What a terrible situation and so many questions. This poor guy did what men should do, defend the weak. It's terrible that this is leaning towards making sure citizens will not be able to defend themselves based on a person's race, mental stability and criminal history.

No, it is never good when people die in such a situation but should we as a society let the crazies kill others without abandon because of their disturbed status? I heard today the 'victim's' father is suing for the loss of his son. His son was a homeless derelict man with a clear criminal history of hurting people. Why wasn't his father taking care of his violent son?

Is NYC just as derelict as the violent people they leave on the streets? I believe people on that subway were terrified and grateful for Penny to step in and subdue Neely.

Tells me all I need to know about new york!!!!

Penny should be getting a medal!


.

I'd have been disqualified from this jury during voir dire because the only reasonable answer is so obvious. Penny deserves a medal, not to be prosecuted, and yet, a jury is struggling with it.

I've never done any criminal work, but I've been on the civil side for 37 years and I've lost all faith in juries.

This is a case that should never have been charged at all. And if the supposed victim wasn't Black, it never would have. The judge let the race issue enter the equation even though this was not charged as a hate crime. Yet another error.

He should declare a mistrial at this point and hopefully after the election, Bragg will not prosecute again and will crawl into the hole where he belongs.

Remember BLM?

Only Black Lives Matter.

Reverse racialism!

quote:

e

No such thing as reverse racism. Racism is Racism.

He put his life and health on line to protect other people and what he got is NY prosecutors ruining his life
What a classic

You help Americans at your risk. Unless your personal life is at immediate risk (defense of self), getting involved is far more risky (defense of others). That is the lesson of this case and the law as enforced.

That is no law on this
It’s MADE up law TWISTED and WISHED from existing laws by vindictive and misguided prosecutors

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
He put his life and health on line to protect other people and what he got is NY prosecutors ruining his life
What a classic

A little like the Bernard Goetz affair...

quote:

Daniel Penny

Manslaughter dismiss after jury deadlock.

I have to say, the judge denying a mistrial is not an error, but such procedural move is not best practice. The only way I would grant that over a mistrial is with prejudice.

Negligent homicide charge is still bring deliberated.

The general rule of lethal self defense of others is much more restrictive than lethal self defense of oneself.

In lethal use of oneself, the actor does not have to be correct lethal self defense was necessary. When the issue is lethal self defense of others, the actor must be both reasonable and correct.

The general rule of lethal self defense of others is much more restrictive than lethal self defense of oneself.

[/QUOTE]

What you think the general rule is, is irrelevant. What NY law says matters.

At least make an effort and site NY law. Nobody cares about KY except maybe as to the Sheriff v. Judge case.

That is the rule on NY. It is a majority application of self defense across the country.

Read more and type less.

The judge did not dismiss on a directed verdict and the jury deadlocked. It is a close question.


A rule in law is controlling principle(s) from precedent or statute. Most often caselaw precedent bc statutes are written more to give notice.

What I cited is the basic law in NY.

You really do not understand how this works or what the words mean.

This NY Court of Last Resort clearly states I am right that NY has adopted the general rule when acting in self defense of one’s own person.
https://www.nycourts.gov/repor...archives/p_goetz.htm

Thus, consistent with most justification provisions, Penal Law § 35.15 permits the use of deadly physical force only where requirements as to triggering conditions and the necessity of a particular response are met (see, Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 121 [a], at 2). As to the triggering conditions, the statute requires that the actor "reasonably believes" that another person either is using or about to use deadly physical force or is committing or attempting to commit one of certain enumerated felonies, including robbery. As to the need for the use of deadly physical force as a response, the statute requires that the actor "reasonably believes" that such force is necessary to avert the perceived threat. [5]

Because the evidence before the second Grand Jury included statements by Goetz that he acted to protect himself from being maimed or to avert a robbery, the prosecutor correctly chose to charge the justification defense in section 35.15 to the Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.25 [6]; People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38). The prosecutor properly instructed the grand jurors to [*107] consider whether the use of deadly physical force was justified to prevent either serious physical injury or a robbery, and, in doing so, to separately analyze the defense with respect to each of the charges. He elaborated upon the prerequisites for the use of deadly physical force essentially by reading or paraphrasing the language in Penal Law § 35.15. The defense does not contend that he committed any error in this portion of the charge.

