Daniel Penny case
 

I'm not sure how many of you guys have followed this, but Daniel Penny is an ex-marine who was on a NY subway in May of 2023. A homeless man (Jordan Neely) got on the train and was rambling about killing everyone and ended up next to a woman with a baby in the stroller. This where it's a bit subjective as the defense says the man was threatening to other passengers (including the woman) while the prosecution disputes this. Penny then gets the man in a chokehold and knocks him unconscious. Neely (the victim) eventually dies later.

It's been a pretty interesting case - one of the main reasons it has gotten national attention is because Penny is white and Neely is black. I'm not sure how I feel about this after looking at everything. I definitely think Penny held on to the choke too long and could have released earlier. I also think the police could have done more to resuscitate Neely, but they said he was "very dirty" and they were worried about getting hepatitis as he had signs of drug use.

I'd be interested in what this forum thinks as we have had pretty long discussions on other similar cases. And if this has been posted before, feel free to merge this into that thread (I couldn't find one).

I know the case but haven't been following the trial.

Penny is a hero and should be treated as such. We need more guys like him and less who will just pull their phones out and record someone being assaulted.

This case should have never been brought to trial. Zero chance you get 12 New Yorkers to convict if even one of them has ever ridden the subway.

"Eventually dies later" - he died in the subway car, right? It's not like he died later at the hospital, I thought he was dead when Penny released the choke hold.

(to me, this seems like Bernie Goetz redux, except with a more menacing-looking vigilante)

Doing this from memory, but wasn’t the gun unregistered and didn’t he basically put a couple more shots into the guy after he was incapacitated and make some comment?



I’ll have to look it up but it’s nap time.

Dola- looked it up real quick and I was pretty on. He said to one of the guys already on the ground “you don’t look so bad, here’s another” and shot him again. I was also correct about the forearm and he did 8 months.

Other than both cases taking place on a subway in NYC I don’t think they are all that similar.

Not sure about the unregisterd part, I believe yes on the more shots. I think this is the question for the jury -- Goetz seemed to relish in what he was doing, and used more force than was needed (assuming it was deemed necessary in the first place). Could the same be said of Penny?

(IANAL of course, but those seem like the parallels. Was force necessary in the first place, was the level appropriate. It probably helps Penny's case that there are other riders. But I worry about a "I was worried for my safety!" slippery slope like you see with Stand Your Ground.)

Dola - I also feel like there is generally more of a "try to talk this guy down" if Neely is white.

He wasn't, but I think there's a dispute as to whether or not he could have been saved.

We can't accept a society where people can kill because someone might be dangerous later. There was no immediate threat. I believe Penny didn't intend to kill, but he did and there has to be a penalty for that.

There's a cop vest video showing one of the cops saying he had a pulse when they showed up. However, it seems the pulse was weak and he ended up dying after the one cop tried some chest compressions to get him back. For all extensive purposes, he died from the choke hold - but he did have a pulse after.

I've had a real tough time. I've looked at the witness testimony and the videos that have been posted. The one thing that sticks out is one of the girls said she's been on the subway too many times to count but this was the first team she was so scared she was shaking when the homeless guy was ranting near her.

I feel like subduing him and waiting for the cops was the right move, but he may have taken the choke hold a little too far. Again, he's not a cop but has some military training - so I think some onus is on him to understand the danger of what he's doing. But I don't think he meant to kill him and there was enough reason to step in. I think there are two counts he's being charged with: one carries 15 years and the other just 4. I may pick the 4-year count for him if I was on the jury, just for holding the choke too long. But I would want to see all the evidence first. It seems like this guy was a drug user and pretty crazy (from the psych guy would had evaluated him earlier). It's a tough one.

I agree and think the 4-year count for criminally negligent homicide seems fair here from a high level. I do wonder with all the scrutiny cops are facing now for force and stepping in (including the "de-fund the police" effort) if more people will feel the need to be proactive like this.

Police did a mass shooting in the subway a couple months back. I don't think the fake defund stuff is having much impact on them.

So when does an obviously mentally unstable person yelling I’m going to kill you all, in a tightly confined space become an immediate threat?

It's a weird case that I don't really know what the answer should be. If you walk around the train threatening to kill people, someone is going to take you at your word and defend themselves. At the same time, you can't continue to kill someone after they've been subdued. He was trained and should have known when Neely was unconcious and released the hold.

We don't have access to the court from what I can tell or all the evidence so I can't say for sure how I'd choose. But I lean toward acquittal. It's the equivalent of a guy threatening to fight people and then getting punched in the face. If you start shit, can't complain when someone else finishes it.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes he is trained but is also a human and likely afraid. I think what works in his favor is he wasn't just defending himself, but other, more vulnerable people as well. Like someone mentioned earlier, someone testified they ride the subway all the time and they have never been so afraid.

Personal feelings I mentioned above aside, you're not getting 12 New Yorkers to convict him on this. It's a waste of time.

The law says imminent rather than immediate, but I don't think that makes a difference. I'm sure there's case law in NY define imminent threat. NY also has a duty to retreat before use of deadly force which I would expect makes it more likely for some level of conviction.

You said immediate in your original post, but I agree, splitting hairs.

Where exactly does one retreat to on a moving subway car?

