|
Post by abbey1227 on May 12, 2023 13:23:13 GMT
It depends how imminent the harm was. From what I gather, the guy was just ranting. But, that is what trials are for. We shall see what the evidence shows. No. Multiple people said he was threatening people.
Didn't multiple people assist in holding him down until he did stop resisting?
|
|
|
Post by Just Casey on May 12, 2023 13:34:04 GMT
Thank God. Hopefully, jury will convict him. Why do you say that? Are you racist? No. He killed someone.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 12, 2023 13:41:12 GMT
Why do you say that? Are you racist? No. He killed someone. That is not always against the law. Like in self defense. If he's innocent, why would you hope he's convicted?
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 12, 2023 13:42:30 GMT
No. Multiple people said he was threatening people. Didn't multiple people assist in holding him down until he did stop resisting?
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Just Casey on May 12, 2023 13:44:13 GMT
That is not always against the law. Like in self defense. If he's innocent, why would you hope he's convicted? If he is innocent it will come out in court.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 12, 2023 13:46:16 GMT
That is not always against the law. Like in self defense. If he's innocent, why would you hope he's convicted? If he is innocent it will come out in court. I agree. But I wouldn't hope he's convicted. I would hope justice is served. At the moment, there is not enough information for you and I to determine guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Just Casey on May 12, 2023 13:49:47 GMT
If he is innocent it will come out in court. I agree. But I wouldn't hope he's convicted. I would hope justice is served. At the moment, there is not enough information for you and I to determine guilt or innocence. You are right. I hope he is given a fair impartial trial. But, at least he is being charged.
|
|
|
Post by theBROKEdontrump on May 12, 2023 15:33:16 GMT
Have you ever been to NYC? There are crazy people all the time in the subway....ranting and raving, high as a kite. Majority are harmless. I am sure the trial will reveal many interesting things. Doesn't matter. You cannot threaten people. You also cannot grab people from behind and choke them to death because they are "threatening" people.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 12, 2023 15:55:32 GMT
Doesn't matter. You cannot threaten people. You also cannot grab people from behind and choke them to death because they are "threatening" people. That is for the judge or jury to decide. You do not have enough information to decide innocence or guilt on this specific case. One can use deadly force to stop a threat. If the threat dies fighting to escape --- that is not illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Swimm on May 12, 2023 16:06:39 GMT
I doubt any jury will convict from the facts I’ve heard. I am not so sure. The big issue is that Neely never actually assaulted anyone. Screaming and making threats is not enough for this level of violence.The truth is that this is pretty common in New York. You see crazy people screaming and doing crazy shit. Unless they actually harm someone, people just brush it off. A NYC jury would probably know that. The dude has been harassing people for 10 years. His daily presence put people at risk everyday. That should be taken into account The fact that he wasn't taken off the streets by authorities and was allowed to continue this behavior increased the chances of something like this happening. In other words the City should admit fault and take responsibility for his death. They put people like Daniel Penny in this precarious position.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 12, 2023 16:15:03 GMT
That is the correct course of action. I am not firmly in either camp; from the relatively little information I have, either verdict could be justifiable. Obviously he thought he was doing the right thing by restraining a man whom he believed was a danger to his fellow passengers. On the other hand he did kill someone.
|
|
|
Post by Boricanator on May 12, 2023 16:31:13 GMT
That seems appropriate. What Penny did was preemptive, not self defense. That is wrong. The law says you don't have to wait to get hit to practice self defense. The law says it has to be imminent danger. It also says that the force has to be proportional to the crime. Based on what I’ve seen so far, there was no imminent danger and the force used not proportional. But, again we need to wait for the trial. Some new information could come out.
|
|
|
Post by Boricanator on May 12, 2023 16:32:08 GMT
I am not so sure. The big issue is that Neely never actually assaulted anyone. Screaming and making threats is not enough for this level of violence.The truth is that this is pretty common in New York. You see crazy people screaming and doing crazy shit. Unless they actually harm someone, people just brush it off. A NYC jury would probably know that. The dude has been harassing people for 10 years. His daily presence put people at risk everyday. That should be taken into account The fact that he wasn't taken off the streets by authorities and was allowed to continue this behavior increased the chances of something like this happening. In other words the City should admit fault and take responsibility for his death. They put people like Daniel Penny in this precarious position. Good argument. But the law doesn’t work that way.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on May 12, 2023 16:33:56 GMT
That is the correct course of action. I am not firmly in either camp; from the relatively little information I have, either verdict could be justifiable. Obviously he thought he was doing the right thing by restraining a man whom he believed was a danger to his fellow passengers. On the other hand he did kill someone.
There is substantial basis for the defendant on self-defense grounds. But someone died and the person responsible as well as their actions is known. So it is appropriate for there to be charges and a trial. I have the same concerns as others about how fair that trial will be, given that it's NYC...but there has to be one all the same. From what I can see so far, he would meet the reasonable person standard if I were juror and had to decide right now...but I'm not and there is so much more for one to yet know.
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on May 12, 2023 16:36:09 GMT
That is the correct course of action. I am not firmly in either camp; from the relatively little information I have, either verdict could be justifiable. Obviously he thought he was doing the right thing by restraining a man whom he believed was a danger to his fellow passengers. On the other hand he did kill someone.
There is substantial basis for the defendant on self-defense grounds. But someone died and the person responsible as well as their actions is known. So it is appropriate for there to be charges and a trial. I have the same concerns as others about how fair that trial will be, given that it's NYC...but there has to be one all the same.
That was my thought, as well.
They're letting career criminals roam free........crime after crime..........and charging people who should be applauded rather than charged?
|
|