When the prosecutor had completed his charge, one of the grand jurors asked for clarification of the term "reasonably believes". The prosecutor responded by instructing the grand jurors that they were to consider the circumstances of the incident and determine "whether the defendant's conduct was that of a reasonable man in the defendant's situation". It is this response by the prosecutor—and specifically his use of "a reasonable man"—which is the basis for the dismissal of the charges by the lower courts. As expressed repeatedly in the Appellate Division's plurality opinion, because section 35.15 uses the term "he reasonably believes", the appropriate test, according to that court, is whether a defendant's beliefs and reactions were "reasonable to him". Under that reading of the statute, a jury which believed a defendant's testimony that he felt that his own actions were warranted and were reasonable would have to acquit him, regardless of what anyone else in defendant's situation might have concluded. Such an interpretation defies the ordinary meaning and significance of the term "reasonably" in a statute, and misconstrues the clear intent of the Legislature, in enacting section 35.15, to retain an objective element as part of any provision authorizing the use of deadly physical force.

You will note the language “consistent with most jurisdictions.”


Now, we will move to defense of others.

And how do we know the guy wouldn’t turn on Penny as well
I guess we will never know and that’s a good thing
Overall, I don’t understand these prosecutors why they don’t understand this
Are they not human? Are they so above most population that they think they are gods?

Because Penny is using deadly force bc of the threat to others. That is not disputed. You do not get to rest the ball.

Reckless homicide is the correct charge when the self defense is imperfect. That Doctrine is called imperfect Self Defense.

It is another rule adopted by most jurisdictions including NY York. When an element of Lethal Self Defense Justification cannot be factually proven. The homicide falls from an intentional killing to reckless manslaughter.

Most States traditionally did not treat lethal self defense as a bar from a charge or an immunity (KY recently did adopt that). What the traditional application across jurisdictions is and the case I give you agrees, self defense is an affirmative defense that has to be asserted and proved. It justifies the killing. It does not mine one from prosecution. Again, I recognize domestic states have extended lethal self defense to an immunity.


Gov really would not like the general rules around 1st Aggressor and the Retreat.

The use of force in self-defense loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then stops doing so and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the perpetrator at that

The point is retaliatory and not self-defense.

Law is not taught state by state. Law School teach from cases that on a topic show the general rules adopted/developed by most jurisdictions. A professor might highlight how a state has adopted a minority rule. Usually, when a major jurisdiction adopts a minority stance, rejects a majority rule, or when the state you are going to school in does.


A casebook is a collection of cases from
appellate courts showing how a majority rule developed and what general exceptions exists.

When you are asserting lethal self defense of others, you are stepping into the shoes of the victim. When the victim on that moment would not be justified to use deadly force, you only hope is jury nullification or confusion. On Big T truth, perfect works you are to be convicted when you are incorrect that the threat is interment from the respective of the third person.

NY as an element of any intentional homicide that the Stage must prove justification was not present when asserted by the Defense. This is a minority rule adopted by NY that is in the actor’s best interest. Ohio still requires the Defendant to prove justification by preponderance of the evidence at trial.

You think NY is bad:

It is not a violation of due process for Ohio to place the burden of proving self defense, by a preponderance of the evidence, upon the accused. State v. Martin (1986), 21 Ohio St. 3d 91, affirmed.
State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 281 -- As long as the prosecution is required to prove the elements of a crime, there is no additional constitutional requirement to prove the absence of self-defense.
State v. Seliskar (1973), 35 Ohio St. 2d 95, 96 -- "If a defendant cannot provide evidence on the issue of self-defense other than his own testimony, then, in order to avail himself of the defense, he must testify. In such event, the choice is that of the defendant, and once he has decided to rely on self-defense and is required by the circumstances to testify in order to prove that defense, he necessarily must waive his constitutional right to remain silent."

https://www.nycourts.gov/judge...ary_35.20%283%29.pdf

Immediately above is citation w endnotes to cases for NY.

The above specificity applies to lethal use of force for ones own defense.l not third parties.

Based on what I have seen, Penny executed a standard self-defense hold that reduces the carotid blood flow until the assailant is rendered unconcious. It is not a form of deadly force. I was taught the same hold when I took Tai Kwon Do. He is not responsible for the assailant's drug load, health status or mental state. The death was accidental and unintentional. It resulted from the assailant being subdued from his hostile, menacing behavior. Acting out has consequences. Of course liberals don't believe in consequences for their actions. They believe in consequences for people who don't share their world view.

Choke holds are delft force. If it can kill you, it is deadly force.

Most states define what he did as an act of violence.

That does not pass the laugh test. His own lawyers are not making that claim.

I believe in the rule of law. When the threat stopped the use of lethal force d must stop. When using lethal force in defense of others one must be correct thru the victim had the right to use self defense.

The theory of the charge was Imperfect Self Defense, and the jury hung. He is and was innocent. The state on that charge failed to stop the presumption.

