• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Subway Strangler finally arrested

TurkeysGhost

Penultimate Amazing
TurkeysGhost
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
35,043
Daniel Penny, who while riding the subway last week choked Jordan Neely, a homeless man, to death, was arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court Friday on a charge of second-degree manslaughter, taking his first formal steps as a defendant in a case that has stunned New York City.

Mr. Penny, handcuffed and dressed in a dark gray suit and white dress shirt, stood straight and still before the judge, Kevin McGrath. He did not enter a plea to the charge, as he has yet to be indicted by a grand jury, and spoke only to answer the judge’s questions and acknowledge that he would next appear in court on July 17. He was released after posting bail.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/nyregion/daniel-penny-arrest-jordan-neely.html


Protests had erupted after NYPD made the inexplicable decision not to arrest Penny at the scene, despite it being abundantly clear that he had caused the strangulation death of his victim, a homeless man named Jordan Neely.

Penny has become a cause celebre of blood thirsty right wing freaks who are scared of big cities and think they need to be ruled with an iron fist.
 
The question of what degree of killing or murder is involved seems to hinge on how "hostile and erratic" the victim's behavior really was. There might be a case for his having been sufficiently threatening to call for some action. Obviously that action should never have been to kill him, but between doubt about the initial cause, and doubt about whether the killer intended to kill him, a murder charge might be difficult to sustain. I can't imagine there's any doubt that it was at least manslaughter, though.

IF the MTG's of this world have their way this will become a citizens for lawnorder precedent, the goal being a license to shoot people like Neely on sight.
 
bruto said:
The question of what degree of killing or murder is involved seems to hinge on how "hostile and erratic" the victim's behavior really was. There might be a case for his having been sufficiently threatening to call for some action. Obviously that action should never have been to kill him, but between doubt about the initial cause, and doubt about whether the killer intended to kill him, a murder charge might be difficult to sustain. I can't imagine there's any doubt that it was at least manslaughter, though.

IF the MTG's of this world have their way this will become a citizens for lawnorder precedent, the goal being a license to shoot people like Neely on sight.
Click to expand...
There was no chance for a murder charge to succeed, no intent. Manslaughter will be difficult to prove given that the prosecution will need to convince a jury that the killer's actions were reckless (in the NY legal sense) rather than negligent. There may be a supposition that MAN2 will convince a jury to convict of a lesser alternate charge, probably CNH.

I'm reminded of the Maldonado and Olsen cases of some years ago.

I AM NOT A LAWYER!!!​
 
catsmate said:
There was no chance for a murder charge to succeed, no intent. Manslaughter will be difficult to prove given that the prosecution will need to convince a jury that the killer's actions were reckless (in the NY legal sense) rather than negligent. There may be a supposition that MAN2 will convince a jury to convict of a lesser alternate charge, probably CNH.

I'm reminded of the Maldonado and Olsen cases of some years ago.

I AM NOT A LAWYER!!!​
Click to expand...
I can't see why manslaughter would be an issue, considering that the death occurred as the result of action, not inaction. Of course I am also not a lawyer, but I'd have thought that actually performing the act of killing someone implies enough agency to rise above mere negligence.
 
They are making a big deal of the killer being an ex-Marine. That's a double edged sword, tho (so to speak). They are trying to play it up as him being noble and valiant, but they are kind of glossing over the flip side: this guy is trained to kill and apparently has no control over whether he does or not.

Guy in the attached video embedded in the news story feels me here. He says that a trained combat vet has options, unlike the random person who doesn't know what the hell he's doing and is defending himself any way he can think up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/13/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-charges-update/70213559007/
 
catsmate said:
Abject lack of evidence of intent to kill or cause serious injury. Even manslaughter will be tricky to prove.
Click to expand...

Arguably intentionally choking another person is deliberate use of deadly force. I would certainly consider my life in immediate danger if someone were choking me. . Penny intentionally used deadly force and Neely's death was a predictable outcome of that deadly force, that strikes me as more than enough evidence of intent to commit murder. Arguing you didn't intend to kill with a choke is like arguing you didn't intend to kill by shooting someone in the chest, the intent is evident in the act itself.

