Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. Penny won't be convicted. If he is he'll win on appeal. His defense fund will be way over $2,000,000, plus his best selling book tour. Its criminals vs Marines, no contest.
2. There was no grand jury, just that POS Bragg filing bullshit charges.
No clue. I'm blanking on who I supported that was found guilty.
If Penny is found innocent, will NYC get trashed even more than it is now? (is that a consideration for jury selection or change of venue out of NYC?)
If guilty, I hope he wins the appeal, fine. If he loses the appeal I hope he gets a light or suspended sentence.
Except this wasn't a life or death situation.You are free to eliminate or restrain a threat, that's why its called "self-defense". There are no rules, its life or death.
He defended himself and the other passengers from a violent criminal.
How many times was that cretin arrested and released?Except no evidence that this person was a danger, and he certainly wasn't after he passed out.
How many times was that cretin arrested and released?
So many criminals are coddled by the demented NYC "justice" system, and unleashed to further terrorize the general public.
1. If the jury needs to be unanimous for a conviction I have to think there will be a few holdouts for innocent.1. he'll probably be convicted, because the evidence is pretty strong.
2. That is well within his discretion.
3. Didn't you claim Chauvin would win on appeal?
4. I was kind of willing to let the jury work this one out, but fuck it, I hope they hang the guy as an example, just because all the usual racists are rushing to his defense.
5. Except this wasn't a life or death situation.
When violent CRIMINALS are arrested for violent CRIMES, they should be LOCKED UP!!!!!Well, whose fault is that, exactly?
We dismantled the mental health care system in this country, and then we complain we have to share our streets with people who belong in hospitals.
1. If the jury needs to be unanimous for a conviction I have to think there will be a few holdouts for innocent.
2. True, Bragg could file charges without an investigation or grand jury, but it just shows how political he is.
3. I was no Chauvin fan. But I don't think he deserved 22.5 years when drugs affected the death.
4. Typical democrat kangaroo court, huh? Outcome based on politics or race. A white decorated Marine, the antithisis of what democrats value.
5. The perp threatened death, so it was a life or death situation.
www.independent.co.uk
When violent CRIMINALS are arrested for violent CRIMES, they should be LOCKED UP!!!!!
It's the fault of the demented LEFT that constantly rely on feeeeeeeeeelz instead of logic and lawful JUSTICE!!!!
The US population is approximately the population of Europe.We already lock up 2 million people. (Most industrialized nations only lock up about 80K or so.)
Locking them up isn't really an answer. In some ways, it makes matters worse.
I don't give a shit what you hope for you Simp, I'm wondering if you understand that justifiable self defense has nothing to do with your level of fear or how many people "helped" you in your violent action.No clue. I'm blanking on who I supported that was found guilty.
If Penny is found innocent, will NYC get trashed even more than it is now? (is that a consideration for jury selection or change of venue out of NYC?)
If guilty, I hope he wins the appeal, fine. If he loses the appeal I hope he gets a light or suspended sentence.
The US population is approximately the population of Europe.
So don't compare nations, add up similar populations.
You're right, a bullet would be cheaper.We already lock up 2 million people. (Most industrialized nations only lock up about 80K or so.)
Locking them up isn't really an answer. In some ways, it makes matters worse.
I may not be understanding the point you're trying to make.I don't give a shit what you hope for you Simp, I'm wondering if you understand that justifiable self defense has nothing to do with your level of fear or how many people "helped" you in your violent action.
OK, so say Europe/2 to compare. Not just Belgium or France or the Netherlands.Actually,not true. The population of Europe is 746 Million, more than twice ours.
We lock up more people than China! A communist dictatorship with five times as many people as we have.
You can disagree all you like you Simp but this isn't a subjective discussion. You are objectively wrong.I may not be understanding the point you're trying to make.
"Justifiable self-defense has nothing to do with your fear level or the fear level of those around you"
We disagree. Surprise surprise.
Sure, that would be prudent but unless he makes a move to harm you his words alone aren't a justifiable reason for you to harm him. Maybe consider changing train cars if you're that concerned.When a perp says he's going to kill everyone, or something to that effect, believe him.
It does not. Words themselves pose no physical threat to you.That makes any defensive actions legitimate.
A long rap sheet for previous offenses makes no difference in this particular instance.As it turns out the perp has a long rap sheet of violent crimes, confirming that the defensive actions were warranted.
1. What we may be disagreeing on the the definition of "justified self-defense". So here it is:You can disagree all you like you Simp but this isn't a subjective discussion. You are objectively wrong.
Sure, that would be prudent but unless he makes a move to harm you his words alone aren't a justifiable reason for you to harm him. Maybe consider changing train cars if you're that concerned.