My guess is the problem for him will be that he didn't let go and retreat when the train reached the stop. Instead, he maintained the hold while other passengers kept the doors from closing.

But I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm wrong.

I think the only debatable piece is how long he held on the choke hold and if it indeed caused the death on its own. Even if proven, I'm not sure what the penalty should be for that though. Neely being on K2 could have also contributed to his death. The defense brought a forensic pathologist today that said this:


If the defense can sew doubt that the drugs he was on/his condition also contributed to his death, I doubt any conviction would occur.

I don't think his conditions should play a role. If you shoot someone and they die because they have a genetic condition that prevents clotting, you're still going to be charged.

Like I said, I don't really know how this goes down and it's one of those thing you probably need to be there for and listen to all the witnesses about. It comes down to when he went unconcious and how long the choke was applied after that moment.

Not trying to be argumentative but what does that look like? He asked other passengers to alert law enforcement and to do that they have to open the door long enough for them to arrive. Does he drag Neely out? Does he allow the passengers all to get off then leave Neely and get off? Does he retreat himself and leave everyone else on the car with Neely?

I’m no lawyer but it seems to me it will be difficult to convict a guy who was protecting innocent people from an aggressive drugged up mentally unstable persons yelling he was going to kill them all. Especially a decorated ex marine.

Again, I'm not a lawyer.

I think where he has problems because he held the chokehold well after Neely had passed out and heard people say he was going to kill Neely but continued the chokehold.

I also think Penny's prior record plays a part. If he had a history of assault charges or other aggressive actions, I would be more open to believing he had more intent with the choke.

That's going to be hard for the defense to overcome.

I think after this trial more people will just stick to pulling out their phones and not getting involved.

yeah, there's literally so many barriers to getting involved at any time. My father in law is a retired firefighter and he has always helped in situations that call for it. He's cited good samaritan laws as a reason he hasn't been worried in the past. He's had two friends (while off the job) face lawsuits for intervening when a person was in peril and he now says it's not worth the risk.

It's a real shame that we are becoming a country who either doesn't care about others (in their own social media bubble) or are afraid to care (ie, lawsuits). I'm not sure what can be done to change this at this point, but I don't think it's good for us long term.

Penny could have done everything the exact same and released the hold after Neely was unconscious and he would have been fine. This isn't an illustration of how it's impossible to help others without getting into trouble. Penny was, at a minimum, negligent in holding a chokehold long enough to kill Neely.

FAFO

Turk 182 (1985) - IMDb

By that logic though, is every bar fight is justified in ending in a fatality?

If a guy walked in a bar, locked the door behind him trapping everyone, and announced he was going to kill them all I would say his death is justified.

I'm not sure that matches with the laws of NY, especially given that half-way through the doors were unlocked.

The doors opened about 5-6 minutes after the confrontation started. If he lets him go after a minute or two, you think a crazy person on drugs is going to get up and say "You know what, guys, that was my bad" and sit quietly for the final 2 minutes?

and that makes him less of a threat how?

NY says people have a duty to retreat before use of deadly force.

Penny could have also released the hold wen Neely was unconscious and my guess is he wouldn't have been charged with anything.

Pretty easy to Monday morning QB this kind of thing.

The way I look at is his actions likely saved innocent people from harm. I suspect it will be tough to get 12 jurors to agree to the charges.

I think he'll need to testify. Jurors need to hear him deny that he was trying to kill Neely or didn't care if he did. Otherwise, they might feel they're being asked to sanction something more sinister.

I'm wondering if Seinfeld were possible in today's television world, if the final episode would have been entirely different. I know many, many Seinfeld fans disagree, but I think that finale was right up there with Newhart's in terms of self-awareness of the show's characters and brilliance.

All that should matter is whether or not he broke the law. I'm not a lawyer and I'll trust the legal system.

I think what depends is how the jurors interprete the law with regards to the facts of the case.

This is basically where I am.

Barring other information coming out from trial, however, if Penny testifies that his intent was not to kill and the jury votes to acquit, I'm ok with that.

Interesting that Jordan Williams has his charges dropped for roughly the same thing Penny did (he even used a knife):

NYC subway stabbing: Jordan Williams has charges dropped – NBC New York

So the guy stabbed him after he was unconscious? Because unless he did, then this is not the same thing at all.

So fatally stabbing someone “bothering/scaring” train riders is better than choking him out too long? I don’t see much of a difference. Either it’s ok to use deadly force in this situation or it isn’t.

No, he stabbed the guy that was an active threat. That is legally justified. Penny subdued a guy (which is legal) but then continued to use deadly force after was no longer a threat, which is not. It is the difference between self-defense and vigilante execution.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

From NY tv it sounds like this comes down to whether Penny should have retreated.

Manslaughter charged dismissed. Jury will move onto criminally negligent homicide charge.

I can see him being found guilty of that. Regardless, he won't spend much time, if any.

I'd think the bigger risk is the inevitable civil case.

Hopefully none, as the way things unfolded today seems ripe for appeal. Even the judge seemed to know almost exactly what they were doing even as they did it.

Not guilty.

I'm kind of surprised the jury returned a verdict after they couldn't come to a decision on the manslaughter charge.

That is the thing that is weird. Hung on the harder charge, but acquitted on what should have been a lighter and easier to prove charge. I wonder how that played out in the room.