I would have declared a mistrial on the jury hanging. That is not required as the my law I linked to indicates. I would have forced the prosecution to dismiss w prejudice by leveraging the mistrial had I been the judge. I ain’t. That is discretion.

OK, let's say Penny used a stun gun/Taser and due to an unknown cardiac issue/drug load the perp's heart stopped and he died. Stun gun's/Tasers aren't considered deadly force, but they can kill you. So, are they really deadly force? I guess it depends on whether it kills somebody or not. Rubber bullets aren't deadly force, but they could strike your head and kill you. You could also have an allergic reaction to CN spray and die. So if I'm suing, it seems deadly force is whatever I want it to be. Especially if I am a liberal.

I've heard people say that Penny was racist. So, according to these people, anytime a white person kills a black person it is racist, but when a black person kills a white person, it clearly is not.

I'll show you racism. How about a Black DA, who has a history of charging questionable cases prosecutes a man who defended his fellow New Yorkers because a Black, mentally ill, violent, hopped up, nut job died during an attempt to kill people. But that's NOT racist?

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
OK, let's say Penny used a stun gun/Taser and due to an unknown cardiac issue/drug load the perp's heart stopped and he died. Stun gun's/Tasers aren't considered deadly force, but they can kill you. So, are they really deadly force? I guess it depends on whether it kills somebody or not. Rubber bullets aren't deadly force, but they could strike your head and kill you. You could also have an allergic reaction to CN spray and die. So if I'm suing, it seems deadly force is whatever I want it to be. Especially if I am a liberal.

But for causation. The victim is taken as you find them. Now, had Penny be charged w an intentional homicide that hypothetical would lead to diminish intent. The issue on this case is whether the lethal self defense was justified or an imperfect self defense.

The jury hung. The Court permitted a dismissal, I assume with out prejudice. I would not have done that, but from the law on NY I have posted above it was within the Courts discretion. Look at the model jury instructions.

Penny was presumed innocent. The state failed to strip that presumption. I accept that.

I do not accept the narrative that the charges were inappropriate or manufactured.

One cannot use lethal force when the threat ends. Period snd end of that sub issue.

Without cassias a da ts overwhelming similar saying a conviction as a matter of law cannot be obtained, the theory of the case tested yo the jury was show the system works.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
OK, let's say Penny used a stun gun/Taser and due to an unknown cardiac issue/drug load the perp's heart stopped and he died. Stun gun's/Tasers aren't considered deadly force, but they can kill you. So, are they really deadly force? I guess it depends on whether it kills somebody or not. Rubber bullets aren't deadly force, but they could strike your head and kill you. You could also have an allergic reaction to CN spray and die. So if I'm suing, it seems deadly force is whatever I want it to be. Especially if I am a liberal.

But for causation. The victim is taken as you find them. Now, had Penny be charged w an intentional homicide that hypothetical would lead to diminish intent. The issue on this case is whether the lethal self defense was justified or an imperfect self defense.

The jury hung. The Court permitted a dismissal, I assume with out prejudice. I would not have done that, but from the law on NY I have posted above it was within the Courts discretion. Look at the model jury instructions.

Penny was presumed innocent. The state failed to strip that presumption. I accept that.

I do not accept the narrative that the charges were inappropriate or manufactured.

One cannot use lethal force when the threat ends. Period snd end of that sub issue.

Without cassias a da ts overwhelming similar saying a conviction as a matter of law cannot be obtained, the theory of the case tested yo the jury was show the system works.

How does the common man judge when the threat ends? I wonder in I were in Penny's place if I wouldn't have held on until the police forcibly removed me.

Good Samaritan laws serve a very good purpose. Ordinary Americans shouldn't have to fear the consequences of lending aid.

And as we see, most prosecutors in this case as we see in Heyms posture will go after Good Samaritan
Sad world we are entering
Again, these prosecutors are playing God, plain and simple

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
OK, let's say Penny used a stun gun/Taser and due to an unknown cardiac issue/drug load the perp's heart stopped and he died. Stun gun's/Tasers aren't considered deadly force, but they can kill you. So, are they really deadly force? I guess it depends on whether it kills somebody or not. Rubber bullets aren't deadly force, but they could strike your head and kill you. You could also have an allergic reaction to CN spray and die. So if I'm suing, it seems deadly force is whatever I want it to be. Especially if I am a liberal.

But for causation. The victim is taken as you find them. Now, had Penny be charged w an intentional homicide that hypothetical would lead to diminish intent. The issue on this case is whether the lethal self defense was justified or an imperfect self defense.

