The Subway Strangler finally arrested

[Thermal]

In general, they do not. Most veterans have never seen combat, and I don't think Penny did. And even among those who have, combat is not equivalent to violent crimes.

I'd say you're above such pathetic attempts at sophistry, but you aren't. You also aren't even good at it.

I didn't say combat, scooter. I said violence. Penny demonstrated that practiced violence rather pointedly. Stop weaseling.

 

[Ziggurat]

And sometimes they do without getting killed. Right?

And sometimes, they do it and then kill someone. Right?

So what does his violent past have to do with it?

Again, it suggests that maybe people there were reading his intentions correctly. You don't want to consider that possibility, but your refusal to doesn't mean I can't.

I keep claiming the passengers didn't know if he was a threat

You have no actual basis for this claim.

and he wasn't because he got killed. Right?

No. That doesn't follow at all.

It wasn't my hypothetical but you're missing the point. The person holding the sign could already have the explosives in place. Why does it have to be on their person?

Imminence.

Then anyone making a threat, sans blowing up the Earth, is always a target to be killed in "self-defense" if they make any threat towards any person, right? Is that what I'm understanding here?

It's like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand. No. Not all threats are credible. Not all threats are imminent. And using force doesn't always end with the person dead. Had Neely not been on drugs, he might have survived. Had Neely not struggled after he was restrained, he might have survived. Had Neely not had a genetic condition, he might have survived. The decision to restrain Neely wasn't a decision to kill him, even if it led to his death. Which isn't an undisputed fact, BTW.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say combat, scooter. I said violence.

What violence? Do you just mean training?

Are you trying to be stupid?

 

[stanfr]

Not even close. You have no particular expertise here, and the witnesses who were there didn't claim anything supernatural. If that's your best counter-argument, you're basically done.

Well, you're wrong again. I was a public defender in the 90s in NY, you know--the place where this happened. I represented 1000s of people (mostly minorities) on assault cases and cases involving self defense, many very like this exact incident. I have also ridden the NY subways countless times and am familiar with mental health and homeless issues. So by your own reasoning, my evaluation is worth way more than yours. The people familiar with NY law who watched this case overwhelmingly felt that Negligent Homicide was the correct charge (manslaughter was a stretch). I have said all along that I did not sit on the jury, so perhaps my evaluation would be different if I had, but that is not what is at issue--the issue is *based on the facts" presented, what can be determined legally? From what you have presented, we can determine that Penny's actions were overdone. You haven't brought anything up to convince otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, you're wrong again. I was a public defender in the 90s in NY

That gives you no particular expertise on how threatening someone on the subway is. Nor would it even be relevant if somehow you were. Because the legal standard (and I shouldn't have to point this out to a lawyer, but here we are) is what a reasonable person could conclude. Not an expert, a reasonable person. You have presented no evidence that the people on that subway were not reasonable people. Most people are reasonable people. So even if an expert at the scene might conclude that he posed no threat, if reasonable people concluded he did (and that's what the evidence suggests), then a response as if he did pose a threat is reasonable.

 

[Thermal]

What violence? Do you just mean training?

Are you trying to be stupid?

I'm pointing out how your weak attempts at word-mincing after the fact don't hold up well.

Would you have been justified in unloading into Neely's center mass till he stopped moving?

 

[stanfr]

And sometimes, they do it and then kill someone. Right?

Again, it suggests that maybe people there were reading his intentions correctly. You don't want to consider that possibility, but your refusal to doesn't mean I can't.

You have no actual basis for this claim.

No. That doesn't follow at all.

Imminence.

It's like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand. No. Not all threats are credible. Not all threats are imminent. And using force doesn't always end with the person dead. Had Neely not been on drugs, he might have survived. Had Neely not struggled after he was restrained, he might have survived. Had Neely not had a genetic condition, he might have survived. The decision to restrain Neely wasn't a decision to kill him, even if it led to his death. Which isn't an undisputed fact, BTW

You keep trying to have it both ways, and you can't. With the correct charge (Negligent homicide) the question is whether the force used by Penny was *reasonable*! So after everyone had left, and Penny was still choking tight even *After* Neely was UNREPSONSIVE, ws that reasonable?? DO you think it was??

 

[stanfr]

That gives you no particular expertise on how threatening someone on the subway is.

Of course it does, I had to evaluate threat levels thousands of times, that was my friggin profession! I tried cases like this in front of juries, you don't think I understand what was argued (and what went on in the jury deliberations) better than 99.9% of the population? Answer my last question to you--was it reasonable to keep choking for approximately 1 minute after Neely showed no signs of resistance??

