The Subway Strangler finally arrested

[Thermal]

A preponderance of the violence on the streets of my city is perpetrated by people who are not all there. It's a serious problem.

I hear you, but deadly violence against person X because some unrelated person Y at some other place and time got aggro is not the most robust rationale

 

[theprestige]

I disagree that the chokehold was premeditated deadly violence. I'm also saying that I take a crazy person threatening to kill me very seriously. Because I know it happens.

"Even though people do get roofied when they accept open beverages from strangers in bars, it's rude for you to decline such an offer."

 

[Thermal]

I don't get why my behavioral bar is considered so lofty here.

"Dont kill mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ unless you have absolutely no choice"

Rowdy homeless nut who has physicaly attacked no one? Maybe restraining him is called for. Penny had him restrained. The other people had left the car. The active threat was over. The slow motion killing didn't need to continue.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree that the chokehold was premeditated deadly violence. I'm also saying that I take a crazy person threatening to kill me very seriously. Because I know it happens.

"Even though people do get roofied when they accept open beverages from strangers in bars, it's rude for you to decline such an offer."

You, of all posters, are putting up that as an analogy?

 

[theprestige]

You, of all posters, are putting up that as an analogy?

Everybody loves an analogy, until it's time to do analogy things.

And you're assuming Penny set out to kill him intentionally.

 

[theprestige]

I don't get why my behavioral bar is considered so lofty here.

Not so much "lofty" as "profoundly and nakedly hypocritical".

"Dont kill mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ unless you have absolutely no choice"

"... Unless you happen to cross paths with their evil CEO ass with a veterinarian's mercy killing pistol in your pocket, and then you should absolutely take the opportunity, amirite?"

 

[Trausti]

Isn't the issue that once the manslaughter charged was dismissed, the jury was obliged to dismiss negligent homicide? At least, that's how the jury instruction was written.

 

[bruto]

You, of all posters, are putting up that as an analogy?

Well, he's on record as disparaging analogies, so perhaps he's doing us a service by reminding us why.

 

[Thermal]

Everybody loves an analogy, until it's time to do analogy things.

And you're assuming Penny set out to kill him intentionally.

Yes, I narrow my eyes at the guy who empties his magazine into someone's face and says "I wasn't trying to kill him, you see. Just *stop* him."

Restraining is fine, sometimes. Straight to "do stuff that will kill a man if done for long enough, then do it much more than long enough"" is not so much fine.

 

[Thermal]

Isn't the issue that once the manslaughter charged was dismissed, the jury was obliged to dismiss negligent homicide? At least, that's how the jury instruction was written.

Other way around. They couldn't consider the charge of criminally negligent manslaughter till they decided conclusively against the higher charge.

 

[Thermal]

Not so much "lofty" as "profoundly and nakedly hypocritical".

"... Unless you happen to cross paths with their evil CEO ass with a veterinarian's mercy killing pistol in your pocket, and then you should absolutely take the opportunity, amirite?"

Right. And?

Seriously, I was not cheering that murder. Callous maybe. It literally was technique critique and "how he do dat?"

 

[Trausti]

Other way around. They couldn't consider the charge of criminally negligent manslaughter till they decided conclusively against the higher charge.

I dunno. Seems if they found that the prosecution didn't meet is burden for manslaughter, that would do away with negligent homicide.

 

[Thermal]

I dunno. Seems if they found that the prosecution didn't meet is burden for manslaughter, that would do away with negligent homicide.

Then I stand corrected. It does seem odd though, to even go through the motions of the lesser charge, and damned if I can understand why. Seems like the criminal negligence could freestand.

 

[autumn1971]

Choking someone is trying to kill them, full ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stop.
Unless you are in a ring with a trained and competent referee, a chokehold is deadly.
MMA fighters have to be stopped mid-hold so people don’t die.

A bear-hug is totally effective and non-lethal

 

[Thermal]

Choking someone is trying to kill them, full ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stop.
Unless you are in a ring with a trained and competent referee, a chokehold is deadly.
MMA fighters have to be stopped mid-hold so people don’t die.

A bear-hug is totally effective and non-lethal

I'm saying. Penny already had his legs wrapped around Neely from behind, and the "terrified victims" had left the car. The stranglehold was 100% no longer needed, even assuming it was ever needed.

 

[stanfr]

I dunno. Seems if they found that the prosecution didn't meet is burden for manslaughter, that would do away with negligent homicide.

No, absolutely not! Negligent Homicide is a lesser offense. Since the top charge was thrown out, it stands on its own, the instructions you cite are irrelevant. I'm not sure what was instructed after the top charge was dismissed. It is *very* common to overcharge a defendent. In this case they clearly did, probably (at least in part) for political reasons. Those of us familiar with NY criminal law and courts (i was a public defender in NY for 5 years) thought that the second count was the appropriate charge. My evaluation based on the video (and not sitting in court for the entire trial) was that he was probably guilty.