Seems like even the apolitical viewer of the last few years of high profile police killings would be aware of how often choke restraints end in dead bodies and would know that this is not the way to try non-fatally subdue someone.

The defense argument against murder is that the killing was accidental and that Penny thought he was using nonlethal force. That seems like a prima facie confession to manslaughter though. He rolled the dice with a stranger's life and lost, perfect candidate for prison.
 
Last edited:
Witnesses said that the victim was screaming and saying he was ready to go to jail or die, but had not gotten physical with anyone when the killer grabbed him. A preemptive strike, I believe they call that. He held the guy in a sleeper for three minutes till he moved no more, with legs wrapped around the dying victim. I believe a well applied sleeper sends a guy to the land of nod in a matter of seconds. I know that a solid one put on me had me seeing in tunnel vision in about 5-10 seconds till I tapped out.
 
Thermal said:
Witnesses said that the victim was screaming and saying he was ready to go to jail or die, but had not gotten physical with anyone when the killer grabbed him. A preemptive strike, I believe they call that. He held the guy in a sleeper for three minutes till he moved no more, with legs wrapped around the dying victim. I believe a well applied sleeper sends a guy to the land of nod in a matter of seconds. I know that a solid one put on me had me seeing in tunnel vision in about 5-10 seconds till I tapped out.
Click to expand...

Sure, a well executed choke that is released after a brief hold is probably safer than a poorly executed one that places the victim in a prolonged state of cardiovascular distress. The fact that Penny held a choke for such a prolonged period of time is damning evidence of callous disregard to Neely's life.

Seems like general good advice that, should you want to be a hero in a non-deadly confrontation, keep your hands off people's necks. Chokes are deadly and a street fight is different than a refereed martial arts event. Choking people unconscious should not be something you even consider unless it's a scenario where death is an acceptable outcome, which even in the most lurid descriptions of Neely's belligerent behavior was not the case.
 
Last edited:
And if you want to be a real hero, you should calm the poor guy down and spend at least a few hours trying to get him some help. The idiot just wanted to feel powerful, and he killed someone in the process.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Sure, a well executed choke that is released after a brief hold is probably safer than a poorly executed one that places the victim in a prolonged state of cardiovascular distress. The fact that Penny held a choke for such a prolonged period of time is damning evidence of callous disregard to Neely's life.

Seems like general good advice that, should you want to be a hero in a non-deadly confrontation, keep your hands off people's necks. Chokes are deadly and a street fight is different than a refereed martial arts event. Choking people unconscious should not be something you even consider unless it's a scenario where death is an acceptable outcome, which even in the most lurid descriptions of Neely's belligerent behavior was not the case.
Click to expand...

Training in freestyle Hapkido, we had to be familiar with putting on and early escaping from a variety of chokes, but the instructor was crystal clear: "when you know it is on, tap out. I don't want you looking for the line in my mat". Which, ok, that's fair under recreational use.

I'd be curious if an autopsy was performed and if the victim did in fact undergo a cardiac event. It was ruled a homicide by El ckoke-o, but I didn't catch if the choke was the direct contributor or the actual cause.

Also, I didn't see in the video when the victim stopped moving. If our honorable Marine kept it on after the victim went limp ( a la Chauvin), that's a new problem.
 
Olmstead said:
And if you want to be a real hero, you should calm the poor guy down and spend at least a few hours trying to get him some help. The idiot just wanted to feel powerful, and he killed someone in the process.
Click to expand...

Sure. Anyone living in or near a city has experience encountering hostile or otherwise anti-social people on public transit. It takes a special kind of psycho to think choking a stranger out is the appropriate response. Most are content to politely ignore beggars and buskers and wait for an opportunity to change cars, and the more compassionate will often find that some basic decency or a few bucks will go a long way to defuse tension.
 
Olmstead said:
And if you want to be a real hero, you should calm the poor guy down and spend at least a few hours trying to get him some help. The idiot just wanted to feel powerful, and he killed someone in the process.
Click to expand...

