A Note About the Daniel Penny Dismissal
I have not closely followed the Daniel Penny trial. I wrote about the case on my Substack in May 2023, arguing that Penny was absolutely entitled to subdue Neely, who was threatening. But it’s more doubtful whether he bears criminal responsibility for the death. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn’t.
What this post is about is the dismissal of the most serious charge. I have seen some partisan nonsense to the effect that somehow the prosecution dismissing this charge is wrong, or a violation of norms, or a disgrace, or whatever.
In Daniel Penny’s homicide trial, the judge granted the DA’s motion to dismiss count one, as if it had never been in the case, as if the last four days never happened, in order to have the jury move on to count two, criminally negligent homicide.
This is a disgrace. |…
— National Review (@NRO) December 7, 2024
Please.
My understanding is that the remaining charge, criminally negligent homicide, is a lesser included offense to the charge that was dismissed, manslaughter. New York courts say so: “criminally negligent homicide is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree.”
Allow me to explain how lesser included and greater included offenses work. I will use as my analogy the situation with which I am most familiar: murder. Specifically, second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder in California.
Typically, the People charge the greater offense, and sometimes the lesser as well in the charging document (or not; it doesn’t really matter).
So in a murder case, you argue to the jury that the defendant is guilty of first degree murder if you think that charge is warranted.
If and only if the jury acquits on that charge, they move on to the lesser included offense: in my example, second degree murder.
But what if the jury is deadlocked? Then, the prosecution might decide that a) it does not want to try the case again, and b) it is worth a gamble that the jury would convict of the lesser charge if the greater is dismissed.
I have not personally faced this situation in some 36 murder trials, but I have heard of it happening more than once. It is not unheard of for the prosecution to take the greater offense “off the table” in hopes that the jury will convict of the lesser included.
If that happens, the greater charge is gone forever. It is functionally the same as an acquittal.
It is also not unheard of for the prosecution to refuse such a dismissal and seek to retry the whole case, including the greater charge.
For example, in the Menendez brothers’ first trial, all the jurors thought the brothers were guilty of a serious felony crime. But the female jurors thought that crime was manslaughter and the male jurors thought it was murder. The prosecution could have elected to dismiss the murder charge, hoping to get a conviction on a manslaughter. They elected instead to take a hang and retry the whole thing. (And good for them for making that decision.)
I have seen this sort of thing happen in murder trials. I have been in my office more than once when the situation has arisen in a colleague’s trial, and they have to decide how to handle it. Dismissal of the greater charge happens at times in cases of a jury deadlock.
Here, in the Daniel Penny case, the prosecution decided to dismiss the manslaughter charge so the jury could move on to the lesser included charge of criminally negligent homicide.
I am not a New York practitioner, but based on my experience in California, there is nothing wrong with this move. It is the same result as if the jury had decided to acquit on the manslaughter charge.
Now the jurors will come back on Monday to deliberate on the criminally negligent homicide charge. Maybe they will convict. But that’s not a certainty. They could hang. They could even acquit — but that would require at least one juror to radically change their view of the case, since at least one juror was willing to convict on manslaughter.
Andrew McCarthy (a hack) notwithstanding, there is nothing “disgraceful” about this. It’s not unprecedented or a horrific violation of norms. It’s the prosecution cutting its losses in a trial where it is failing to convince the jury on the topline charge, and wants to see if it can get a conviction on a lesser charge without redoing the trial.
So say I.
P.S. I know how posts like this work. I am writing the post about a specific issue — the dismissal of the greater charge — and consequently, the commentariat will focus primarily on my selected issue and leave aside generalized opinions about the case. LOL! Just kidding! Obviously, in this reality, nobody will say a word about my analysis or even the issue I am analyzing. Instead, people will use the post as a springboard for their mostly non-nuanced hot takes about the case, in most cases with little regard for a balanced view of the evidence actually presented.
So I thought I would offer a comment or two about the case in general.
Fundamentally, I don’t know how I would vote or whether I would have brought the charges. Criminal cases are complex animals. I am generally reluctant to offer a confident opinion without sitting through the trial or reading the transcripts. Sometimes, as with the OJ case, I have done neither, but have a base of knowledge regardless (watching much of the case as it unfolded, which I would tape on a VCR and often watch at night), seeing one of the lawyers give presentations on the essential facts in a presentation given in our office, and so forth.
I will say this. In my May post about the case, I said this about the topic of the defendant’s knowledge of the potentially dangerous nature of his chokehold:
Here again, we also don’t know what evidence the Manhattan D.A. has on this issue. You can imagine compelling evidence unfavorable to Penny on this topic. For example, if the D.A. is diligent, it might interview officers who trained Penny in the Marines, who warned their recruits about the potentially deadly nature of a chokehold.
You can’t underestimate the impact of evidence like that.
As an analogy, here in California, it is not uncommon for a repeat drunk driver who kills someone in a drunk driving incident to be charged with murder. In such a prosecution, the prosecution has to show the defendant was aware of the deadly implications of driving drunk. And some of the most effective evidence a jury hears can be testimony from people who gave the defendant mandatory drunk driving classes as a consequence of his past drunk driving convictions. The instructor will tell the jury: “I told this defendant in no uncertain terms that if he continued to drive under the influence of alcohol, he would be putting people’s lives at risk and might well kill someone. In fact, here is a video that I showed to the defendant’s class. And here is his sign-in sheet showing that he saw the video.” Then the jury will watch a video which shows the bloody, ghastly aftermath of various drunk driving crashes. The jury knows that the defendant saw this video, and later drove drunk anyway, killing someone just like he had witnessed on the video. By the time the video is over, the jury will be shooting daggers at the defendant.
Imagine similarly effective testimony from a Marine sergeant who says: “I told recruit Penny very clearly that if you administer this chokehold long enough, you will kill the person you are restraining.” In effect, the sergeant would be mirroring Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket, telling his recruits: “you will be a weapon, you will be a minister of death, praying for war.”
Again, we don’t know if the Manhattan D.A. has evidence like this. But if they do, Penny will be, as Marine sergeants like to say, in a world of shit.
This is a tough case for both sides. The devil is in the details. We’ll see what Alvin Bragg has. The evidence, I think, will determine the outcome.
