesn't appear to be a threat to society. But his actions may have been well intended, they were negligently applied.

And what's your non-lethal way to keep somebody subdued?

You mean other than getting them on their chest to the floor, and leveraging weight appropriately? The trouble we run into is that in trying to restrain a man that is suffering from a mental episode, you are now justifying further restraint and force due what would be the anticipated reaction to someone trying to restrain a person who is having a mental episode. Kind of like telling an angry person to "calm down" usually doesn't work. You need to mentally work around the anger.

Kind of indicating that restraint as an initial action (in reaction to no immediate threat to life or limb of others) was probably stupid.

Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
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.

Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.

He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.

How do Suicide Hotlines work without an ability to put the suicidal in a chokehold?

In other words, you don't have an answer.

And I don't see this as suicidal, but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble here is that the chokehold is not the only possible way to subdue someone. Once enough control can be established, subduing a person can be modified into a less dangerous way. When combined with the fact that there was no battery by the person who died, it sets us up for a conclusion that people are okay with the mentally ill being killed because they are afraid of them.

Again, I don't think the aggressor should serve time in prison. He doesn't appear to be a threat to society. But his actions may have been well intended, they were negligently applied.

And what's your non-lethal way to keep somebody subdued?

You mean other than getting them on their chest to the floor, and leveraging weight appropriately? The trouble we run into is that in trying to restrain a man that is suffering from a mental episode, you are now justifying further restraint and force due what would be the anticipated reaction to someone trying to restrain a person who is having a mental episode. Kind of like telling an angry person to "calm down" usually doesn't work. You need to mentally work around the anger.

Kind of indicating that restraint as an initial action (in reaction to no immediate threat to life or limb of others) was probably stupid.

Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
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.

Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.

He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.

How do Suicide Hotlines work without an ability to put the suicidal in a chokehold?

In other words, you don't have an answer.

What? I provided several things in there, alternatives applications of force as well as talking.

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.

And I don't see this as suicidal. but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.

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.

 

[TomC]

And I don't see this as suicidal, but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.

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

 

[ZiprHead]

Neely wasn’t attacking anyone. Penny thought Neely might attack someone.

Do you think things would have turned out better if Penny had waited until Neely had broken an old lady's face?
Again?
Tom

But he didn't break an old lady's face. And for that he is dead.

He had done so in the past.

Penny didn't know that so it's irrelevant to the situation at hand.

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.

When did Penny say that and how do you know that. That feels like substituting your opinion for facts in the matter.

 

[ZiprHead]

The trouble here is that the chokehold is not the only possible way to subdue someone. Once enough control can be established, subduing a person can be modified into a less dangerous way. When combined with the fact that there was no battery by the person who died, it sets us up for a conclusion that people are okay with the mentally ill being killed because they are afraid of them.

Again, I don't think the aggressor should serve time in prison. He doesn't appear to be a threat to society. But his actions may have been well intended, they were negligently applied.

And what's your non-lethal way to keep somebody subdued?

You mean other than getting them on their chest to the floor, and leveraging weight appropriately? The trouble we run into is that in trying to restrain a man that is suffering from a mental episode, you are now justifying further restraint and force due what would be the anticipated reaction to someone trying to restrain a person who is having a mental episode. Kind of like telling an angry person to "calm down" usually doesn't work. You need to mentally work around the anger.

Kind of indicating that restraint as an initial action (in reaction to no immediate threat to life or limb of others) was probably stupid.

Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
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.

Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.

He had said he was willing to die. That removed identification as a threat.

How do Suicide Hotlines work without an ability to put the suicidal in a chokehold?

In other words, you don't have an answer.

What? I provided several things in there, alternatives applications of force as well as talking.

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.

And I don't see this as suicidal. but rather that getting what he wanted was more important to him than whether he lived.

What he wanted? He didn't want anything. Except probably some peace and some food. 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.

FTFY

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nevertheless, closing the mental hospitals and dumping the patients was a police of his party and administration.
Tom

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.

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."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am actually surprised that this case has divided people along largely (but not entirely) partisan lines.