That's what the attorney was getting at. A trained guy has options. He's had others take a run at him many times and can control the tempo a bit without resorting to the nuclear option right out of the gate. In the handful of times I've had a drunk take a run at me, it's literally instinctive to swat and dance it out, not punch the slobbering idiot. Keep talking. It disorients the hell out of someone who thinks he's fighting you.
 
Thermal said:
That's what the attorney was getting at. A trained guy has options. He's had others take a run at him many times and can control the tempo a bit without resorting to the nuclear option right out of the gate. In the handful of times I've had a drunk take a run at me, it's literally instinctive to swat and dance it out, not punch the slobbering idiot. Keep talking. It disorients the hell out of someone who thinks he's fighting you.
Click to expand...

Or, ya know, stare at your phone and avoid making eye contact like billions of subway riders do every second. Doing nothing is probably better than trying to roll the dice that some physical confrontation will go your way, especially if you're the kind of idiot that thinks a chokehold is acceptable force like our killer.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
I'd be curious if an autopsy was performed and if the victim did in fact undergo a cardiac event. It was ruled a homicide by El ckoke-o, but I didn't catch if the choke was the direct contributor or the actual cause.
Click to expand...

Not seeing much more detail than this, but the medical examiner ruled it a homicide from compression of the neck.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Or, ya know, stare at your phone and avoid making eye contact like billions of subway riders do every second. Doing nothing is probably better than trying to roll the dice that some physical confrontation will go your way, especially if you're the kind of idiot that thinks a chokehold is acceptable force like our killer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, generally that's the move, but I can see a guy ramping up his antics till you believe getting physical is imminent. Sometimes the right thing to do is not wait till he has struck someone else.
 
Thermal said:
Yeah, generally that's the move, but I can see a guy ramping up his antics till you believe getting physical is imminent. Sometimes the right thing to do is not wait till he has struck someone else.
Click to expand...

I can see putting your body on the line being a brave thing to do for your fellow commuters, even commendable. De-escalation would be smarter and probably more likely to have a positive outcome, but sometimes things don't shake out the nice way.

But, ya know, if you're going to be brave you actually have to be brave. Ambushing someone with a chokehold and killing them on accident isn't brave. Neither is a preemptive strike.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Not seeing much more detail than this, but the medical examiner ruled it a homicide from compression of the neck.
Click to expand...

If the choke was seriously bad, the throat gets damaged and things go south. A proper choke compresses those nice fat jugulars and the guy goes safely out cold long before any damage. A jujutsu school down here chokes out new black belts as part of the promotion. Or they used to, anyway. Haven't been in touch with them for years, like pre-Chauvin. Certainly in competition being choked into Naptime is fairly common.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I can see putting your body on the line being a brave thing to do for your fellow commuters, even commendable. De-escalation would be smarter and probably more likely to have a positive outcome, but sometimes things don't shake out the nice way.

But, ya know, if you're going to be brave you actually have to be brave. Ambushing someone with a chokehold and killing them on accident isn't brave. Neither is a preemptive strike.
Click to expand...

Oh, agreed, too much too soon, hands down. The Marine was only 24 and is currently sporting a teenagers mop top haircut. I'd also be interested to know if he was a combat vet or if this was his first time using his judgement against a real adversary.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Not seeing much more detail than this, but the medical examiner ruled it a homicide from compression of the neck.
Click to expand...
Aside from that I thought I heard that bystanders were telling the strangler he was killing his victim and ought to stop.

I would modestly suggest that if the victim died of a cardiac event while in the midst of being strangled, the quibble is a useless one.
 
It would have been fascinating in a macabre sort of way if another guy tried to stop the Marine by choking him out. Kind of a choking Human Centipede. Then if the victim managed to get an arm and leg free and deliver a triangle choke on the second guy, they'd have the famed Circle Choke. Throw a chicken in there and the **** just writes itself.
 
Darat said:
Almost $2 million has been raised for the killer.
Click to expand...

The trials bound to be a real circus. On the letter of the law it seems like an open and shut case, especially since prosecutors have already hedged their bets with manslaughter rather than murder.