Since I wrote that, I have seen a news story that reported the following:
According to the AP, Joseph Caballer, the combat instructor who trained Penny, said that Penny was taught how to knock a person unconscious — but that the technique could kill someone if held too long. He argued that someone performing the technique is supposed to let go when the person is rendered unconscious, and testified that Penny used the chokehold in an “improper” manner when asked by prosecutors.
Always trust content from Patterico.
This is not good for Penny. It does not mean he will be convicted. If Bernie Goetz could be acquitted (this is for the old folks), so could Penny.
Anything could happen. But if you’re in your little partisan bubble, you don’t understand why the case could go either way.
I am on Twitter and Bluesky now.
On Bluesky you’d never know that Jordan Neely was anything but a mentally ill homeless man. Absent is any discussion of his threats.
On Twitter Daniel Penny is a hero who simply subdued a dangerous man. Absent is any discussion of his responsibility for killing a human being.
The case encompasses both elements. Neely was undoubtedly threatening. I don’t think anybody believes Penny meant to kill him. He meant to be a guy who stepped up and did the right thing.
But it appears that in so doing, he killed a man. And the law has to take that into account.
That is what is happening. Let’s all calm down and watch it play out.
Yo
Patterico (ab4b5f) — 12/7/2024 @ 9:57 pmIt’s good to see you, Patterico. I appreciate your nuanced take, where you look at it from both sides.
Many commenters here focus solely on zinging the other side, and banging a partisan drum. I sometimes wonder if they’re even aware of it.
And that right there is a microcosm of what is wrong in politics these days.
norcal (dc688d) — 12/7/2024 @ 10:13 pmThanks for this post, Pat. It’s a nice change up from commenters attacking each other.
Nate (cfb326) — 12/7/2024 @ 10:45 pmThis is the conservative idea of criminal justice and say liberals are soft on crime when they oppose it. You like prosecutors and judges elected in conservative states for your “white mans” law and order. You complain when black lives matter liberal states do the same.
asset (c4fe50) — 12/7/2024 @ 11:38 pmI think you settle the case as o whether there’s anything underhanded about dismissing the top charge in the indictment.
Is it really true they can’t go to the lesser included charge (which the prosecution – or is it the defense or both? – has to agree to offer as an alternative I understand) without unanimously deciding what to decide about the top charge?
They can’t decide to convict on the lesser charge and agree to hang on the top charge?
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/8/2024 @ 1:04 amThank you for this post, P. It is illuminating and clarifying. It is a sound reminder/warning that it’s all to easy to decide innocence or guilt from the sidelines, based on political preferences and even before all the evidence has been disclosed. Patience and nuance are the enemies of partisanship.
With that, your observations of Blue Sky and Twitter speak volumes. I have no idea how we break out of this destructive stalemate.
Dana (660080) — 12/8/2024 @ 6:14 amThank you for this, Pat. The lack of intent to kill (or even harm), coupled with the intent to protect others, always made the manslaughter charge difficult for me. Negligent homicide? I’d have to see the definition and case histories. And, of course we have Bragg, who is alleged to be tolerant of most broken windows.
As for dropping the manslaughter charge (that probably should not have been brought), I’d have to know what testimony they’d rely on for that. If the case they intended to prove was manslaughter, it’s not clear to me that any of the testimony or evidence was on point. To make an analogy to a drunk-driving murder case, it would be one thing to drop “intent” allegations and go for vehicular manslaughter; it would be another to give up on the drunkenness assertion, which seems necessary to get any criminal conviction.
My personal feeling is that this was a “bad result.” Bad results happen and are unpredictable — ask any surgeon. Criminalizing bad results isn’t a great idea.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:13 amIf the jury remains hung on negligent homicide, I wonder if they’ll retry. I’d hope not, but this case always seemed more political than anything.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:20 amWith that, your observations of Blue Sky and Twitter speak volumes. I have no idea how we break out of this destructive stalemate.
It’s like product reviews; you only get reviews from people who are either very pleased on very angry. People without strong feelings don’t post.
On Twitter, you might have quite a range of opinion, but the prolific posters (and/or those willing to berate and bully) are all on the MAGA extreme. Similarly for #antifa on BlueSky (perhaps moreso due to who Twitter repels). Nobody stays online all night to express moderation.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:29 amKevin M,
Intent to kill is not required for the manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is recklessly causing the death of another. For more details consult the link to my Substack piece from May 2023 in the post.
Patterico (47ce28) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:34 amOK, still “recklessness” never seemed to be the case. You are right about testimony from his sergeant, bit I’d also want to know what his experience had been in the application and what signs he had been taught to be aware of. Before you get to “recklessness” you should have to show that he clearly disregarded safety and/or had so little actual experience in the procedure that the attempt itself was reckless.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this would also be of interest in a “criminal negligence” case.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:48 amAlso, does the intent to protect others mitigate anything here?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:51 amI remember we had a serious back-and-forth on this a few years back. It seemed to me like “negligent homicide” was probably the best fit, after reading what constituted manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. He did take a life, and the circumstances were tragic, and that his best bet was to let a jury decide.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:53 amWhy was it “negligent”? Part of my problem here is that it discourages people from defending themselves or others. Neely posed a danger to others, and he must bear some responsibility for what happened to him.
Were I a juror (and maybe this is why I would not be) the State would have to show that a correct application of a chokehold by a trained individual would generally not have had that bad result and ALSO that even if that result was unusual that the situation did not justify the risk.
I don’t see this as “justifiable homicide” so much as “death by misadventure”, but then that’s just my layman’s thinking.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 9:34 amI respectfully disagree with the host’s view.
Excusing and/or justifying the charges against Penny, and allowing this proceeding to continue after the dropped charge, is part of the problem.
Ordinary, law-abiding people are cowering in the presence of unhinged weirdos and felons on parole after multiple arrests.
Law abiding people just hope to make it to work or home without being harassed, mugged, shoved onto subway tracks, having the eye socket broken, or being trapped with dangerous people in a mobile asylum sometimes called a subway car.
But heaven help the man that intervenes to help. Bring out the calipers to see from the safety of a guarded courtroom, if he veered over some line.