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep trying to have it both ways, and you can't. With the correct charge (Negligent homicide) the question is whether the force used by Penny was *reasonable*! So after everyone had left, and Penny was still choking tight even *After* Neely was UNREPSONSIVE, ws that reasonable?? DO you think it was??

On what basis do you conclude that Penny was "choking tight"? He wasn't for most of the struggle. We know that because the struggle wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if he was. An actual tight chokehold can knock someone out in a matter of seconds, but it lasted for minutes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course it does, I had to evaluate threat levels thousands of times, that was my friggin profession!

No it wasn't. You might argue threat levels, but as a defense attorney, you weren't really evaluating them. And you sure as hell weren't being tested by any authority to see if your evaluations were correct. You are a law expert, not a facts expert.

I tried cases like this in front of juries, you don't think I understand what was argued

I assume that you do understand the argument. That doesn't mean you understand the signs someone displays when they are about to get violent any better than anyone else. And again, it doesn't even matter. Because the standard is what a reasonable person could conclude, not what an expert could conclude.

 

[Thermal]

On what basis do you conclude that Penny was "choking tight"? He wasn't for most of the struggle. We know that because the struggle wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if he was. An actual tight chokehold can knock someone out in a matter of seconds, but it lasted for minutes.

BECAUSE IT WAS AN INCOMPETENT CHOKEHOLD. Pemny's bicep was across Neely's windpipe, causing a slow agonizing death. A chokehold goes across the corotids, knocking you out in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ seconds.

 

[Ziggurat]

BECAUSE IT WAS AN INCOMPETENT CHOKEHOLD. Pemny's bicep was across Neely's windpipe, causing a slow agonizing death. A chokehold goes across the corotids, knocking you out in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ seconds.

Still doesn't answer the question, on what basis do you conclude that it was tight during that final period?

 

[Thermal]

Still doesn't answer the question, on what basis do you conclude that it was tight during that final period?

The slow death, instead of a quick knockout.

It doesn't matter, because he had no right or even reason to do it at all after Neely was down and restrained.

There's a repeatedly unanswered question for you upthread.

 

[stanfr]

On what basis do you conclude that Penny was "choking tight"? He wasn't for most of the struggle. We know that because the struggle wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if he was. An actual tight chokehold can knock someone out in a matter of seconds, but it lasted for minutes.

It was obviously tight enough to kill him, that is what the medical examiner determined. He was unconscious when police arrived, that is not in dispute. So Penny was choking an unconscious man, period.

 

[stanfr]

No it wasn't. You might argue threat levels, but as a defense attorney, you weren't really evaluating them. And you sure as hell weren't being tested by any authority to see if your evaluations were correct. You are a law expert, not a facts expert.

I assume that you do understand the argument. That doesn't mean you understand the signs someone displays when they are about to get violent any better than anyone else. And again, it doesn't even matter. Because the standard is what a reasonable person could conclude, not what an expert could conclude.

So answer my question, was choking an unresponsive person, unconscious, for approximately 1 minute after the car was empty, was that reasonable? You are as reasonable as anyone else, certainly--so was it reasonable?

 

[autumn1971]

That is not, in fact, the question. Deadly force isn't defined as force that can threaten someone's life, though that does qualify. Any force which can produce serious injury is deadly force. Is it your contention that Neely was incapable of seriously injuring anyone? Or are you claiming that he wouldn't seriously injure anyone? And if so, on what basis are you making this conclusion?

Why? Do you think Neely was incapable of seriously hurting anyone?

If you're holding a stick of dynamite when you do it, then that's not weak at all. An attempt to kill someone can still produce serious injury even if it fails. Again, are you claiming Neely couldn't seriously hurt someone?

Oh, I get it. I just don't know why you think that understanding your argument means agreeing with it.

I’m just giving you benefit of the doubt that you have never interacted with other humans.
Just so you know, loud talking and threats are almost always bluster.

And your logic also assumes that nearly every human on Earth should be chocked to death.

Homeless people are also not usually jacked up MMA fighters; they are malnourished and out of anything approaching good shape.

Since you have completely ignored it I will reiterate: a chokehold is a killing move. It results in death. It is intent to kill.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

it is just bizarre that in America, you are supposed to feel less threathened by someone carrying a gun than by someone who does not. As if open displays of deadly weapons is supposed to be reassuring.
cognitive dissonance.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was obviously tight enough to kill him

Again, that is a disputed fact.

, that is what the medical examiner determined.

And another one said it didn't.

He was unconscious when police arrived, that is not in dispute. So Penny was choking an unconscious man, period.

Having your arm around someone's neck isn't a choke if you aren't as applying pressure. How do you know how much pressure he was applying in that time?

 

[Ziggurat]

The slow death, instead of a quick knockout.

That's not actually evidence that he was squeezing during that period.