 

[stanfr]

I'm saying. Penny already had his legs wrapped around Neely from behind, and the "terrified victims" had left the car. The stranglehold was 100% no longer needed, even assuming it was ever needed.

That was my opinion from what I've seen. Although, Prestige and Zig seem to be bringing up things that I was not aware of--
is it true that Neely threatened to kill someone? If so, that would imply a greater latitude in use of deadly force against him.
But I haven't read that--so perhaps they made that up. I believe Penny made that claim, but I have not seen any other witness corroborate that, and there were plenty of witnesses. It's actually a very important question of fact, so surprising I'm not able to find an answer from just a cursory search online, but certainly it must have come up during the trial.
ETA: I only found a statement made by Neely that "someone is going to die today"--but he may have very well been referring to himself (a threat of suicide) and not a direct threat at anyone else.

 

[stanfr]

And incidentally, although it was years ago, I've ridden the NYC subways many times, and seen homeless people in agitated states many times. I was never armed, and while some people were intimidating, I never felt my life was in immediate danger. When you experience this behavior more than a few times, you learn how to react (usually ignore) and know how to de-escalate situations when you need to. I was threatened by a guy with a hammer once, I simply was calm and cooperative with him, and he backed down. Sounds like Thermal is familiar with such situations too, point being that choking someone to death is usually not necessary. If Neely had been waving a knife or gun at people--totally different story.

 

[Brainster]

I can't count how many times someone has threatened to kill me. Yet my body count remains a shocking zero.

This explains a lot.

 

[Thermal]

That was my opinion from what I've seen. Although, Prestige and Zig seem to be bringing up things that I was not aware of--
is it true that Neely threatened to kill someone? If so, that would imply a greater latitude in use of deadly force against him.
But I haven't read that--so perhaps they made that up. I believe Penny made that claim, but I have not seen any other witness corroborate that, and there were plenty of witnesses. It's actually a very important question of fact, so surprising I'm not able to find an answer from just a cursory search online, but certainly it must have come up during the trial.
ETA: I only found a statement made by Neely that "someone is going to die today"--but he may have very well been referring to himself (a threat of suicide) and not a direct threat at anyone else.

Yeah, from everything I've read, it was only the vaguest of "threats" made to others, and highly ambivalent. His thoughts of his own death were much more clear.

 

[Thermal]

And incidentally, although it was years ago, I've ridden the NYC subways many times, and seen homeless people in agitated states many times. I was never armed, and while some people were intimidating, I never felt my life was in immediate danger. When you experience this behavior more than a few times, you learn how to react (usually ignore) and know how to de-escalate situations when you need to. I was threatened by a guy with a hammer once, I simply was calm and cooperative with him, and he backed down. Sounds like Thermal is familiar with such situations too, point being that choking someone to death is usually not necessary. If Neely had been waving a knife or gun at people--totally different story.

Right. In my most humble of opinions, people are 90% full of ◊◊◊◊, and bark a ton more than they bite. When someone says they are going to rip your head off and ◊◊◊◊ down your neck, the odds are in your favor that it will not actually happen. I've checked the math.

 

[Thermal]

This explains a lot.

?

 

[Brainster]

?

I was curious what kind of person has a short list of people they would like to strangle. The fact that an uncountable number of people have threatened to kill you gives me a bit better understanding.

 

[Thermal]

I was curious what kind of person has a short list of people they would like to strangle. The fact that an uncountable number of people have threatened to kill you gives me a bit better understanding.

The people that have threatened to kill/maim/torture/rape/mutilate my corpse are mostly annoyance NPCs. The other list is not.

 

[Thermal]

No, absolutely not! Negligent Homicide is a lesser offense. Since the top charge was thrown out, it stands on its own, the instructions you cite are irrelevant. I'm not sure what was instructed after the top charge was dismissed. It is *very* common to overcharge a defendent. In this case they clearly did, probably (at least in part) for political reasons. Those of us familiar with NY criminal law and courts (i was a public defender in NY for 5 years) thought that the second count was the appropriate charge. My evaluation based on the video (and not sitting in court for the entire trial) was that he was probably guilty.

What are the odds that the posted juror instruction sheet is not real, and was never seen by or issued to the jurors? I'm feeling close to 100%.

 

[stanfr]

What are the odds that the posted juror instruction sheet is not real, and was never seen by or issued to the jurors? I'm feeling close to 100%.