60 years ago, no one intervened when hearing Kitty Genovese’s screams in NY at 1:00 AM. The New York Times spilled vats of ink moaning about it. Books reflected on the “inhumanity” of the “modern City.”
But people knew even then what would happen if they dared to intervene. They knew that the safe and warm after-the-fact bystanders, the “on the other hand” people, the “balancing test” people, would ignore the main issue, and penalize any intervention.
A man that intervened to help even then, would be prosecuted if they even brandished a gun or a kitchen knife. If they had to use any force, no one would pay for their legal or medical bills, or their lost wages, while the criminal would get a free public defender, and care.
Any would-be hero would also be sued for any injury he caused by “unnecessary force” (as happened in SF once to a cabdriver who stopped a mugger–he was sued and the jury awarded damages) Or to the man that intervened with a gun to stop a Chicago mugging: he was prosecuted, the DA at the time saying “he could have driven away.”
Penny should not have been prosecuted. And when the DA had spent 4 days excoriating Penny for committing a more serious crime, only to drop that at deadlock, the entire thing should have been dismissed. Proceeding now practically invites the jury to now see the lesser charge as “not that bad.”
Penny is not a mobster, career felon or hired hit man meriting a zealous prosecution for the safety of the public. He intervened to help. If he made an error, it was tantamount to minor negligence by a doctor that’s topped to help, or “invited” error by the person who caused this incident. (yes, yes, that’s not the intended use for the “invited error” doctrine but the principle applies: let’s say the result was not the “proximate cause” of the intervention, but of the initiating conduct).
Politically and legally, this is an ill-advised prosecution–like allowing doctors who help a man down to later be sued.
“Let a jury decide” means dodging the right decision–don’t charge or dismiss now–and subjecting the man that tried to help to an expensive and risky criminal proceeding.
It confirms that all the “I don’t want to get involved” people were right 60 years ago.
There was no intent to harm. There was an effort to help. Allowing this proceeding at all, much less to continue is wrong. With the jury deadlocked on the serious crime, the case should have been dismissed.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (dc4d41) — 12/8/2024 @ 10:09 am“there is nothing wrong with this move”
And yet, AFAIK this move was never employed against Neely in any of his prior 42 run ins with the law, including multiple assaults against women and an outstanding warrant at the time of his arrest. As far as I can tell, it was never employed because he was never brought to a jury trial. Instead, the Manhattan DA left law abiding folks on a confined subway car to fend for themselves, and when they did, one was targeted with this move.
No doubt a “hot take”, but I’m not prepared to accept targeted prosecution “moves” as part of our norms. And, as part of a prosecutorial pattern that sacrifices public safety.
lloyd (75323d) — 12/8/2024 @ 10:18 amThe question is what do you call it when what happened resembles the proverbial boiling the frog situation. That is, giving him the benefit of the doubt, Penny started out legitimately and was not taking up Neely’s invitation to kill him, but
continued way too long without letting up.
Was there a decision point or was this like boiling the frog? He was warned by one of the people who helped him that he might kill Neely.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/8/2024 @ 11:22 am17: Sammy: Fair. No one supports a gratuitous killing.
But who had the best assessment of how the restrained man might react if freed? The man holding him or those cowering many feet away? Who was at risk if Neely resumed his menacing behavior (obviously the guy who had just held him).
And more vitally, who should be responsible for this dilemma about the boiling point? Shouldn’t it be the person who caused it by menacing everyone in that car?
Absent bad intent, shouldn’t the “boiling point” be the problem of the burglar that broke into the home and meets an armed homeowner? The street thug who attacks a man and gets his ass tossed through a window? And in this case, the man with a long record that menaced a car full of people?
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (dc4d41) — 12/8/2024 @ 11:42 amGuess it’s not just Twitter!
Patterico (47ce28) — 12/8/2024 @ 1:10 pmAbsent is any discussion of the Manhattan DA’s responsibility for putting law abiding citizens in a difficult situation.
lloyd (625c80) — 12/8/2024 @ 2:05 pmThe same DA who is throwing the book at Penny gives sweetheart deals to habitual criminals due to their melanin content.
NJRob (a03f91) — 12/8/2024 @ 2:26 pmAny time a person had the ability to use lethal force, it becomes their responsibility to judge when and how to use that ability. The more ability they have, the more important their ability to judge correctly becomes. Neely has a lot of ability to use lethal force and he misjudged how much to apply, resulting in the death of another person. Whether or not he should be held legally responsible is in the hands of a jury of his peers, not in the hands of political pundits (or blog commentors) who are more interested in the political narrative than in the lives of any of the people involved.
Nic (120c94) — 12/8/2024 @ 5:43 pmI’ll say this and be quiet.
The fixation with having “a jury” decide this is misguided and misplaced in this case.
The only reason its “with a jury,” is because city officials let Mr. Neely on the streets, they let him assault someone and let him out on bail, and in the subway. They put Penny and others in a terrible situation that Penny alone tried to remedy.
For his willingness to step up, a DA charged him. He had the discretion not to do so. He should not have done so: the charge alone will discourage future efforts to render aid to anyone so as not to wind up “Like Penny.”
Its Kitty Genevese all over again. Judgmental people who were not there, and who seem to think that a criminal jury trial is a walk in the park for a defendant, assure that any other “Penny” will refrain from helping.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (dc4d41) — 12/8/2024 @ 6:20 pmHFM, the recourse when a DA doesn’t prosecute people you think should be charged is to politically remove the DA, not take laws into your own hands, not kill people you aren’t legally allowed to kill.
And “the only reason its with a jury” certainly seems to ignore that someone was killed who probably should not have been. Couldn’t that also be a reason?
He wasn’t charged for his willingness to step up. He steps up and subdues him without killing him: he’s a hero. He kills someone he shouldn’t have: less heroic.
I’m not saying that I think he should go to jail, but your framing of it doesn’t seem accurate.
