I'm curious how Steve supports that assertion as well.
From the accounts, people were trapped in a moving metal box with Neely until the next station, and they did now know whether Neely had any weapons on him (like a knife or razor, much less a gun).
Neely continued to actively struggle for most of the way to the next station, and it took three people's combined efforts (one with a headlock) to restrain him.
Only towards the end did Neely stop struggling, at which point he was put in a recovery position.
So, put yourself in the place of the person (Penny) barely able to hold Neely using a headlock, with the help of two others.
(1) How would you have confidently restrained him without a headlock? What if you failed?
(2) In that context, what other restraint which was "legal" force would have successfully restrained Neely?
(3) At what point during the active struggle would you have released the headlock and decided to take your chances?
This will all be up to a jury to decide now, given a lot more evidence than we have. But I think it's premature to anybody to decide for the jury, and without that fuller evidence, that the force used was indeed "criminal", or that they should have known that the headlock needed to be release while Neely was still actively struggling.
In an ideal world, we would all carry phasers with a 100% reliable and safe "stun" setting for such cases (or be able to use Spock's pinch). But in practice, it's very hard to both *reliably and safely* incapacitate people using your bare hands, and there is always going to be some risk of failing to restrain or of harming the restrainer or restrained.
And Marines are not trained in that balance of reliable restraint with near zero possibility of harm. Very, very few people are. Should that mean that nobody else should ever intervene?
This one is pretty easy to support; Penny has been charged with second degree manslaughter, a criminal offence, for the force he used on Neely.
Penny didnβt use a headlock. He used what is known as a rear naked choke. Itβs a blood choke, illegal for people like the police to use, precisely because itβs very dangerous. As a former marine, he almost certainly new this.
As for βfar too long,β a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds (hereβs a video demonstration - https://youtube.com/shorts/2PnYfDWzO74?feature=share). We see Penny holding onto the choke for far longer than this in just the portion that was recorded. Heβs also holding it *extremely* tightly.
To be very clear, I donβt think for a second that Penny intended to kill Neely. I think he was caught up in the adrenaline and fear of the moment and made a tragic mistake. I think the urge to restrain Neely was reasonable but the *way* he did it was excessive.
> Penny has been charged with second degree manslaughter, a criminal offence
The first is an assertion that he is guilty of a crime, the second that he has been charged but not yet convicted of a crime. I'm sure we all know the difference, and you often use your words more carefully.
2. There is not yet a uniform ban on police using carotid holds, although many departments and governments have instituted such bans in the past three years because of the dangers. But why do you think his past marine combat training would have taught him what civilian police holds will be banned in the future?
Or do you just mean that he should know that it's dangerous if strongly and continually applied? I will assume the latter until you clarify otherwise.
3. Let's look more deeply at:
> As for βfar too long,β a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds.
> We see Penny holding onto the choke for far longer than this in just the portion that was recorded. Heβs also holding it *extremely* tightly.
Yet the testimony is that Neely continued to struggle for several minutes as they waited for the next station, and that it required two additional people to restrain him, despite what you consider an "extremely tight" hold which should have rendered him unconscious in seconds. How can this substantial discrepancy be accounted for?
Well, in Penny's words:
> In the video statements, Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely βbased on the force that heβs exertingβ and that Neely was breathing in the video.
That would be more consistent with the facts of Neely's prolonged resistance, and with your assertion that Penny should know that it's potentially dangerous, than your account. We'll see how the jury decides.
But the truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW enough yet.
You are basically present the prosecution's case as the truth, but the jury will hear that case in great detail - alongside the case from the defense - before rendering a verdict.
You are essentially maintaining that you already know that the prosecution is correct and that Penny is a criminal. I on the other hand am NOT saying that the force used was reasonable, I am asserting that we have not heard from all the experts and witnesses - for both sides - to the degree which would be necessary to so confidently determine Penny's guilt or innocence of a crime, as a jury will eventually do.
I think that the case is still more ambiguous than you do (from what we know so far), and neither of us knows for sure.
Meanwhile, there stands the question of what unquestionably legal and safe restraints would have worked instead. Take a crack at that, please, if you will.
1. True. I still think the excessive part of that sentence is beyond doubt. But criminally is to be decided.
2. As far as Iβm aware there is a ban on police officers using carotid golds. But regardless, as a marine, Pennyβs training in unarmed combat would have included RNCs. Itβs part of standard training.