 

[plague311]

Wow, that is top notch mental gymnastics. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[Thermal]

That's not actually evidence that he was squeezing during that period.

Nor does it matter. Penny should never have been applying deadly force at any time.

The medical examiner found the cause of death was neck compression. Yes, we all heard Penny's hired gun saying "aw naw man, Neely died of old age" or whatever stupid ◊◊◊◊ he was saying. No one cares.

Would Penny, you, or anyone else have been justified in unloading into Neely's center mass till he stopped moving?

 

[theprestige]

Resolved: Penney set out to kill the guy, which we know from... him doing a piss-poor job of killing the guy.

An incompetent strangulation is pretty much indistinguishable from an accidental strangulation. (And wasn't the cause of death a drug overdose anyway?)

Also, Thermal seems to want it both ways: Penney was a competent strangler due to his military background, but Penney was also an incompetent strangler according to the facts of the case.

 

[theprestige]

Good point. Penny is a military veteran. Military veterans have violent pasts,

We do?

Tell me more about my backstory.

 

[plague311]

Resolved: Penney set out to kill the guy, which we know from... him doing a piss-poor job of killing the guy.

We do? He isn't dead? ◊◊◊◊ me. I've been reading these articles all wrong.

An incompetent strangulation is pretty much indistinguishable from an accidental strangulation. (And wasn't the cause of death a drug overdose anyway?)

Who said it was a drug overdose? Chauvin? Is that you?

Also, Thermal seems to want it both ways: Penney was a competent strangler due to his military background, but Penney was also an incompetent strangler according to the facts of the case.

Answer the question everyone else is avoiding. Until one of you does then the ◊◊◊◊ you post is just background noise.

 

[Thermal]

We do?

Tell me more about my backstory.

You did not undergo basic training, being formally taught organized violence? Fine, I stand corrected.

 

[Thermal]

Resolved: Penney set out to kill the guy, which we know from... him doing a piss-poor job of killing the guy.

{ETA: no, I don't think he did. I think he wanted to be the tough guy hero, as his fanboys are still proclaiming him to be. When it was game time, he wasn't very good at it. Good enough to restrain the weaker Neely, but not good enough to improvise on the fly how to keep the restraint on without killing him, and clearly didn't care if he did or not. Recall that when being interviewed by police, Penny referred to Neely as "that crackhead".}

An incompetent strangulation is pretty much indistinguishable from an accidental strangulation. (And wasn't the cause of death a drug overdose anyway?)

Not according to the medical examiner, who reported the cause of death as neck compression.

Also, Thermal seems to want it both ways: Penney was a competent strangler due to his military background, but Penney was also an incompetent strangler according to the facts of the case.

Do you seriously assert that someone can be adequately trained and not screw up? Are you familiar with concepts like medical malpractice?

 

[plague311]

Do you seriously assert that someone can be adequately trained and not screw up? Are you familiar with concepts like medical malpractice?

Or punching below the belt in boxing, or punching a person with an arm on the ground in MMA, or recently in football, hammering a QB that was sliding on the ground.

All things that happen fairly regularly to people who are more than adequately trained but make mistakes\errors in judgement.

 

[theprestige]

You did not undergo basic training, being formally taught organized violence? Fine, I stand corrected.

Basic training involves very little training in violence, none of it organized, none of it formal. Unless Penney went into the combat arms, and received further training in a combat speciality, he has no more violent a background than I do.

Basic training was mostly physical conditioning, cleaning things, drinking water, and marksmanship. That last they went to great lengths to make as non-violent as possible (for what I hope are obvious reasons). Out of eight weeks, we got about two hours of desultory introduction to the bayonet, half an hour of desultory fooling around with boffer sticks, and half an hour of desultory review of the Army's half-assed idea of unarmed combat. I spent more time learning how to cope with chemical and nuclear attacks than I did on any of those three topics.

How you cope with a nuclear attack is to fall to the ground face-first, pointing your helmet in the direction of the blast. That's pretty much it.

 

[ahhell]

Marine basic training is longer than most and includes a bit more actual trainging in weapons than is typical of the rest of the US military.

Compare Boot Camps at a Glance

Recruit training or boot camp gets you in shape and builds the physical skills necessary to meet military standards.

www.military.com

This as changed since I was in the navy. I knew a fella in the Airforce and his basic was 6 weeks and they got weekends off, which they could use to go into town.

Neither he nor I ever dtouched a gun in our times in. I was in for 6 years he was a lifer.

 

[Thermal]

Basic training involves very little training in violence, none of it organized, none of it formal. Unless Penney went into the combat arms, and received further training in a combat speciality, he has no more violent a background than I do.