Nate (cfb326) — 12/8/2024 @ 6:29 pm@22 The bodega clerk in this case had a lot of ability to use lethal force and in fact killed a man. After almost ruining the clerk’s life Bragg backtracked and dropped the charges, probably to your disappointment. The person most interested in a political narrative over public safety are Bragg and those giving him a pass, as the suit filed by the clerk makes clear.
lloyd (625c80) — 12/8/2024 @ 6:32 pmI haven’t weighed in on the case so I guess I’ll state my viewpoint:
Neely sucked. He is absolutely at part to blame for his own death (maybe even mostly to blame!).
Penny is to be lauded for intervening. He put himself in harms way to subdue someone who was a danger to others.
But Neely sucking and Penny acting heroically in intervening does not give Penny the right to pull out a gun and shoot Neely (I hope we would all agree here, but maybe not!). If he kills him by hand, it’s trickier. The questions become something along the lines of weighing the chances Neely would die, the necessity of keeping him restrained (is he a danger if he stops restraining him), whether Penny should have known he might die, were there other options, etc? Not easy.
I guess in my ideal society I’d like some sort of minimal consequences for Penny. It was a tough situation that he had some responsibility for how badly it went. I think vigilante justice is a bad thing for society. FWIW I think HFM makes a reasonable point that the DA leaving Neely on the street ends up with vigilante justice more likely to happen, and maybe deserves some blame.
Nate (cfb326) — 12/8/2024 @ 6:46 pmNate, I don’t think Neely sucked. He clearly had mental problems and a drug problem. The DA failed him by leaving him out on the streets where he would not get any treatment. Maybe treatment or detention would not have done anything for him in the end, but he probably wouldn’t have been on that subway where unsuspecting folks had to make split second decisions, all of them right.
lloyd (625c80) — 12/8/2024 @ 7:07 pmLloyd,
1) I agree, my use of the word “sucked” was loose, and perhaps I should never say a person sucks. I agree with your clarification; that was largely what I meant.
2) I think what should be done with people like Neely is an EXTREMELY complicated problem, and various solutions don’t work particularly cleanly. That said, I think people who blame the DA for how he was handled have a lot of space to reasonably complain.
3) I have no issue with anyone’s split second decisions here, but I’m not sure holding someone in a chokehold for 5 minutes amounts to a “split second decision.”
Nate (cfb326) — 12/8/2024 @ 7:51 pm@lloyd@25 Do you not think that people should be careful when they apply lethal force?
Nic (120c94) — 12/8/2024 @ 7:59 pm@29 I think people should be careful when they judge others caught up in difficult situations they didn’t ask to be in.
This isn’t a legal exercise. A person is dead, and another person’s life has been ruined because a DA has outsourced law enforcement to random folks who aren’t trained peace officers.
lloyd (625c80) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:32 pmBut Neely sucking and Penny acting heroically in intervening does not give Penny the right to pull out a gun and shoot Neely (I hope we would all agree here, but maybe not!).
Well, at least not after rendering him unconscious. He was threatening people with a knife … but Penny chose to attempt a non-lethal intervention, with a poor result. A police officer in the same situaltion might well have pulled out a gun and shot Neely.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:34 pmDo you not think that people should be careful when they apply lethal force?
But this was NOT lethal force. That it ended in death was not the intent, or desired. “Being careful” does not guarantee that things will turn out OK.
You can kill someone with Taser, too, but a Taser is not generally considered “lethal force.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/8/2024 @ 8:38 pmOne of the things I learned about the Hur report is that the Special Counsel did not believe that he could convince a jury that the defendant was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt so, on that basis, he concluded that he would not indict Biden if he weren’t president.
The same question should apply to Bragg.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/8/2024 @ 11:19 pmPerhaps Bragg is convinced Penny is guilty of negligent homicide, but would a typical New York jury agree with him? I seriously question that. Bragg was right about the Trump case, he got his conviction, but for Penny? Different deal.
@lloyd@30 When one person kills another it always becomes a legal question. People are often caught up in difficult situations. I know that Penny was trained by the military with cautions about that type of hold. It is up to the jury to decide if he wasn’t properly responsible given that he knew that that type of hold could cause death if applied for too long.
@kevin@32 A choke hold is lethal force. It doesn’t have to end in death if it’s released soon enough, but if it’s held for too long it will definitely kill someone.
Nic (120c94) — 12/8/2024 @ 11:58 pmAs evidenced by the fact that Neely was still alive when the police arrived.
That alone makes this whole trial moot.
SaveFarris (8940bf) — 12/9/2024 @ 5:12 amThe ME concluded that Neely’s death was a homicide, meaning that Penny caused his death through the use of a chokehold. It’s denial to claim that Penny didn’t use lethal force.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/9/2024 @ 6:41 amThat said, it was a tragic event, and he shouldn’t to go jail for it. I hope any jury does the right thing.
So, Paul, if you use a Taser on a mugger and the guy dies of a heart attack, you used lethal force?
“Homicide” is not the same thing as “murder” — it simply says that death was “at the hands of another.” To make this criminal now, the jury will have to find — beyond doubt — that the death occurred due to negligence. A simple “bad result” isn’t sufficient. The law is not so asinine as to criminalize bad luck.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:15 am@1
Yo!
I’ve read somewhere that Neely died 30 mins after Perry released the choke hold. (but, man, I can’t find that info anywhere at the moment, so it may be internet “noise”).
Stipulate, please, that its true.
Does it matter to the negligent homicide charge, if he died later?
whembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:20 amWikipedia:
A lethal outcome does not make the weapon used “lethal.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:23 amDoes it matter to the negligent homicide charge, if he died later?
Well, it matters if the death was an unavoidable result of the chokehold. If not, then maybe the negligence was elsewhere.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:24 am@41
Thanks.
I hadn’t followed this case in great details…
Did Neely have any drugs in the system?
From a distance, the thing with this case is that it’s going to stop people from being good samaritans. I don’t know if that’s a good thing either.
Awful no matter which way.
whembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:31 amHe’s been acquitted!
whembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:01 amThank heavens he’s been acquitted from these abusive charges. The charges were brought to make sure people do not defend themselves or the public from a government that has chosen to let criminals run rampant and terrorize the public just as Neely did on that subway.
NJRob (5058b1) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:12 amWhembly, of course he had drugs in his system.
NJRob (5058b1) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:12 amDaniel Penny has been acquitted.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:26 am@44
Hmmm need to see the ME report.
