Amazing.
NY has a "Castle Doctrine" law.
So, since as far as I know, Penny and everybody else had a right to be on that subway car, and had n0o reasonable way in which to retreat.
Unless there is evidence or testimony none of us have heard so far, I would say Penny's actions were perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.
The fact that Neely died is an unfortunate accident, brought about
by no other reason than his behavior and violent threats of murder.
There is also this:
My legal analysis of this case isn't dependent on the castle doctrine. Was Daniel entitled to use the force he used? Let's take the extreme example as a hypothetical. Let's say Daniel pulled out a gun and shot Jordan. Even if Jordan had walked around muttering "I'll kill &(%*#$%*#@#*" that wouldn't justify a self defense shooting. The only evidence that I have is from [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] and it does
not justify lethal force.
According to a retiree who witnessed the incident where Marine veteran Daniel Penny put Jordan Neely, a deranged homeless man who was threatening passengers, in a chokehold on a New York subway train earlier this month, not only is Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wrong for prosecuting him, but Daniel Penny is a hero for his actions.
Asserting that Penny’s actions were in self-defense, the witness firmly believes that he protected numerous individuals who could have otherwise been harmed that day. In an interview with Fox News Digital, she passionately expressed her conviction that Penny’s actions saved people.
“He’s a hero,” said the passenger, a minority woman who has resided in New York City for over five decades. She told Fox News Digital, “It was self-defense, and I believe in my heart that he saved a lot of people that day that could have gotten hurt.”
On May 1, Jordan Neely, a career criminal, was causing a disturbance on the subway, berating passengers. Multiple witnesses have said that Neely had persistently tried to shove unsuspecting individuals onto subway tracks. It took three good Samaritans to subdue him.
“I’m sitting on a train reading my book, and, all of a sudden, I hear someone spewing this rhetoric. He said, ‘I don’t care if I have to kill an F, I will. I’ll go to jail, I’ll take a bullet,’” the witness recalled.
At that point, terrified passengers crowded by the exit doors in the hopes of escaping Neely, which wasn’t possible.
“I’m looking at where we are in the tube, in the sardine can, and I’m like, ‘OK, we’re in between stations. There’s nowhere we can go,’” she said. “The people on that train, we were scared. We were scared for our lives.”
According to her, Penny only took action when Neely began using threatening language such as “kill” and “bullet.”
“Why on earth would you risk taking a bullet?” she asked. “You don’t expose yourself to harm for simply snatching something from someone’s hand. You take a bullet to prevent violence.”
The witness, unable to see clearly due to limited visibility, heard a thumping sound when Penny brought Neely to the ground. She waited for the arrival of the police and provided a statement regarding the incident. She expressed that Penny’s actions were driven by his care for people, which she considered his only “crime.” Several passengers, including herself, thanked Penny for his intervention.
However, the witness noticed that Penny appeared shaken after the altercation. She emphasized that Penny had no intention of causing harm or killing Neely, which was evident from his distraught and visibly distressed state. Despite the distress, Penny chose not to flee the scene but stayed until the authorities arrived.
“Nobody wants to kill anybody. Mr. Penny didn’t want to kill that man,” she said. “You should have seen the way Mr. Penny looked. He was distraught. He was very, very, very visibly distressed. And he didn’t go. He didn’t run. He stayed.”
In fact, nothing in ^that even suggests that Jordan Neely assaulted anyone. And I'm using the classic legal definition of assault "Putting a reasonable person in fear of
imminent bodily contact that is harmful or offensive." If I tell you "I'm going to kill you" that's a
threat but not an assault. I may kill you today. I may kill you tomorrow. As Jordan didn't single out anybody, I'm not sure if that even counts, legally, as a threat. I get that people felt threatened. Not to beat a dead horse, but people felt threatened on January 6th. "Hang my Pence" is a threat. (And actually that rises to the level of a criminal threat.) "Hang traitors to this country" is not a threat. Running up to Mike Pence with noose in hand would be an assault. Putting the noose around Pence's neck would be a battery. Don't like that example? Here's another one. Dr. Cornel West stated that the night of the "Unite The Right" rally in Charlottesville, he felt "in fear of his life" from the tiki torch carrying "Jews will not replace us" neo Nazis. He thanked antifa for his safety. Imagine if someone from antifa had used what ended up as lethal force. Justified? I think not. And I would say that regardless of the application of the castle doctrine. Later that same weekend one of the right wingers ran over and killed one of the left wingers. That doesn't mean that the night before lethal force was justified against people making threats.
So no. I'm not sure Daniel would walk even if Jordan hadn't died. Do you have the right to put someone in a chokehold because someone else feels "uncomfortable?" Where does that end? Where is the "Jordan invaded my personal space" testimony? Did Jordan lunge at anybody? Move towards anybody? Okay, we have this:
Multiple witnesses have said that Neely had persistently tried to shove unsuspecting individuals onto subway tracks. It took three good Samaritans to subdue him.
But...didn't this happen
inside the train? And was Daniel aware of what happened earlier
outside the train? In that case maybe Daniel has a "citizens arrest" defense. (Not sure what New York's citizens arrest law is). But if Daniel wasn't aware of the (alleged) train shoving incidents then that doesn't factor in at all.
