3
3
0
An in-depth analysis from a New York criminal lawyer.
The Charging of Daniel Penny
Posted from blog.simplejustice.us
Law
Crime
Justice
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
I don't think the length of time in charging Penny is any mystery. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I am relatively certain there was a debate abut the "optics" and the amount of attention the case was likely to receive and how to deal with it before an actual charge was levied. I would assume they explored numerous options on how to handle the case, but more for political and not necessarily legal reasons. Again, not saying that is right or wrong, but I don't think it is a mystery.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
I appreciate the reasoned article, quoting relevant law.
I disagree slightly with the reasoning. Chokeholds are utilized as a NON-LETHAL option to subdue an individual, especially a violent one.
Yes, obviously in this situation, it turned lethal. But just because it BECAME lethal does not mean it should be assumed to be. Especially if Penny was trained in chokeholds as a method of subduing without killing.
Does that mean he gets off scott-free? No.
But the argument of true because it happened is just as specious as the argument of Neely's previous criminal history.
Unfortunate occurrences happen all the time, despite that not being the way it was "supposed to" happen (for a recent high-profile demonstration of this principle, see also Alec Baldwin and Rust).
If I slap someone upside the face because they insult my momma and they get just a little off balance, try to catch themself, stumble further, then slip on some ice and in front of a speeding train, the argument that my slap was lethal force is ridiculous. And yes, that I nowhere near what happened. I am not claiming that Penny only slapped the dude. I am just demonstrating the absurdity of "it was obviously lethal force because someone died."
A chokehold, properly done, is NON-LETHAL force - and utilized specifically because it is non-lethal.
Now, that still leave a lot of open room for the prosecution and defense to argue over - intent, proper utilization, training, when was the hold released, etc.
I disagree slightly with the reasoning. Chokeholds are utilized as a NON-LETHAL option to subdue an individual, especially a violent one.
Yes, obviously in this situation, it turned lethal. But just because it BECAME lethal does not mean it should be assumed to be. Especially if Penny was trained in chokeholds as a method of subduing without killing.
Does that mean he gets off scott-free? No.
But the argument of true because it happened is just as specious as the argument of Neely's previous criminal history.
Unfortunate occurrences happen all the time, despite that not being the way it was "supposed to" happen (for a recent high-profile demonstration of this principle, see also Alec Baldwin and Rust).
If I slap someone upside the face because they insult my momma and they get just a little off balance, try to catch themself, stumble further, then slip on some ice and in front of a speeding train, the argument that my slap was lethal force is ridiculous. And yes, that I nowhere near what happened. I am not claiming that Penny only slapped the dude. I am just demonstrating the absurdity of "it was obviously lethal force because someone died."
A chokehold, properly done, is NON-LETHAL force - and utilized specifically because it is non-lethal.
Now, that still leave a lot of open room for the prosecution and defense to argue over - intent, proper utilization, training, when was the hold released, etc.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Legally, chokeholds are universally considered deadly force. Holds that are not chokeholds may be considered non-lethal, but due to the difficultly in properly applying such holds (e.g., lateral vascular neck restraint, etc.), most agencies are classifying those as being deadly force.
You may want to read what Scott wrote again. He's telling you what the law in New York is, not what people wish it to be.
You may want to read what Scott wrote again. He's telling you what the law in New York is, not what people wish it to be.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google