If he had fentanyl… (or the likes), its more likely that the drug and it’s impact to the body, not the hold killed Neely.
whembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:30 amDrugs in his system should not lead to acquittal. Neely’s death was surely nota coincidence. And when assaulting someone you take the victim as you find him.
The question here is, should a reasonable person have expected Jordan Neely to die? Or taken steps, like checking his condition, to make sure he didn’t do that?
Alvin Bragg only charged Daniel Penny two weeks later after some protests,
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:32 amWhembly,
the biased ME under cross examination said that she didn’t want to wait for the toxicology report and didn’t care if Neely had enough fentanyl in his system to kill an elephant. She decided based on the video and her feelings that Penny was to blame.
NJRob (5058b1) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:42 amSammy,
the victims were those Neely terrorized on that train.
You got the cause and effect wrong.
NJRob (5058b1) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:43 amI am using victim in the sense of what the rule is for murder from an assault, not that he was necessarily really a victim.
Since Penny was accused of unintentionally causing Neely’s death by being negligent or reckless, the test is what a reasonable person should have thought he was doing.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:52 amAcqitted! (Self-imposed silence ban lifted!)
Highest rated comment in the New York Times today (807 upvotes):”He never should have been prosecuted.”
Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e) — 12/9/2024 @ 9:54 amOne, you know my stand about hypotheticals.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/9/2024 @ 10:17 amTwo, I didn’t say it was murder, per my initial comment.
Daniel Penny has been acquitted.
This is a bit weird as at least one juror wanted to convict him of manslaughter. Maybe they accepted the semantic argument that is wasn’t “negligent.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:23 amOne, you know my stand about hypotheticals.
That they are hard to answer? How is this “hypothetical” any different than what happened? All it does is makes the boundaries clearer. You claimed it was “lethal force” without any real basis for saying so.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:25 amTwo, I didn’t say it was murder, per my initial comment.
Believe it or don’t, not everyone reads all your comments in order to respond to your latest.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:26 amOr may be they just wanted to go home.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:43 amDaniel Penny has been acquitted.
He (or she?) may have taken the lead from what he thought was the judge (I don’t think they ere given a reason for the dismissal of the count and may have assumed it was based on legal arguments.)
Or maybe the juror or jurors decided that they really didn’t know what Daniel Penny had done.
And it could be the semantic argument. Perhaps, to the juror(s) it fit the definition of manslaughter better than criminally negligent homicide.
Here is something from the Yorker that discusses the case (published before today – maybe they slapped on a new title)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-daniel-penny-was-found-not-guilty-in-a-subway-killing-that-divided-new-york#:~:text=Her%20opening%20statement%E2%80%94in%20which,force%20for%20far%20too%20long.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:48 amThat’s what you got in trouble the last time, Kev. In this thread, I only made two comments before you responded to my third. Maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions and making sh-t up.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/9/2024 @ 11:49 amAmazing, Paul. Simply Amazing. Take a chill pill.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:06 pm@53
I still can’t wrap my head around this.
At least one jury wanted to convict on the first, more serious charge.
But that one (or more) jury won’t convict on the lessor charge?
Logically, it seems to be that that jury didn’t like what the prosecution (or Judge) did with respect to the lessor charge.
whembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:09 pmIt is simple, Kevin. Stop going back to that stupid well.
Paul Montagu (f9a7fa) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:15 pmwhembly (477db6) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:09 pm
Because they didn’t consider that lesser, but different.
Or – it is in fact inconsistent and they just agreed to give up.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:20 pmIt’s been a brutal few weeks for Alvin Bragg and his fans.
Penny still faces death threats and hate for stepping up. He’s paid a price, and so will society. The next Daniel Penny will think twice before getting involved.
lloyd (0ffad8) — 12/9/2024 @ 12:29 pmJury invokes the infield fly rule
steveg (93c8cc) — 12/9/2024 @ 1:16 pm?
steveg (93c8cc) — 12/9/2024 @ 1:17 pmAccording to National Review’s editors, the prosecutors were calling Penny “the white man” and “the white defendant.”
This farce was right out of Tom Wolfe’s “The Bonfire of the Vanities.” Wolfe wrote how New York Prosecutors long for “The Great White Defendant.”
DN (a07e0f) — 12/9/2024 @ 1:36 pmIt’s nice to have a pontification from Patterico again! Please let’s have more.
Agree 100% with the host’s points, with the possible exception of I never really thought Andrew McCarthy was a hack, but then haven’t read him very often, so maybe he is. Anyway, on the issue that prompted the post, it also seems intuitively true at least as a general proposition that if a prosecutor has discretion whether to bring a charge then the prosecutor should have discretion to dismiss it. Nothing disgraceful about that.
RL formerly in Glendale (7a2d64) — 12/9/2024 @ 1:46 pmIt is simple, Kevin. Stop going back to that stupid well.
You really need to get a thicker skin.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 4:44 pmI’m glad the jurors felt like they had the evidence they needed to come to a verdict quickly.
Nic (120c94) — 12/9/2024 @ 6:18 pmI’m glad leftists can find a silver lining.
lloyd (0bbe64) — 12/9/2024 @ 7:09 pmJurors are allowed to change their mind during deliberations so this isn’t that far fetched….
Time123 (3647c2) — 12/9/2024 @ 7:14 pm@lloyd@70 Not everything is politics.
Nic (120c94) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:03 pmLOL Everything? No. This case? Yes. I’m sorry it made your politics look bad.
lloyd (0bbe64) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:44 pmJurors are allowed to change their mind during deliberations so this isn’t that far fetched….
It may have been that the willingness of the prosecution to downgrade the charges undercut their moral posture.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/9/2024 @ 8:49 pm@lloyd@73 Apparently everything is politics to you, so I’ll amend my earlier statement. Not everything is politics for many of us who aren’t you.
Nic (120c94) — 12/10/2024 @ 1:28 amUh … you sure?!?
https://x.com/Patterico/status/1866001605642121588
Sounds like a plea for assassination.
SaveFarris (8940bf) — 12/10/2024 @ 5:02 amThe problem is you, Kevin, for continuing to jump to conclusions and make sh-t up. In other words, the problem is your thick head.
