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 didn’t use a headlock. He used what is known as a rear naked choke. It’s a blood choke, illegal for people like the police to use, precisely because it’s very dangerous. As a former marine, …
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 didn’t use a headlock. He used what is known as a rear naked choke. It’s a blood choke, illegal for people like the police to use, precisely because it’s very dangerous. As a former marine, he almost certainly new this.
As for “far too long,” a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds (here’s 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. He’s also holding it *extremely* tightly.
To be very clear, I don’t 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 “far too long,” 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. He’s 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 “based on the force that he’s exerting” 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 I’m aware there is a ban on police officers using carotid golds. But regardless, as a marine, Penny’s training in unarmed combat would have included RNCs. It’s part of standard training.
3. I’m not sure I’ve seen testimony regarding the duration of the hold. And yes, Penny obviously didn’t 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.
I’m maintaining that I understand the technicalities of the hold and the effect on the body. Which I do.
So yeah, happy to retract the “criminally” 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.
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 didn’t use a headlock. He used what is known as a rear naked choke. It’s a blood choke, illegal for people like the police to use, precisely because it’s very dangerous. As a former marine, he almost certainly new this.
As for “far too long,” a well applied rear naked choke will render somebody unconscious in around 10 seconds (here’s 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. He’s also holding it *extremely* tightly.
To be very clear, I don’t 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.
> 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘺, 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦,... 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆
> 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 “far too long,” 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. He’s 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 “based on the force that he’s exerting” 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 I’m aware there is a ban on police officers using carotid golds. But regardless, as a marine, Penny’s training in unarmed combat would have included RNCs. It’s part of standard training.
3. I’m not sure I’ve seen testimony regarding the duration of the hold. And yes, Penny obviously didn’t 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.
I’m maintaining that I understand the technicalities of the hold and the effect on the body. Which I do.
So yeah, happy to retract the “criminally” 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.
That’s exactly how the NYC DAs office likely saw it. You have a good prosecutor’s sense of proportionality. I grew up in that world.