And some bystanders cooperated. A weapon though was not found o Neely and none of the witnesses nor Penny said that he actually was physically attacking anyone at the time Penny took him down. This is why I said it’s not an open and shut case.
While there likely wasn’t a 15 minute chokehold as stated earlier you can pass out someone with this technique in about 8 seconds. Holding it a minute or more would likely lead to brain damage or death.
4 calls were made to 911 before any reported physical confrontation happened. This wasn't your typical subway creature rant. The riders thought Neely was actually dangerous. Now that we know Neely's history of violence, it gives more support that Neely was acting violently. Violently threatening others is assault. In other related news, this man was arrested for stabbing a violent person who attacked him on the subway. https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-subway-stabbing-crime-j-train/13380442/ Can't even defend yourself in New York. Crazy.
Sounds like corrupt media made up that 15 minutes story and people fell for it people will automatically believe what the media tells them Just like Jordan in 95
Unless Penny knew Neely his history is largely irrelevant to the case. I’m sure his defense will bring it up but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Judge doesn’t allow it. Calls to 911 are relevant but if the calls are just that someone is acting weird and yelling that doesn’t amount yet to an immediate threat that should be responded with force. To add on the case regarding th stabbing in the subway from the article you posted. I haven’t seen any evidence about that except for what you posted so doesn’t really have an opinion on it. That said the article you posted a witness did say they felt Williams went too far: “"It's certainly something he didn't start or would have probably been involved in if it weren't for, you know, the guy who was killed being the aggressor," the witness said. "But you can't kill someone just because, you know, they started a fight with you.".
Penny didn't know Neely's history, but now that we are aware of it, we can see why many people felt threatened by Neely, especially when he says things like "I don't care if I have to kill an F, I will. I'll go to jail, I'll take a bullet". Unless you don't think Neely actually meant it and wouldn't be violent after 42 convictions (4 for violent assaults). The story is the deceased homeless man was harassing multiple people on the train, eventually targeted the defendant's girlfriend, punched her, and got into a physical fight with the defendant. The defendant pulled a knife and stabbed him and fled at a different stop where he was arrested by police. Pretty textbook definition of self defense, yet NYC doesn't want people defending themselves like Jose Alba.
Question is whether or not the use of force is warranted given verbal threats. Then that means if anyone says they are going to hit someone, you can take their life? What's the standard for self-defense? When can you use lethal force? 2nd question is why did he continue to hold him in a chokehold after he stopped resisting? Once he is passed out which happens pretty quickly, he could have released him and restrained him in another way. Why continue to apply a chock hold against someone. I think at this point everyone knows that putting someone in a chokehold can result in death in a few minutes. When I took martial arts they were very clear about this. That the first effort in any situation should always be deescalation - especially if there is no weapon. That if you use force right away, you might be in the legal wrong. Getting into any physical altercation should never happen lightly...because we were taught that once you do engage, you engage with intent to incapacitate not just to fight. This feels like manslaughter in this case.
Did the bystanders know Neely’s history? again I’ve been careful to say that the immediate known facts of the case could very well lead to not guilty of Penny. Dragging in stuff though that wouldn’t be of knowledge to the people actually there makes for riling people up but isn’t really material. Again a witness to it said they he went too far. Self defense is proportional. If someone slapped me I can respond proportionally. If I pull out a knofe and stab them then I would likely be charged. in fact as a martial artist I would be even more likely to be charged even if I didn’t use a knife because many jurisdictions consider martial arts skill to be equivalent to being armed.
Those are exactly the issues. At the same Time Penny could be exonerated given that not only did other bystanders feel there was a threat they also helped to restrain Neely. It’s also still not clear how long the choke was on or to what extent that Penny even knew he was killing Neely. At the moment I can see the trial going either way.
Yeah a lot of evidence still needs to come out. It will be interesting to see what the witnesses said to the police and say in court. I imagine that it is their testimony that will decide the case.
When you have a reasonable belief that force is going to be imminently used against you, you can reply with force. If you have a reasonable belief that the force that is going to be used against you will cause death or great bodily injury, you can respond with deadly force. Generally speaking. New York strongly limits character evidence. Evidence of the deceased prior reputation for violence, unless known to the defendant at the time of the incident, cannot be introduced to show either that the deceased was the initial aggressor or the reasonableness of the defendant's response. See Rule 4.11.
What constitutes a reasonable belief? If there is no weapon out, where is that line? If a drunk person says I'm going to kick your ass - are you allowed to shoot him in the head? If a kid says to another kid - I'm going to beat you up - then can you reply with force - even deadly force? Where is the line?
They don't, and I understand it's leaning more towards inadmissable in court, but it gives us outsiders reasonable belief that Neely was violently threatening the subway riders. They clearly thought Neely was dangerous without knowing his criminal history. That's one person's opinion. Look at the reported facts. The deceased punched two people. Do you believe the defendant can respond with a knife?
That is a question left to the jury to decide, and it kind of has to be because there are too many possible scenarios to make rules for all of them. If the jury thinks it was reasonable for you to believe the drunk person threating you was imminently going to cause you great bodily injury, then yes. For example, if a 90 pound girl is leaving a bar and a 250 pound drunk linebacker from the college football team that she rejected inside follows her out and says, I'm going to kick your ass, would you think it is reasonable for her to shoot him? For two real life examples, look at George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. In both cases, the jury found that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not act in lawful self-defense (in other words, their actions were plausibly self-defense). Zimmerman's story was that Martin was mounted on him and slamming his head against the concrete, threatened him, and was possibly reaching for his gun. Rittenhouse said that Joseph Rosenbaum threatened him and then charged at him, grabbing for his gun. So in those two examples, that was sufficient in the mind of the jury to reply with deadly force (because if it wasn't, then there would be no possibility of acquittal).
A punch can be deadly but generally not considered so. I think in most cases stabbing someone if they punched you would not be considered an appropriate response.
So you believe a defendant has to engage in fair combat and can't use a weapon when he/she is assaulted unless the aggressor pulls a weapon first?
So if it's up to the jury then it's impossible to know the likely outcome in this case. It's hard to believe that the only way to restrain someone acting erratically on a subway filled with adults couldn't restrain him or call the cops without killing him first.