Basic training was mostly physical conditioning, cleaning things, drinking water, and marksmanship. That last they went to great lengths to make as non-violent as possible (for what I hope are obvious reasons). Out of eight weeks, we got about two hours of desultory introduction to the bayonet, half an hour of desultory fooling around with boffer sticks, and half an hour of desultory review of the Army's half-assed idea of unarmed combat. I spent more time learning how to cope with chemical and nuclear attacks than I did on any of those three topics.

How you cope with a nuclear attack is to fall to the ground face-first, pointing your helmet in the direction of the blast. That's pretty much it.

Good to know, thank you. Dissecting a facetious analogy is not exactly relevant to the point, though.

And you are on analogy suspension from that earlier one, anyway.

 

[Thermal]

Neither he nor I ever douched a gun in our times in.

The what's this now?

 

[ahhell]

The what's this now?

Military experiences vary quite a bit. I spent 6 years in the navy and the only training in violence I gut was, well none. Verbal assaults maybe.
My high school friend spent 20 years in the air force and never touched a gun nor got any training in committing violence, he repaired helicopters.
I also had a navy associate that bragged about his year in the marines constantly but eventually we all found out he was a data entry specialist in the reserves.

Edit, also a typo, I meant touched not douched.

 

[stanfr]

Again, that is a disputed fact.

And another one said it didn't.

Having your arm around someone's neck isn't a choke if you aren't as applying pressure. How do you know how much pressure he was applying in that time?

You are unwilling to answer my question (color me shocked) so I'll answer it for you. Holding a person in a chokehold for an extended period of time after they are unresponsive, when they were unarmed and made no direct threats at anyone in particular, is unreasonable. You clearly disagree. Thank your lucky stars you don't suffer from mental illness.

 

[Thermal]

You are unwilling to answer my question (color me shocked) ...

AKA taking the fifth

 

[newyorkguy]

Figures. First Kyle Rittenhouse, now Daniel Penny. Ted Cruz is urging Penny to sue Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for "malicious prosecution."

“Alvin Bragg is an absolute catastrophe. First, he indicted Donald Trump in a partisan case, and then he indicted Daniel Penny for saving the lives of other subway passengers from a deranged lunatic threatening to kill everyone,” Cruz said in a statement to The Hill. The Hill article link

Next trump and vance invited Penny to be their guest at Saturday's Army-Navy football game.

 

[ahhell]

I would be very curious if there's any polling on what folks think about Penny and Neely. I strongly suspect a significant majority of people and even New Yorkers think he should have been acquitted because it was self defense and the defense of others and most likely think he did not intend to kill Neely.

Anybody know of any polling on the matter?

 

[Thermal]

It's just stunning that conservatives glorify guys like Penny and Rittenhouse. It's like they are not even putting up the most perfunctory fig leaf. They say big and bold that they want to be on the side of civilians killing each other and getting away with it.

Can you picture President Biden inviting Maglione to be his guest at public events if he got off? The democrats at least don't celebrate street killings.

 

[plague311]

It's just stunning that conservatives glorify guys like Penny and Rittenhouse. It's like they are not even putting up the most perfunctory fig leaf. They say big and bold that they want to be on the side of civilians killing each other and getting away with it.

Can you picture President Biden inviting Maglione to be his guest at public events if he got off? The democrats at least don't celebrate street killings.

Yeah, it's an odd flex for sure but the problem is most American's see themselves being that kind of "hero". The big manly man that will step up and choke a homeless person to death to defend all of the people who were still on that subway car. Which was, by my count, exactly nobody. It's the same reason Americans defend billionaires. Sure, they aren't a billionaire now, but one day they might be and when that happens they don't want to have to pay taxes or dumb ◊◊◊◊ like that!

It's inane thinking at best.

 

[newyorkguy]

Would trump invite as his guest-of-honor a Congressional Medal of Honor winner? A neighbor who woke up in the middle of the night, discovered the house next door was on fire and at great risk, managed to wake everyone up and get them out? A motorist who saw a car go off the road and overturn and then, at great risk, help the occupants get out of the car just as it burst into flames? No, no way.

He honors someone who killed a homeless guy on the subway by holding them down and choking them for six minutes. That's trump's idea of a real hero. That's a great message to send to the magamutts.

 

[stanfr]

I would be very curious if there's any polling on what folks think about Penny and Neely. I strongly suspect a significant majority of people and even New Yorkers think he should have been acquitted because it was self defense and the defense of others and most likely think he did not intend to kill Neely.

Anybody know of any polling on the matter?

I dunno the polling, but id venture that it would fall roughly the way the election results fell-- 1/3 would say he went too far and is guilty of some form of homicide, 1/3 would say he is a hero, and 1/3 would be unsure or unwilling to commit, therefore leaning towards reasonable doubt.