Well it looks like a valid jury instruction sheet, my point was that it is irrelevant. People seem to think that the hung jury on the manslaughter charge somehow implies the lesser charge must be dismissed, which is not the case. There was no verdict on the top charge, so the instructions become moot. It's slightly odd that they were struggling to decide on the top count but had no problem acquitting the lesser one, but as one who has tried cases in front of juries, i cant testify they are strange birds. And the counts involve very different findings of fact, so the verdict is not that surprising. It could just be that the one holdout was sick of pushing for some sort of conviction.

 

[Ziggurat]

That was my opinion from what I've seen. Although, Prestige and Zig seem to be bringing up things that I was not aware of--
is it true that Neely threatened to kill someone? If so, that would imply a greater latitude in use of deadly force against him.
But I haven't read that--so perhaps they made that up. I believe Penny made that claim, but I have not seen any other witness corroborate that, and there were plenty of witnesses. It's actually a very important question of fact, so surprising I'm not able to find an answer from just a cursory search online, but certainly it must have come up during the trial.

It did indeed come up at trial.

Daniel Penny trial live updates from Nov. 7-8

Follow The Post’s live updates from the courtroom as Daniel Penny, 26, stands trial for manslaughter after putting homeless man Jordan Neely, 30, in a chokehold onboard the subway in 2023.

nypost.com

On Friday, a mother testified that she used a stroller to barricade her 5-year-old from a “belligerent and unhinged” Neely, 30, who was lunging and shouting at train riders.

Another witness said she “was scared s–tless” as Neely ranted “I don’t give a damn. I will kill a motherf–ker,” and said she thanked Penny for intervening.

 

[Thermal]

It did indeed come up at trial.

Daniel Penny trial live updates from Nov. 7-8

Follow The Post’s live updates from the courtroom as Daniel Penny, 26, stands trial for manslaughter after putting homeless man Jordan Neely, 30, in a chokehold onboard the subway in 2023.

nypost.com

Also heard in every bar and for that matter every schoolyard playground ever. Better get to work choking kids to death.

And thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten how generic the "threat" was. He "lunged"? Does that mean he was in mid-air going for someone and was intercepted by Penny?

Obviously not. "Lunge" is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie. If he wasn't connecting, he was just feinting. Doing that little juke-step "made you flinch" bull ◊◊◊◊.

Penny got a free kill because cowardly witnesses lied.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also heard in every bar and for that matter every schoolyard playground ever. Better get to work choking kids to death.

And thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten how generic the "threat" was. He "lunged"? Does that mean he was in mid-air going for someone and was intercepted by Penny?

Obviously not. "Lunge" is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie. If he wasn't connecting, he was just feinting. Doing that little juke-step "made you flinch" bull ◊◊◊◊.

Penny got a free kill because cowardly witnesses lied.

There's only one witness we know lied, and that was a witness for the prosecution. You keep contorting yourself into knots in order to claim that Neely was no threat, but seeing the totality of his behavior, the people who were actually there felt otherwise. Feints are feints until they aren't. And his criminal history suggests they were right to take him as a real threat, because he has a history of violence.

 

[plague311]

There's only one witness we know lied, and that was a witness for the prosecution. You keep contorting yourself into knots in order to claim that Neely was no threat, but seeing the totality of his behavior, the people who were actually there felt otherwise. Feints are feints until they aren't. And his criminal history suggests they were right to take him as a real threat, because he has a history of violence.

Take him as a threat all you want that doesn't justify killing someone that hadn't hurt anyone. Trust me, I'm not going to get into this with you because I assuredly know that you are pleased with this outcome. I am just entertaining myself by seeing the difference between how people handle this killing and the killing of a CEO that put actual, literal bodies in the ground. I'm not saying you, I'm saying this generally, not even in regards to this forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Take him as a threat all you want that doesn't justify killing someone that hadn't hurt anyone.

It justifies restraining him. Which is what Penny did. The fact that he later died is unfortunate, but both not intended and not foreseeable.

Trust me, I'm not going to get into this with you because I assuredly know that you are pleased with this outcome. I am just entertaining myself by seeing the difference between how people handle this killing and the killing of a CEO that put actual, literal bodies in the ground.

You're amused that an accidental death and a deliberate murder are being treated differently?

Weird flex.

 

[plague311]

It justifies restraining him. Which is what Penny did. The fact that he later died is unfortunate, but both not intended and not foreseeable.

You're amused that an accidental death and a deliberate murder are being treated differently?

Weird flex.

I'm amused at the value people like you, specifically in this case, put on people. How much later after being choked did Neely die? Hours later? Was Penny unable to tell when his body went limp? Accidental my ass. Make no mistake, Zigg, I am not surprised at all that you see it this way. I can write out every response you'll have to everything I say. You see nothing wrong with anything Penny did, and no one, literally no one, is shocked at the position you're taking right now.

