Penny turned himself in this morning.
Witnesses also said Neely hadn’t physically attacked anyone before Penny moved to subdue him.
I wasn’t aware that random bits of garbage are deadly weapons.
Neely wasn’t the only one that fell through the cracks. A valid defense that I would even accept is that Penny was also suffering from untreated mental illness, and that his PTSD was triggered, causing him to act irrationally in a way that resulted in someone’s death.
We put soldiers through hell, physically and mentally, then return them to the public for them to work it out themselves. He may have actually seen Neely as a lethal threat in his fugue state, based on his training and experiences, living for years with the constant threat of some actually trying to kill him.
This should serve as a wakeup call about the state that we are returning our soldiers to the public, and the danger that their untreated mental illness poses to themselves and others.
Um, even a criminal’s right not to be murdered is indeed way more important than even law-abiding persons’ right not to be annoyed by a panhandler or have bits of garbage chucked at them.
As a non-car-owner I take (US) public transportation all the time, and I deal with my share of putting up with annoying fellow passengers, some of whom have indeed temporarily caused me to fear for my safety. But never have I felt that that would justify anybody in straight-up murdering any of those fellow passengers.
I’d buy that except for the prior comments and actions. That’s a pretty big stretch for PTSD to cover those. Penny intended to kill someone and he carried out his plan.
And today’s winner is a Texas woman:
A Texas woman is accused of tying her son to the side of a car by his seat belt and dragging him down a highway to punish him, officials say.
But, hey, not all is lost for her. She’s obviously practicing to be a cop in Texas.
People donate a few bucks for Penny’s legal defense:
The Christian fundraising website…
…Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who called Penny a “good Samaritan” for his actions.
Utterly disgusting trash.
I see he’s the Right’s new favorite (alleged) murderer. Move over, Kyle Rittenhouse. “Pro Life”. Uh-huh.
When are the right actually pro life? Just with abortion, that’s all. That’s all ever. All other times Republicans celebrate death, are inspired and fueled by it.
I’m glad he’s going to be tried, so that facts will be in the public record about what these two men, Neely and Penny, actually said and did. I hope the attorney’s are skillful at winnowing truth from the almost inevitable embroidery that happens with multiple witnesses to famous events. I am not prepared to judge without a better understanding of those facts, determined by the evidence presented at a trial.
Everybody who’s ever trained to give a chokehold, also knows from their training that a chokehold is very likely to end up lethal. Penny can’t claim ignorance, here.
He might be able to claim that there was a reasonable fear that Neely was about to hurt someone else, and that he was therefore acting in defense. We don’t know all the details of what went on there. He might even be able to claim that there was a sufficiently-great fear of a sufficiently-great harm that potentially-lethal force was justified. But he can’t claim that he wasn’t using potentially lethal force, and claiming that it’s justified is probably going to be very, very difficult.
But he doesn’t need to prove it was justified, the prosecution needs to show that it wasn’t.
It’s on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny didn’t see this as a severe threat and that he knew his actions would result in Neely’s death.
It would certainly not be my prefered outcome, but I can see how this results in acquittal.
The law on 2nd degree manslaughter in New York specifies (and I think this is the relevant part) that he must have recklessly caused the death of another person. I suspect there’s a lot of case law about what constitutes recklessness, and not being a lawyer I’m not going to speculate about how hard it is to prove.
And yet police officers are prohibited from using such a hold, aren’t they? If they’re prohibited because of the obvious danger of the hold, why should someone who has been trained in the military in its proper use against an enemy get a pass?
Just because it’s not a summary judgment doesn’t mean it’s a pass. It means there are sufficient questions about what happened that a trial is necessary to determine the facts, and then to apply the law to it. If the police are prohibited from using the hold, and if that prohibition comes from the police’s internal regulations, that doesn’t carry the force of law.
Is that true, though? Not a lawyer, but isn’t the defense that this action was in response to the “threat” Neely posed? IOW, isn’t self-defense an affirmative defense?
The prosecution, I would think, will have little trouble demonstrating that the defendant committed the act that led to Neely’s death. Wouldn’t the defendant need to create a compelling story about why that was a reasonable act?
Granted, the prosecution is no doubt preparing a counter argument. But if, for example, the defendant’s lawyers offered no defense for anything, as is his right, I would think that he’s going to jail even if the prosecution didn’t even mention how this was unjustifiable. (Of course they would anyway, just to make sure there is no nullification by a juror who mentally created his own justification.)
DeSantis proclaimed the murderer a “good Samaritan”. I can’t figure out what big boost he thinks he can get from supporting this guy. I also wonder if Meatball got his parables (I almost typed parodies) mixed up. I know the Samaritan story; surely there is one with a better fit. But he’s playing with fire: if he gets his sheep to read up on the story, they’ll be exposed to probably the wokest story in the whole Bible.
Huh. Well, I guess as good-samaritaning goes, strangling the guy to death is more fiscally responsible than bringing him to a rehab center with a blank check to cover him until he gets better.
/s
Waitaminute, DeSantis is commenting on this? That’s it. He’s running in ‘24. He might as well go ahead and file.
If this is a thread for evil, then this fits if anything does…
Last line of the article, the guy apparently recorded himself in the deed.
The Sacklers have immunity from opioid prosecution thanks to a settlement to “help address opioid addiction.” if the money gets there, great. But I deeply doubt it. And they can drop their name from scholarships and buildings and just rename the company. No lesson learned, no justice done.
Oh, I suspect some of the money will “get there” but you have to define where “there” is.
In exchange, they will pay $6bn to help address opioid addiction.
…
The payments will be spread over multiple years. Funds will go to local and state governments and is expected to fund rehabilitation programmes and other addiction treatments.
Call me cynical, but why do I suspect most of the money given to state and local governments will be used to increase the armament of state and local police forces, and not used for any rehabilitation or addiction treatments?
Roughly $750m of the settlement will be distributed to individual victims of the opioid crisis and their families.
Of course, only after lawyers take their “fair and honest” 33% cut, to pay them for all the work they are going to have to do to distribute the money.