Paul Montagu (4f7e2a) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:30 am@76
He’s just lashing out. Let him mourn.
whembly (477db6) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:58 amVia Patterico, the NCAAP just got community-noted for their race-carding on the Penny trial.
Paul Montagu (4f7e2a) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:28 amI think what made this case different was Penny’s military training, especially in using a chokehold. Once Penny decided to intervene, he was held to the standard of his training – even though it meant he had to use more care to avoid killing Neely after he was subdued.
It would be like a bystander physician intervening to help someone with a medical problem. Once a physician intervenes, s/he has to remain until the patient is taken by another provider, ambulance, etc. In addition, the physician can only treat conditions and use procedures they have been taught. The physician’s specialized training becomes part of the duty of care required of him/her.
Anyway, good points in the post that I had not thought about, but are very helpful.
DRJ (0b1044) — 12/10/2024 @ 10:58 amHaving said that, I am not sure whether this was part of the case or how it was presented.
DRJ (0b1044) — 12/10/2024 @ 11:00 amThe problem, of course, is that rationale was used as an excuse for the Jan 6ers and Patterico and his cohorts explicitly rejected that reasoning.
I’m so sorry you can’t live with the very rules you created.
SaveFarris (8940bf) — 12/10/2024 @ 11:52 amPatterico said IF (Donald Trump is going to become a tyrant)
Which he shows no signs of doing. Telling impossible or wild lies, yes.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 12/10/2024 @ 12:00 pmWhich J6’ers were charged with crimes based solely on their words? If that had been the standard, wouldn’t Trump have been charged?
DRJ (0b1044) — 12/10/2024 @ 12:13 pmExcept that physicians stepping in are protected by Good Samaritan laws, so long as they are acting in good faith. Penny stepped in without any protection against liability. This case will discourage that, and it was cases like this against physicians that caused Good Samaritan laws to be passed.
lloyd (38c646) — 12/10/2024 @ 12:28 pmThis sounds like a plea by SaveFarris to be banned. Which I will accommodate. I’ll read any emailed apology I am sent but absent that, buh and bye.
Just because some bad-faith account drew your attention to this with a ridiculous spin doesn’t mean you have to swallow it. Assad was a tyrant far worse than anything Trump has planned to be, and he is living in exile. Works for me, if (note the “if”) Trump actually becomes the tyrant he is hinting he might be.
Yes, I did say if, Sammy. Thank you for noticing.
That said, you are wrong in this sense: he does indeed show signs of it! He is saying the members of the January 6 commission should be imprisoned. They have obviously committed no crime. All they did was honorably serve on a committee that investigated Donald Trump’s attempt to steal an election and unlawfully stay in office.
If Trump were to do what he hints at, prosecuting them when they have committed no crime, that is a significant step towards becoming an Assad or Putin style dictator. It would not make his behavior equivalent to theirs, of course, but it would be a very concerning step.
Anyway, only SaveFarris can save himself now. Right now he exists in BanishedVille, Population Him and a Lot of Similar Assholes. Anyone else who wants to echo the sentiments of the bad faith Twitter account can follow him.
Patterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 12:56 pmTread lightly. Anyone suggesting what SaveFerris claimed is gone gone gone.
Patterico (47ce28) — 12/10/2024 @ 12:59 pmI’m not inviting further discussion of that tweet here, but I will point out that what I said is merely a tautology. The reason some people are flipping out is: 1) they did not read what I actually wrote; 2) they read it through the lens of the characterization offered by one or more bad-faith accounts; and 3) they cannot imagine Trump actually becoming a real tyrant because all the people flipping out are cult members who can’t imagine the cult leader doing anything wrong.
When the cult leader threatens to throw people in jail who have very obviously committed no crime, the cultists are not going to see a problem. But here, non-cultists do see the problem. And so we warn that IF things develop to the point of the tyrannical rule hinted at in the cult leader’s most recent interview, that the citizenry often has a way of dealing with that — witness tyrant Assad’s exile from Syria as the most recent example.
I recognize it’s not a current option, but I think the leaders of Greece and Rome had one thing right IN THEORY: exile should be an option for the worst offenders. Again: in theory.
Of course, it could never work in practice because it would simply mean all those with minority opinions would all be exiled. There’s a reason we have a rule of law, and as long as that is an option (and it is), that is what we must follow.
Patterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 1:07 pmFinal thought for now: I laugh merrily at the hordes of people who shake their heads sadly and intone that it’s so weird how Patterico is now, because he used to be conservative!!1!
To a person, all such people turn out to be Trump cultists, who equate “being conservative” with supporting a convicted criminal who tried to steal an election and mounted a criminal conspiracy to stay in office after losing that election.
What happened to me? I rejected that man. If that makes you shake your head in sadness, then I feel sorry for you — and I am sorry you and I ever interacted. I wish you had never read my blog and I invite you to disappear from my life. I cannot express in words the depth of my contempt for you and your mindset.
Patterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 1:13 pmPatterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 1:13 pm
Some people just can’t wrap their minds around the fact that true conservatives reject both the left and Trump.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 1:21 pmWhat is a way to protest denying treatment for profit if you are a juror. Find ceo killer not guilty. Internet is telling new yorkers how to get on jury for jury nullification. If they are any part minority put it down so they can’t use preemptory challenges to get you off jury. Scrub your social media and tell them you didn’t follow the case vey much and have no opinion. Play dumb say you don’t watch news that much. Tell them you can be fair and will set a side any preconceived notions to get on the jury.
asset (fa9d01) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:13 pmNorcal with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
NJRob (d5c414) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:15 pmNorcal with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
NJRob (d5c414) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:15 pm
Sometimes it’s true. Would a real conservative call for terminating the Constitution?