So yes, I am amused. I'll say it again so you don't think I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stuttered? Are you having issues parsing my words? I laugh when people say ridiculous ◊◊◊◊ like "accidental death" when you'd have to be some kind of special to think it was accidental.

 

[Thermal]

There's only one witness we know lied, and that was a witness for the prosecution. You keep contorting yourself into knots in order to claim that Neely was no threat, but seeing the totality of his behavior, the people who were actually there felt otherwise.

I don't care how they felt. I care if the threat was real and imminent. A bigot can feel threatened by the mere presence of a loud black man. No license to kill granted.

Feints are feints until they aren't.

And when they aren't you can act differently. No preemptive license to kill granted for "made you flinch".

And his criminal history suggests they were right to take him as a real threat, because he has a history of violence.

They had no such knowledge of priors, and prior behavior does not warrant an ongoing license to kill. Retroactive excuse to kill denied.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm amused at the value people like you, specifically in this case, put on people. How much later after being choked did Neely die? Hours later? Was Penny unable to tell when his body went limp? Accidental my ass.

You put value on Neely, but none on the people he threatened. And you assume a motive not in evidence, a motive even the prosecution doesn't claim.

The jury saw all the evidence. They disagree with you.

 

[Thermal]

Can't say it enough: a restraint may have been called for. Penny had him from behind, legs wrapped around Neely, on the ground, which was the hard part. A bear hug was more than enough to keep him restrained, if it was necessary. Penny chose a hold that was aggressive and damaging, for no reason whatsoever, beyond sadism.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care how they felt. I care if the threat was real and imminent.

How they felt is a pretty damn good indicator of how a reasonable person would interpret the situation, because most of them are probably reasonable people. A threat that a reasonable person would conclude is real and imminent can be treated as if it's real and imminent, even if it happens not to be (and it hasn't even been demonstrated that he wasn't). That's the legal standard, and it was met.

A bigot can feel threatened by the mere presence of a loud black man. No license to kill granted.

Were all the passengers who claimed Neely was threatening them saying so because his mere presence as a black man made them feel threatened? That's a remarkable claim to make about a random sample of New York subway riders. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

[Ziggurat]

Can't say it enough: a restraint may have been called for. Penny had him from behind, legs wrapped around Neely, on the ground, which was the hard part. A bear hug was more than enough to keep him restrained, if it was necessary. Penny chose a hold that was aggressive and damaging, for
no reason whatsoever, beyond sadism.

Now you're just making ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[plague311]

You put value on Neely, but none on the people he threatened.

Completely and entirely untrue. I agree with Thermal. The issue I have isn't with the fact he was restrained, it was the fact he was killed. The people he threatened received no physical damage. They got to go home to their families, they got to go to work the next day, and keep on living. I don't mention them because the value of their life hasn't changed.

And you assume a motive not in evidence, a motive even the prosecution doesn't claim.

None of us know the motive. We can't. You certainly don't.

The jury saw all the evidence. They disagree with you.

Ok, and? I can see all of the evidence now too, it's covered in the news. They obviously all didn't disagree with me considering the events in the jury room. I can disagree with them too. That's the great thing about this country we live in buddy.

 

[plague311]

Were all the passengers who claimed Neely was threatening them saying so because his mere presence as a black man made them feel threatened? That's a remarkable claim to make about a random sample of New York subway riders. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I love when you get to the point of having to whittle comments down to their literal interpretation instead of the point Thermal was trying to make. It's amusing, again, to see you be intentionally obtuse like no one can see his comment in context. Why bother? Why do you seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bother with this ◊◊◊◊ sometimes?

 

[Thermal]

How they felt is a pretty damn good indicator of how a reasonable person would interpret the situation, because most of them are probably reasonable people. A threat that a reasonable person would conclude is real and imminent can be treated as if it's real and imminent, even if it happens not to be (and it hasn't even been demonstrated that he wasn't). That's the legal standard, and it was met.

Were all the passengers who claimed Neely was threatening them saying so because his mere presence as a black man made them feel threatened? That's a remarkable claim to make about a random sample of New York subway riders. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Unless they are withholding critical evidence from the public regarding the "threat", this is a slam-dunk travesty of justice, full stop.

If all they have is "scary black homeless guy", some "made you flinch" stepping, and the borderline meaningless "I'm gonna kill a mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊", then this jury found very very wrongly.

If there is actual evidence of an imminent threat, I'll eat my words. And that means an imminent threat to restrain him, AND an ongoing imminent threat to put him in a stranglehold. If there is such evidence, I haven't heard it.