Neely was a threat and a danger to everyone around him

enlighten me. Because you don’t have to be armed to be capable of killing someone in every other state in the US, so teach me then.

 

The witnesses described it, go read it again.

 

angry shouting and threatening most certainly can result in choke holds and other measures to subdue a violent felon. Which that idiot most certainly was.

 

Absolutely.

And a group saying murder of another is fine.
If the murdered one is black.

Another form of systemic racism.

 

A witness has come forward claiming Neely was acting erratic and said he would kill the motherf***ers if he didn't get what he wanted. She says she thanked Penny for protecting them. People very well could have legitimately feared for their lives. Self defense is an affirmative defense in NY. It's a little more complicated than you're making it out to be.

 

What were the victim's threatening words and at whom were they directed?

 

There is a difference between criminal culpability and negligent liability as well.

And like I stated several times already but nobody seems to believe me- We don't have all the evidence yet and you cannot trust the media. We should reserve judgment for the time being.

 

Exactly. We don't know yet. We should reserve judgement until we have all the facts. Some people here are either convicting or exonerating the guy based on news reports a jury would be sequestered from - because Feelings.

 

Penny gonna wish he listened to the witness who warned him that Neely defected and he's killing him and stopped the choldhold then because that's what clinched Chauvin's 22.5 yrs..still holding his knee to Floyd's neck for almost 3 mins after being told Floyd had no pulse.
So the witness is a "clown" to you because even you know his audio warning was and will be at a trial crucial evidence against Penny.
So sorry for you and your wishful thinking.
Not.

 

Facts are essential in America's system of jurisprudence, optional and arbitrary in the media.

Accusing the victim of having threatened someone to justify his being killed will demand such evidence.

 

In a legitimate self defense claim he could be allowed to use deadly force which would negate that.

I agree we don't have all the evidence. And, when Neely was unconscious the threat should have been eliminated. There is a duty to retreat in New York, but there are exceptions. We will learn more at the trial.

 

When footage is available showing Neely being chokehold to death, though forewarned by a witness,and Penny still held Neely in that neckhold ,even after he died, saying people should "reserve judgement" when there's NO disputing the facts put before our eyes that Penny showed total disregard for Neely's life and is responsible for Neely's death.

We also know that after 11 days of investigating the death of Neely the prosecutors had enough facts from videos and witnesses as their evidence to charge Penny with 2nd degree manslaughter.
Now their evidence goes before a Grand Jury.

 

Makes sense that you chose to end up where Chauvin and his thugs landed and Penny could very well be on the same route.
LOL

 

I'm not your fetcher.
Read NY's SD laws or keep making more false claims.
It's up to you.

 

So besides her there would be other witnesses who also heard Neely say that and the defense will try and use that as self-defence evidence.
We'll see how that pans out because a deadly chokehold does not equate to reasonable force used for those threats when he was unarmed and did not assault anyone.

Under these circumstances there is no self-defense claim for Penny holding Neely( with the aid of 1 then 2 guys) in a chokehold for 15 mins until and after he died.

 

So, if I'm standing close to you and I think you're acting weird and I feel threatened it's OK for me to choke you unconscious or possibly even to death.

That's really what you are defending here.

 

You've called for the murder of a Republican senator for no reason other than his political opinions. Please stop trying to pretend you have a position based on morality.

 

I did? Can you quote me on that?

 

Yes and yes. Why claim ignorance?

 

Do do.

 

Would you mind to provide a link to prove he made those claims?

 

Oh, excellent! I’m quite aware that a person does not need to be armed to threaten others with death or severe bodily injury, and they can be dealt with accordingly.

 

I don’t think any reasonable person denies that Neely was a potential threat to the people around him and it was both necessary and appropriate to restrain him. The question is whether it was necessary and appropriate to hold him in a chokehold for 15 minutes. I don’t think this was a lynching and I doubt that Penny intended to kill the guy. But I don’t think that Neely’s actions gave Penny license to neutralize him at any cost. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe all Neely did was scream something to the effect of “I am hungry, thirsty and have nothing to live for.” That is certainly unsettling and I think restraining him was warranted. But was it reasonable to hold him in the chokehold long enough to kill him? Especially with people around Penny telling him that he’s going to kill the guy if he doesn’t let go?

 

nope. Chauvin was convicted because race idiots made a fuss over a drug addict who didn’t want to return to prison and had tried that ploy in the past.

there’s no reason to listen to a “witness” who isn’t a first responder or medical professional. That’s how you end up with bad advice. Turns out the FAFO rule is in place and you can’t threaten people in public and expect the rest of us to put up with it, we’re so much better off now.

 

Lol, you missed the part where that clot was threatening to murder people on the train, but you do you.