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:35 pmWhat is a way to protest denying treatment for profit
asset (fa9d01) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:13 pm
Go to years of medical school, and then provide your services for free.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 2:38 pm@94 better way single payer medicare for all. But! what if rich want to have better healthcare then the lower middle class and working poor!
asset (a9c393) — 12/10/2024 @ 3:52 pmPatterico I don’t think you are calling for trump’s assassination ;but trumpsters will use it against you like they accuse me of wanting to put every one here in a reeducation camp. I don’t even want to put NJ robb or lloyd in a reeducation camp. Over at ace they are really giving it to you.
asset (a9c393) — 12/10/2024 @ 4:06 pmNever trumpers and establishment corporate democrats like the ones on msDNC I fear are getting to far into trump derangement syndrome. Emotions are running high same as the guy caught at mcdonalds with threats on line. Instead just get on the jury and find him not guilty. I voted for Jill Stein so I don’t have a dog in this fight. Trump is a sociopath so he will be somewhat cautious.
asset (a9c393) — 12/10/2024 @ 4:20 pmInstead just get on the jury and find him not guilty.
asset (a9c393) — 12/10/2024 @ 4:20 pm
How is this any different than advocating the killing of any CEO of a large corporation?
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 4:26 pmOh no not over at ace
Patterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 5:11 pmPatterico, at 89 – as a liberal with principles who has always wanted to be in communion with conservatives with principles, I continue to thank you for standing by yours.
aphrael (bcbcb0) — 12/10/2024 @ 5:31 pm> Some people just can’t wrap their minds around the fact that true conservatives reject both the left and Trump.
Honest men of principle with the interest of the Republic in mind can *always* find common ground.
Who are the honest men of principle with the interest of the Republic in mind in the Trumpist camp, and how can we begin a conversation with them?
aphrael (bcbcb0) — 12/10/2024 @ 5:33 pmThank you.
Patterico (23ab5d) — 12/10/2024 @ 6:07 pmThere are none, by definition. You can’t be fully in the Trumpist camp and tell the truth. If you told the truth, your first honest answer to any question about Trump would remove you from the Trumpist camp. Their entire cult is based on lies. It’s all they know how to do, is lie.
Patterico (47ce28) — 12/10/2024 @ 6:10 pmIn Convention, July 20, 1787, Farrand vol 2.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 6:59 pmThe juxtaposition between Penny being acquitted (rightfully, IMO, and per the jury) and Mangione being arrested (rightfully, because he committed premeditated 1st degree murder) is something to behold. It’s crazy the number of leftists supporting the latter, justifying murder in cold blood, because healthcare and big corporations, etc.
Paul Montagu (4f7e2a) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:10 pmAllahNick…
Patterico,
A number of thoughts, possibly contradictory.
1) Trump should have been disqualified. But he wasn’t.
2) Trump should have been defeated in the primaries. But he wasn’t.
3) Trump should have been defeated in the general election. But he wasn’t. Possibly because the opposition had their heads up their ass.
I have to accept that our system of government returned him to office. See Churchill.
Does that mean I have to accept anything he does? No.
Does that mean I have to oppose everything he does? No, not that either.
What will be the telling moment is when Trump does something that is intolerable. What that is will, of course, differ from person to person, but there is a line past which most people will be aghast. Perhaps he’s deporting people. Perhaps he’s trying to jail his opponents. Perhaps he’s declaring martial law. Maybe he’s disappearing Congressmen or Senators. Somewhere there’s a line.
Hopefully, if he crosses that line, the House will impeach and the Senate will convict. Or there’s Doctor Franklin’s alternative.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:12 pmOf course, this might all be trash talk, and he does nothing of the sort.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:13 pmPatterico (47ce28) — 12/10/2024 @ 6:10 pm
Well said. Sad, but true.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:13 pmAs for the Rule of Law. I really want to believe that still applies, but it gets bent a lot lately. When the system rewards the liars and penalizes the truth-tellers, the Rule of Law is honored in the breach.
Example: Paid your rent during the pandemic? What a chump! The State pays the back rent for those that bought new cars instead.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:19 pmWhat will be the telling moment is when Trump does something that is intolerable. What that is will, of course, differ from person to person, but there is a line past which most people will be aghast.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:12 pm
I fear that many are so dug in concerning Trump, and have spent so much energy defending him, that they are psychologically incapable of calling him out if he crosses the line.
It would amount to a crisis of faith.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:20 pmPenny and Mangione are worlds apart morally, but their respective admirers share the belief that each was compelled to do what he did by failures of “the system.” They’re unified by the sense, as one of my editors put it, that “the institutions that are supposed to deal with injustices are not going to do anything, so you need to take things into your own hands.”
Penny did not act because of “failures of the system”, he acted because people were in danger and he was capable of protecting them. A better comparison would be to Bernhard Goetz or George Zimmerman, but even those are poor since neither of the lay in wait to shoot someone in the back.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:24 pmI fear that many are so dug in concerning Trump, and have spent so much energy defending him, that they are psychologically incapable of calling him out if he crosses the line.
I also fear that so many are invested in Trump being evil that they will see that line in a mundane situation. We will see what happens when Trump attempts to serve warrants on those who have existing deportation orders.
Some will claim that this is just like Hitler, and by the time he IS just like Hitler the refrain will be old and tired.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:28 pmAs for Trump, I have never voted for him, never given him support. I have supported his primary opponents. And yet, he was elected and I have to trust the process. For now.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:32 pmKevin, I voted for Trump in 2016, and was supporting him as late as early 2020. I’m not invested in him being evil. I just saw the light.
We will see what happens when Trump attempts to serve warrants on those who have existing deportation orders.
I will gladly support the removal of those people. However, there will be no such deportation order for the U.S. citizen children of those people, because there is no such thing as a deportation order for a U.S. citizen. The parents can take the children with them if they choose but, to my knowledge, Trump can’t legally deport the children if the parents want the children to stay in the U.S.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:36 pmnorcal,
I wasn’t saying you were. It was a general observation. I know people who are just as invested in hating Trump as his cultists are in following him. Neither is a particularly good place to be.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:55 pmThe parents can take the children with them if they choose but, to my knowledge, Trump can’t legally deport the children if the parents want the children to stay in the U.S.
Agreed. However, if the children stay, it’s up to the parents to find a place for them (and they should probably be arranging that now). If the children leave, they need to be given a passport or other citizenship document. Trump’s idea that birthright citizenship can be ended by executive order is whackadoodle.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 7:59 pmMy fervent hope is that this crisis will be enough to get Congress to pass a full immigration reform law.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:00 pmMy fervent hope is that this crisis will be enough to get Congress to pass a full immigration reform law.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:00 pm
Comprehensive, omnibus bills usually don’t turn out well. When Reagan reformed the law, amnesty happened, but the promises of tougher enforcement were not realized.