It does not. Words themselves pose no physical threat to you.
A long rap sheet for previous offenses makes no difference in this particular instance.
Your definition supports my argument, Stupid. It says nothing in that definition about your level of fear or the amount of bitch in you and instead talks about reasonable actions. Choking someone to death because you were afraid of words, which can't harm you, is unreasonable.1. What we may be disagreeing on the the definition of "justified self-defense". So here it is:
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.10 CFR § 1047.7 - Use of deadly force.
www.law.cornell.edu
His intent is why he's facing manslaughter charges rather than murder charges.So when Mr. Penny put the choke hold on Mr. Neely he believed that he was restraining him, not killing him. The fact that others helped restrain Mr. Neely means that the restraint was warranted.
Does catching a manslaughter charge seem to be like the prudent thing for Penny to have done?2. When a perp says he's going to kill everyone, the prudent thing to do is act, not hope he's just kidding. Mr. Penny acted to protect the passengers from a thug with a rap sheet of violent crimes.
None of those passengers knew his rap sheet. That was not in their mind when they chose to choke a man to death. But I guess if Penny is convicted and then eventually released, if someone chokes him to death for making loud noises you'll support them because of his rap sheet. Is that how that works?3. We disagree on what a rap sheet means, a violent criminal threatening violence needs to be stopped BEFORE he hurts someone.
1. The choke hold was NOT intended to cause death, if it was intended to kill, death would have occurred in seconds, not over 15-minutes. The choke hold was a restraint put on a violent criminal before he could harm anyone. So now we are discussing "reasonable force"Your definition supports my argument, Stupid. It says nothing in that definition about your level of fear or the amount of bitch in you and instead talks about reasonable actions. Choking someone to death because you were afraid of words, which can't harm you, is unreasonable.
His intent is why he's facing manslaughter charges rather than murder charges. Does catching a manslaughter charge seem to be like the prudent thing for Penny to have done?
None of those passengers knew his rap sheet. That was not in their mind when they chose to choke a man to death. But I guess if Penny is convicted and then eventually released, if someone chokes him to death for making loud noises you'll support them because of his rap sheet. Is that how that works?
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Choking someone to death for being loud isn't reasonable.1. The choke hold was NOT intended to cause death, if it was intended to kill, death would have occurred in seconds, not over 15-minutes. The choke hold was a restraint put on a violent criminal before he could harm anyone. So now we are discussing "reasonable force"
That's right. Unlike most cases where it's the State that must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a self defense case the fact that you took a life is already a given and its the defendants responsibility to prove taking that life was reasonable."A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified.Self-Defense
Definition of Self-Defense in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
You bolded the wrong part, idiot. I bolded and underlined the part that's relevant to this discussion.Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack.
Words aren't deadly force. They don't pose any physical harm to you at all.Non-deadly force can be used to repel either a non-deadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force."
His intent doesn't change the fact that he took a life.2. Mr. Penny had no intent to kill Mr. Neely. The trial will have to show all of the evidence and what the passengers felt towards the death threats made by Mr. Neely. Either Mr. Penny acted "reasonably" in "justified self-defense", or he acted criminally or unreasonably towards the threats made by Mr. Neely.
That's why he's facing manslaughter charges rather than murder charges.3. No one chose to choke a man to death. The death was accidental and caused by the death threats made to the passengers by a violent criminal, who was restrained before he could harm anyone. The rap sheet isn't the crime, threatening passengers with death was the crime. Here is the LAW:
None of that changes the fact that your own link says deadly force is only reasonable to counter deadly force.Basically, a verbal threat becomes a crime when:Are Verbal Threats Assault?
If a person only uses threatening words and nothing more, then its likely not considered an assault. Read this article to learn more.www.legalmatch.com
- The speaker threatens to harm or kill the listener or the listener’s family;
- The speaker’s threat is specific and unambiguous;
- The listener has reasonable belief and fear that the speaker will carry their threat out; and
- The speaker communicates the threat either verbally, in writing, or through electronic correspondence (e.g., email, text message, etc.).
1. The threat wasn't "being loud" the threat was saying that he was going to kill peopleChoking someone to death for being loud isn't reasonable.
That's right. Unlike most cases where it's the State that must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a self defense case the fact that you took a life is already a given and its the defendants responsibility to prove taking that life was reasonable.
You bolded the wrong part, idiot. I bolded and underlined the part that's relevant to this discussion.
Words aren't deadly force. They don't pose any physical harm to you at all.
His intent doesn't change the fact that he took a life.
That's why he's facing manslaughter charges rather than murder charges.
None of that changes the fact that your own link says deadly force is only reasonable to counter deadly force.