The jury hung. The Court permitted a dismissal, I assume with out prejudice. I would not have done that, but from the law on NY I have posted above it was within the Courts discretion. Look at the model jury instructions.

Penny was presumed innocent. The state failed to strip that presumption. I accept that.

I do not accept the narrative that the charges were inappropriate or manufactured.

One cannot use lethal force when the threat ends. Period snd end of that sub issue.

Without cassias a da ts overwhelming similar saying a conviction as a matter of law cannot be obtained, the theory of the case tested yo the jury was show the system works.

How does the common man judge when the threat ends? I wonder in I were in Penny's place if I wouldn't have held on until the police forcibly removed me.

Good Samaritan laws serve a very good purpose. Ordinary Americans shouldn't have to fear the consequences of lending aid.

Scott -

Hope you're well and the Holidays provide the family the health and happiness they deserve.

This might be complicated and difficult for me to articulate, but here goes.

This entire thing, is a political issue, not legal. Alvin Bragg has stated more than once, the term, "social justice." There should be no world in which Daniel Penny is found guilty and faces any penalty.

The election of DJT, is tied to this. Alvin Bragg is the antithesis of the left and the use of the legal system to achieve social outcomes. DJT is the polar opposite of this.

Had Harris won, this kind of thing would not change. Under Trump, the mood of the country has changed. I can feel it here in Arizona and Nationally. Alvin Bragg, Latica James, Fani Willis are all creatures of the far left and their strategy of using the justice system to equalize outcomes. It won't fly anymore.

Point being, the downstream affect of DJT being elected sends a stern warning that not just DJT wants to change it, but America at large demands it.

You don't need to have voted or like Trump for his mere presence in the Oval Office to change the moral mood of what America accepts.

Just look back at the witnesses statements when the Penny event occurred. NOBODY made it racial, and everyone said they were scared and Penny acted proper. Only the predictable race hustlers made it racial.

This event is a microcosm of why I made the statement that sitting on your hands in this last election wasn't really a choice.

Not voting or wasting the vote on a write-in, was simply not demanding America move away from these type of DA's. Yes, you can absolutely hate Trump and his lack of character, but we can't allow America be held hostage by false racism and bending the knee to the progressive left's )and their willing accomplice MSM) lies about it.

- Steve

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Because Penny is using deadly force bc of the threat to others. That is not disputed.

i would have disputed this - as the purpose of a restraining hold, and even when modified to "choke" is NOT to kill - it is to subdue

This should have been the outcome in George Floyd case. He was high on drugs, distributing fake money and a threat to the police and others.

If the characters were swapped, a black killing a nasty white, he would have been considered a hero!

Exonerated

Members of the public who perform such feats to defend the innocent should re rewarded!

Not put through this circus!

Bragg should have to reimburse Penny for his legal expenses.

His office is now showing a willingness to go after folks for questionable reasons with “novel theories” yet they were unwilling to prevent this occurrence by vigorously doing their job to keep the mentally ill perpetrator alive and off the street.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Bragg should have to reimburse Penny for his legal expenses.

His office is now showing a willingness to go after folks for questionable reasons with “novel theories” yet they were unwilling to prevent this occurrence by vigorously doing their job to keep the mentally ill perpetrator alive and off the street.

Excellent post Doc.

This was not a novel theory.

Brad also has immunity. Without it, prosecutors would never try close, hard cases.

This was a standard application of self defense/imperfect self defense.

Talk about a guy who's sorry he ever got involved. What an example for the prosecutor to set. "Don't try to be a good citizen, or you might get prosecuted."

I'm glad he got off.

And, BLM activists are calling for "black vigilantes", the father of the deceased yelled at someone who clapped at the verdict "Do you want to get f...ing killed?" And, Penny is still faced with a ridiculous civil suit. I'm sure he wishes he was never there.

Sad.

Daniel Penny

BLM leader making death threats now.

Neely's father says he misses his homeless son. WTF? People can sure be low when it comes to the smell of money. Complete scumbag.

Also, it seems to me that these choke-hold deaths all appear to happen to people high on drugs. It's even sadder now that the concept of the good samaritan will go away out of fear of insane prosecution.

We now need to revisit the Chauvin case.

We know Chauvin got total raw deal because racism is alive and well…against whites

Anne,

I see a money grab every day. Guy dies and multiple common law wives with babies show up claiming to be the spouse. Even in Texas there can't be more than one wife. We need to do away with the whole common law system. It's outdate, but that's another topic.

Like you said, father who allowed son to live homeless. What's he entitled to?.

Like I said in another post, I know all I need to know about new york!!!

Bragg should be forcibly removed from office!