It should be piecemeal reform, with enforcement first. Once enforcement is working, then we can consider who should get amnesty.
norcal (a72384) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:06 pm> Penny did not act because of “failures of the system”, he acted because people were in danger and he was capable of protecting them
Right, but people were in danger because of failures of the system.
aphrael (bcbcb0) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:26 pm> Or there’s Doctor Franklin’s alternative.
Many of us are convinced that this alternative has already come to pass, and that all that’s left is the realization.
aphrael (bcbcb0) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:27 pmRight, but people were in danger because of failures of the system.
Indeed. But he didn’t go looking for the problem.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:38 pm@98 jury nullification is legal, killing people is only sometimes legal like denying treatment for increased profits. Media ceo was human being and buys advertising. If we say the people who died for profit of ceo were human beings too we might lose their advertising!
asset (a0b038) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:39 pm@113 For now! Couldn’t that be considered threatening by are next f.b.i. chief?
asset (a0b038) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:45 pm@105
What a truly sick take.
Neely, Penny and the other passengers were trapped in a subway car. The institutions that are supposed to deal with injustices put them there.
Luigi was starring in his own movie. He had plenty of options.
There is nothing that unifies them. Who pays to read this nonsense?
lloyd (5c11af) — 12/10/2024 @ 8:53 pmOne way for the Rule of Law to fail is for the Law to be incapable of upholding the Social Contract.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:07 pmOoh, another temper tantrum. aphrael explained it well.
Paul Montagu (4f7e2a) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:13 pmPaul can’t raise his hand fast enough.
lloyd (5c11af) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:20 pmPenny complied with the law, and our institutions exonerated him.
Luigi violated the law, and our institutions will punish him.
The admirers of each are only unified by mutual disgust. Those who see them unified by anything else are mentally broken.
lloyd (5c11af) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:27 pmFor the folks who don’t subscribe to the Dispatch, a little more…
And this is right after the initial blockquote…
Paul Montagu (4f7e2a) — 12/10/2024 @ 9:29 pmThat list is overseen by city government officials and nonprofits, all theoretically coordinating to make sure that those on it are no threat to themselves or to others.
And they accomplish this, well, nothing at great cost. But at least it keeps people employed. It’s easy to get cynical.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 10:52 pmGoetz got sympathy because the Law not only could not deal with the thugs, but seemed to protect them while they preyed on their victims. Like Populism, you get vigilantes when those in power fail to do their job.
Are health insurers in need of policing? Quite a bit of the problems of health care are due to government intervention and/or bare-bones government “insurance” programs (e.g. Medicaid) that are chock-a-bloc with cost controls. Even some of the Obamacare insurers are severely cost-conscious; you buy the lowest-cost HMO option on the ACA plan and you are going to spend time waiting for that prior approval.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 11:00 pmIf we are finding similarities, Goetz and Trump have a lot in common.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/10/2024 @ 11:01 pmI believe I mentioned Goetz in this post.
Patterico (0165ba) — 12/10/2024 @ 11:15 pmSpeaking of process, I think it’s time some enterprising reporter asked J. D. Vance for a list of circumstances when the 25th amendment should be invoked.
Jim Miller (35c522) — 12/11/2024 @ 4:51 am@129 “They blew it. Somehow, Neely ended up in a subway car in May 2023, menacing those around him until Penny”
Somehow. Just a mistake. They really wanted Neely detained and separated from the general public, but it just didn’t work out that way.
Does Catoggio ever mention Bragg in this piece?
lloyd (393965) — 12/11/2024 @ 6:05 amBiden is still president, Jim. Should a reporter ask Harris that?
lloyd (393965) — 12/11/2024 @ 6:08 amI believe I mentioned Goetz in this post.
Not sure I understand. Which post?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/11/2024 @ 12:39 pmSo, people are now posting wanted posters of health-care CEOs in NYC. Pretty sure these are “true threats” and the posting of these is criminal.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/11/2024 @ 12:41 pmLink: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14180437/healtcare-ceo-wanted-posters-New-York-City-Brian-Thompson-shooting.html
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/11/2024 @ 12:41 pmI see that Mangione has been charged in NY with 2nd degree murder. Why is this not premeditated? He was lying in wait, FFS.
Also, it is widely reported that he suffered from extreme back pain due to a congenital spinal condition, to the point where he complained that sex was impossible. Yet he is totally buffed out. What kind of exercise doesn’t involve the lower-back?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/11/2024 @ 5:03 pmIt’s not first degree murder under ny law.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.27
Needs to meet one of a list of special circumstances, lying in wait us not one of them.
aphrael (bde4ee) — 12/11/2024 @ 7:08 pmHow bizarre.
Patterico (af4ad5) — 12/12/2024 @ 6:41 pmPretty sure they are neither.
Patterico (af4ad5) — 12/12/2024 @ 6:41 pmDespicable, yes.
True threats? No. Criminal? No.
Patterico (af4ad5) — 12/12/2024 @ 6:42 pmPatterico (af4ad5) — 12/12/2024 @ 6:42 pm
The person “wanted” is dead. He was murdered on December 4. The Daily News didn’t get a picture of an undamaged poster (on page 8 of today’s paper)
There mustn’t have been too many of those posters printed
There’s large red X across the picture of Brian Thompson’s face. I can’t tell if that was added with paint after it was printed,
The only thing that refers to other people is two lines at the bottom, in white lettering on black:
I don’t even know whether the killer used the word depose,
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 12/12/2024 @ 7:19 pmTrue threats? No. Criminal? No.
Then the law is an ass.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 12/12/2024 @ 10:44 pm@103
“your first honest answer to any question about” current politician in power will make you persona non grata.
Not unique to just Trump.
Had you done that during the Obama administration or Bush’s… you’d be cast out of that group as well.
Unfortunate reality of our politics. In that, it’s a teamsport.
whembly (477db6) — 12/13/2024 @ 6:41 am