The only real chance for Penny to walk is to throw enough emotional BS at the jury that convinces them to ignore the rather plain series of facts being presented to them. With millions of donations rolling in, Penny should be able to afford the best carnival barkers in the legal profession.
 
I'm curious at to the reason the guy is being referred to as "The Subway Strangler", as if he was some serial killer that's been on a spree. I strongly suspect it's only come from social media rather than reporters.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm curious at to the reason the guy is being referred to as "The Subway Strangler", as if he was some serial killer that's been on a spree. I strongly suspect it's only come from social media rather than reporters.
Click to expand...

I came up with that name, I haven't seen it described that way anywhere.

That said, he literally did strangle someone on the subway, and for reasons that only make sense to the NYPD and pro-vigilante reactionaries, this known killer wasn't arrested at the scene and was allowed to go free for days until a grand jury could be convened to officially state the obvious.

I wasn't trying to be cute or anything, it's just descriptive. Penny strangled someone to death on the subway and will be facing trial for that act. Struck me as a useful short-hand.
 
Did you consider The Tracheal Traumatizer? The Veteran Vigilante? I'm partial to the Ex-Marine Executioner.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I can see putting your body on the line being a brave thing to do for your fellow commuters, even commendable. De-escalation would be smarter and probably more likely to have a positive outcome, but sometimes things don't shake out the nice way.

But, ya know, if you're going to be brave you actually have to be brave. Ambushing someone with a chokehold and killing them on accident isn't brave. Neither is a preemptive strike.
Click to expand...
That's why Snackman is this city's greatest hero.

 
mumblethrax said:
Chauvin was convicted of felony murder. Penny can't be charged under New York's felony murder rule. Prosecutors would be stupid to charge him with murder.
Click to expand...

Murder II in New York only requires "depraved indifference to human life" that results in death.

It specifically does not require an intent to kill, only indifference to the fact that their reckless conduct may cause death.

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE refers to a
person’s state of mind in recklessly engaging in conduct which
creates a grave risk of death.8
A person has a depraved
indifference to human life when that person has an utter disregard
for the value of human life – a willingness to act, not because he
or she means to cause grievous harm [to the person who is
killed], but because he or she simply does not care whether or not
grievous harm will result.9
Click to expand...

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-25%282%29.pdf

Gotta say putting someone into a prolonged neck restraint fits the bill to my eye. Even dimwitted children know that choking someone is dangerous. Trying to choke someone unconscious is the type of thing you only think is acceptable if you don't care about the possibility of death occurring.

Manslaughter is a hedge and maybe it's the correct move from a purely gamesmanship perspective, but Penny's strangulation killing of Neely strikes me fitting all the terms specified for Murder II in NY state law. it doesn't matter if the death wasn't intended.
 
Last edited:
Ok why is one person strangling someone to death in public murder and one clearly not murder? Were there not enough people expressing concern over the killing on the subway compared to the street?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Ok why is one person strangling someone to death in public murder and one clearly not murder? Were there not enough people expressing concern over the killing on the subway compared to the street?
Click to expand...

Because the prosecutors will likely have difficulty proving mens rea, that he meant to kill someone. Its likely, IMO, that had this case not been publicized and the defendant not get millions for his defense fund, he would've been offered a plea of manslaughter and a sentence of 15 years. And failing to take that they would've tried him for 2nd degree murder.

https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-yor...k Penal,City first-degree manslaughter lawyer.

They can convict him of manslaughter in the 1st, and the judge can then sentence him to the max, which is a pretty damned steep 25 years.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Because the prosecutors will likely have difficulty proving mens rea, that he meant to kill someone. Its likely, IMO, that had this case not been publicized and the defendant not get millions for his defense fund, he would've been offered a plea of manslaughter and a sentence of 15 years. And failing to take that they would've tried him for 2nd degree murder.

https://jeffreylichtman.com/new-yor...k Penal,City first-degree manslaughter lawyer.

They can convict him of manslaughter in the 1st, and the judge can then sentence him to the max, which is a pretty damned steep 25 years.
Click to expand...

Ah yes because strangling someone is not a well known way to kill someone.

How does merely shooting someone demonstrate mens rea that strangling them does not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom