Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[facilitatorn]

Red is leaning into the new republican platform which is total anarchy that will somehow magically lead to the upfailing of the white race by the grace of dinosaur jesus and the AR-15. 

[Yankguy1]

That's not how it works in New York.  You're charged and arraigned before indictment.   The Grand Jury still has to indict before the state goes forward with the charges.  This is not an easy case. 

[facilitatorn]

I comment on your pattern of behavior for the general good as you are wittingly or unwittingly a constant source of danger. 

It makes me happy to do so as long as you keep demonstrating where some Americans go wrong.

[facilitatorn]

That's not how it works in New York.  You're charged and arraigned before indictment.   The Grand Jury still has to indict before the state goes forward with the charges.  This is not an easy case.

So when Bragg nails trump to the wall nobody but idiots will be able to claim he skipped a step.

[Yankguy1]

You're right.

[facilitatorn]

I cannot bring to mind a case in NY where the charge on arrest was dropped by grand jury pre-arraignment. Possibly with some protest arrests. I guess dropped charges would not be heavily publicized.

[Hairy Lime]

I have no decided opinion on whether Penny can successfully claim self-defense. But RedDick, as usual, displays zero understanding of the actual law, because a discussion of the actual law was not included in the right wing bilge he has pulled his argument from. Particularly in New York, where I believe the right to self defense also has a duty to retreat requirement. Which is problematic because, well, several people apparently did just that.

New York Law does not include Stand Your Ground
And in New York the Duty to Retreat has a caveat.

First, a person needs to have actual knowledge that they can retreat from a situation with complete personal safety. So, the question is not whether the person could in fact have retreated with complete personal safety; the question is whether the person knew that they could safely retreat.

Yes, that may be a factual issue for the jury to decide. Though again, several people did retreat with complete safety.

As to the use of deadly force another caveat in New York Law.

It  provides a defense of justification, which permits a person to use physical force on another person when it is necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

imminence, proportionality and the objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. Whether defending oneself or others. Reasonable and imminent are right in your quote. There are plenty of factual issues Penny is going to have to meet to establish his defense. And plenty of evidence supporting both the decision to charge and the idea that the Grand Jury will return an indictment - ham sandwich, after all - if that is what Bragg wants. He would not be the first prosecutor to hide a politically iffy declination behind a Grand Jury. Cf., roughly every police shooting case not caught on tape.

I have no idea what your point is.

The action by the Marine was well within New York Law as previously noted.

You do not know that. Neither do I. Penny will have to prove imminence, reasonableness and proportionality,  none of which is a slam dunk on the known facts. But the charge is certainly supported by the facts on record, even if an eventual conviction does not result.

The manslaughter charge may need a jury decision if Bragg can first get an indictment.

May need a jury decision? Do you bother to think about what you post?

Hardly a ham sandwich slam dunk.

You seem to be confused on process. The Grand Jury will indict if the prosecutor wants them to. The jury hearing the case is a different matter.

Fellow subway riders are already on record praising the response by Penney and his well financed defense team will probably find more. In addition the investigating police felt no need to detain Penney.  More prime defense witnesses.

Yes, i assume Penny will mount a defense. So?

As to the alleged retreat of other passengers, did they jump off the train?

Nope. Just move out of danger of imminent bodily harm. That is all that is required.

It is not a slam dunk case either way.

[Hairy Lime]

That's not how it works in New York.  You're charged and arraigned before indictment.   The Grand Jury still has to indict before the state goes forward with the charges.  This is not an easy case.

It is not, but the GRAND jury part is not the hard part. Unless Bragg wants it to be.

[Hairy Lime]

Meanwhile, I see John Durham has exonerated the DoJ and FBI in his investigation into the oranges of the Russia probe.

[Espnthree]

Meanwhile, I see John Durham has exonerated the DoJ and FBI in his investigation into the oranges of the Russia probe.

Unfortunately the now proven Ineptitude of the DOJ and the FBI by conspiring with a POS like Hillary have boosted Trump and his chances of returning to the White House.
Is that what you meant about Oranges?

[Espnthree]

As to the alleged retreat of other passengers, did they jump off the train?

Nope. Just move out of danger of imminent bodily harm. That is all that is required.

In a locked train, six feet underground, and moving.
Say good night, Gracie.

[Hairy Lime]

As to the alleged retreat of other passengers, did they jump off the train?

Nope. Just move out of danger of imminent bodily harm. That is all that is required.

In a locked train, six feet underground, and moving.
Say good night, Gracie.

From an unarmed man who had not physically assaulted anyone. That is what juries are for.

Again, you are doing PRECISELY what you have criticized others for: jumping to conclusions in advance of facts for political reasons. But with an added profound ignorance of the law.

[Oi!]

Will be illuminating to hear testimony, like that of the passenger who said to CNN that Neely was upset and desparing, but did not make threats against any of the passengers. 

 I am trying to understand what drives someone to keep choking someone after theyve gone limp and shat themselves and this change in condition has been pointed out by other passengers.  Hope the trial sheds light.

 I am open to the possibility that Penny meant well, but it does seem like the whole vigilante thing has a way of going sideways.  Trained LEOs have trouble knowing when to stop, so I find it unlikely that random citizens will bring expertise to the game, no matter how heroic it feels.

[Espnthree]

As to the alleged retreat of other passengers, did they jump off the train?

Nope. Just move out of danger of imminent bodily harm. That is all that is required.

In a locked train, six feet underground, and moving.
Say good night, Gracie.

From an unarmed man who had not physically assaulted anyone. That is what juries are for.

No.  That is what the Law s for.

Again, you are doing PRECISELY what you have criticized others for: jumping to conclusions in advance of facts for political reasons. But with an added profound ignorance of the law.

LOl!

[Espnthree]

 I am open to the possibility that Penny meant well, but it does seem like the whole vigilante thing has a way of going sideways.

Vigilante thing?  What does that mean?

   

Trained LEOs have trouble knowing when to stop, so I find it unlikely that random citizens will bring expertise to the game, no matter how heroic it feels.

What is a LEO?