3. Iβm not sure Iβve seen testimony regarding the duration of the hold. And yes, Penny obviously didnβt have the hold well applied for the entire duration. But the spawning we see in the video, similar to the spawning in the video I linked, occurs after the person being held is unconscious.
Iβm maintaining that I understand the technicalities of the hold and the effect on the body. Which I do.
So yeah, happy to retract the βcriminallyβ part of that sentence. But the rest is not in dispute for anybody with blood choke training.
What can look like a rear naked choke might not actually be one. He was restrained for quite a long time and was struggling to where others piled on. He positively didn't have him in a blood choke the whole time. Was it because he failed to get it in place during the struggle or because he was just trying to restrain him? I don't know the answer to that. I've been restrained with that where my instructor's forearm was along my jaw, not on the carotid. If you were watching, you would swear it was a carotid choke. It wasn't, but it was damned uncomfortable, and I was restrained.
I just watched the video for the first time. For the first part he struggled long enough to think he was in a chin lock. It even looked like that during the part of the video where that was viewable. The restraint lasted too long after he quit struggling, but could Penney properly feel Neely go limp with the others involved? Did he feel them moving? We don't know.
A man died so it lasted too long, but it was probably not a properly applied choke for the length of the incident. Unfortunately, the jury won't be able to properly assess that either, but they will form a verdict.
"π π΄π’πΊ, π³πͺπ¨π©π΅ π΅π©π¦π³π¦ πͺπ― π΅π©π¦ π’π³π΅πͺπ€ππ¦, π΅π©π’π΅ ππ¦π¦ππΊ'π΄ π₯π¦π’π΅π© πΈπ’π΄ π΅π³π’π¨πͺπ€, π΅π©π’π΅ π©π¦ π₯π¦π΄π±π¦π³π’π΅π¦ππΊ π―π¦π¦π₯π¦π₯ π©π¦ππ±, π’π―π₯ π΅π©π’π΅ ππ¦π―π―πΊ πΆπ΄π¦π₯ ππππππππ πππππππππ πππππ πͺπ― π’ π€π©π°π¬π¦π©π°ππ₯ π΅π©π’π΅ π©π¦ π©π¦ππ₯ π°π―π΅π° π§π°π³ πππ§ π΅π°π° ππ°π―π¨."
I'm going to grumble a bit about this.
I'm curious how Steve supports that assertion as well.
From the accounts, people were trapped in a moving metal box with Neely until the next station, and they did now know whether Neely had any weapons on him (like a knife or razor, much less a gun).
Neely continued to actively struggle for most of the way to the next station, and it took three people's combined efforts (one with a headlock) to restrain him.
Only towards the end did Neely stop struggling, at which point he was put in a recovery position.
So, put yourself in the place of the person (Penny) barely able to hold Neely using a headlock, with the help of two others.
(1) How would you have confidently restrained him without a headlock? What if you failed?
(2) In that context, what other restraint which was "legal" force would have successfully restrained Neely?
(3) At what point during the active struggle would you have released the headlock and decided to take your chances?
This will all be up to a jury to decide now, given a lot more evidence than we have. But I think it's premature to anybody to decide for the jury, and without that fuller evidence, that the force used was indeed "criminal", or that they should have known that the headlock needed to be release while Neely was still actively struggling.
In an ideal world, we would all carry phasers with a 100% reliable and safe "stun" setting for such cases (or be able to use Spock's pinch). But in practice, it's very hard to both *reliably and safely* incapacitate people using your bare hands, and there is always going to be some risk of failing to restrain or of harming the restrainer or restrained.
And Marines are not trained in that balance of reliable restraint with near zero possibility of harm. Very, very few people are. Should that mean that nobody else should ever intervene?
This one is pretty easy to support; Penny has been charged with second degree manslaughter, a criminal offence, for the force he used on Neely.
Penny didnβt use a headlock. He used what is known as a rear naked choke. Itβs a blood choke, illegal for people like the police to use, precisely because itβs very dangerous. As a former marine, he almost certainly new this.
As for βfar too long,β a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds (hereβs a video demonstration - https://youtube.com/shorts/2PnYfDWzO74?feature=share). We see Penny holding onto the choke for far longer than this in just the portion that was recorded. Heβs also holding it *extremely* tightly.
To be very clear, I donβt think for a second that Penny intended to kill Neely. I think he was caught up in the adrenaline and fear of the moment and made a tragic mistake. I think the urge to restrain Neely was reasonable but the *way* he did it was excessive.
1. Let's be more cautious about assertions.
> π π΄π’πΊ, π³πͺπ¨π©π΅ π΅π©π¦π³π¦ πͺπ― π΅π©π¦ π’π³π΅πͺπ€ππ¦,... π’π―π₯ π΅π©π’π΅ ππ¦π―π―πΊ πΆπ΄π¦π₯ ππππππππ πππππππππ πππππ
> Penny has been charged with second degree manslaughter, a criminal offence
The first is an assertion that he is guilty of a crime, the second that he has been charged but not yet convicted of a crime. I'm sure we all know the difference, and you often use your words more carefully.
2. There is not yet a uniform ban on police using carotid holds, although many departments and governments have instituted such bans in the past three years because of the dangers. But why do you think his past marine combat training would have taught him what civilian police holds will be banned in the future?
Or do you just mean that he should know that it's dangerous if strongly and continually applied? I will assume the latter until you clarify otherwise.
3. Let's look more deeply at:
> As for βfar too long,β a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds.
> We see Penny holding onto the choke for far longer than this in just the portion that was recorded. Heβs also holding it *extremely* tightly.
Yet the testimony is that Neely continued to struggle for several minutes as they waited for the next station, and that it required two additional people to restrain him, despite what you consider an "extremely tight" hold which should have rendered him unconscious in seconds. How can this substantial discrepancy be accounted for?
Well, in Penny's words:
> In the video statements, Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely βbased on the force that heβs exertingβ and that Neely was breathing in the video.
That would be more consistent with the facts of Neely's prolonged resistance, and with your assertion that Penny should know that it's potentially dangerous, than your account. We'll see how the jury decides.
But the truth is that WE DO NOT KNOW enough yet.
You are basically present the prosecution's case as the truth, but the jury will hear that case in great detail - alongside the case from the defense - before rendering a verdict.
You are essentially maintaining that you already know that the prosecution is correct and that Penny is a criminal. I on the other hand am NOT saying that the force used was reasonable, I am asserting that we have not heard from all the experts and witnesses - for both sides - to the degree which would be necessary to so confidently determine Penny's guilt or innocence of a crime, as a jury will eventually do.
I think that the case is still more ambiguous than you do (from what we know so far), and neither of us knows for sure.
Meanwhile, there stands the question of what unquestionably legal and safe restraints would have worked instead. Take a crack at that, please, if you will.
1. True. I still think the excessive part of that sentence is beyond doubt. But criminally is to be decided.
2. As far as Iβm aware there is a ban on police officers using carotid golds. But regardless, as a marine, Pennyβs training in unarmed combat would have included RNCs. Itβs part of standard training.
3. Iβm not sure Iβve seen testimony regarding the duration of the hold. And yes, Penny obviously didnβt have the hold well applied for the entire duration. But the spawning we see in the video, similar to the spawning in the video I linked, occurs after the person being held is unconscious.
Iβm maintaining that I understand the technicalities of the hold and the effect on the body. Which I do.
So yeah, happy to retract the βcriminallyβ part of that sentence. But the rest is not in dispute for anybody with blood choke training.
What can look like a rear naked choke might not actually be one. He was restrained for quite a long time and was struggling to where others piled on. He positively didn't have him in a blood choke the whole time. Was it because he failed to get it in place during the struggle or because he was just trying to restrain him? I don't know the answer to that. I've been restrained with that where my instructor's forearm was along my jaw, not on the carotid. If you were watching, you would swear it was a carotid choke. It wasn't, but it was damned uncomfortable, and I was restrained.
I just watched the video for the first time. For the first part he struggled long enough to think he was in a chin lock. It even looked like that during the part of the video where that was viewable. The restraint lasted too long after he quit struggling, but could Penney properly feel Neely go limp with the others involved? Did he feel them moving? We don't know.
A man died so it lasted too long, but it was probably not a properly applied choke for the length of the incident. Unfortunately, the jury won't be able to properly assess that either, but they will form a verdict.
Thatβs exactly how the NYC DAs office likely saw it. You have a good prosecutorβs sense of proportionality. I grew up in that world.