Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 2, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

49:11

Verdict Coming Soon in Daniel Penny Subway Case

Was the white man a hero or a racist murderer? We should find out this week. Thumbnail credit: © Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News via ZUMA Press Wire

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to Radio Renaissance.
	I'm your host, Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
	And with me is a remarkable guest, Officer John, a man who spent approximately 30 years as a police officer.
	And if police officers do it, he has probably done it.
	He has done it all.
	We had an earlier conversation about the Butler assassination attempt.
	That turned out to be one of my most popular podcasts because this is a guy who has very sensible, experienced insights into this kind of thing.
	And what we're going to talk about is the Daniel Penney trial.
	That is the fellow who was overcoming a clearly mental loony and possibly dangerous threat in a New York City subway.
	And then we might go on to talk about some of the assassination attempts against Donald Trump.
	And kind of go over again some of the materials.
	But in any case, Officer John, welcome on the program.
	So glad to have you.
	I'm glad to be back.
	I'm looking forward to working with you again.
	Yes.
	This Daniel Penny trial, I think most of our readers have, most of our listeners, I should say, know about the basics of it.
	But could you just give me a summary of what actually happened and what the status of the trial is at this point?
	Well, sure.
	Let me ask you a quick question.
	Have you been to New York City?
	Oh, many times.
	And so you've ridden public transport, right?
	I have ridden the subway many times.
	So I've been, I believe, six times.
	And each time I've gone to New York, I've experienced crazed behavior, violence on the subway, without exception.
	And, you know, you always try to get on it only in the daytime, and obviously that's what I did.
	One time I was with my wife and my brother and his wife, And as the train stopped, we could hear a large group of teens boiling onto our car, and this huge fight erupted.
	And I remember my family all looking to me, because I'm always armed in New York City, I can carry nationwide.
	And they're looking at me like, hey, do something.
	And I just backed us into a corner and said, well, if I produce a weapon here, then what?
	So as is predicted, the next stop, they all just got off and went on their day.
	Another time I was with my wife and my children.
	And same thing, huge fight erupted on the car.
	I just kind of got in front of them, backed them in the corner.
	Again, I was armed.
	You don't want to, there's really, if you introduce a handgun into a situation like this, then that escalates it, obviously.
	But if my family was in danger, I would, you know, I had that availability.
	But like, again, they just got off, gone on and off, just violence on, violence off.
	Another time I was there with my family and there's this crazed transient up and down screaming to himself.
	I back my children and my wife into a corner and I'm armed again and just waiting for him to calm down.
	And the best way to describe how to handle these is, I mean, if you look at these videos, you'll see most pastors on the subway, they just kind of look down at their phone and, you know, perhaps if I'm nice, you'll go away type behavior.
	And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
	You've seen dozens of videos.
	We've shown dozens of videos in my shows where people just walk up and smack women in the head that are just trying to ignore the person and It's always a crapshoot.
	You never know what's going to happen.
	And the media and everybody involved always lean on this whole mental health thing.
	Oh, he had mental health this.
	He was homeless that.
	He was just hungry.
	He was just thirsty.
	And if you watch all of the different interviews on this, you're going to get all of those different excuses.
	So there's either one, hey, Daniel Penny was a hero, he did this to protect the public, or Neely was choked for no reason.
	You see the Reverend Al Sharpton giving the no justice, no peace, obviously telling any potential jurors that if they don't vote correctly, there's going to be riots.
	I mean, we can agree on that, but that's what he's trying to do.
	Yes.
	But it's just, you get either one side of the spectrum or the other.
	Nobody wants to be reasonable about it.
	And it brings up a huge question.
	Let me interrupt you.
	I lived in New York City for several years and on one occasion And this has really stuck in my mind, and it has left me with regrets ever since.
	But I was on the subway platform, and some black guy went run down the platform, followed by officers.
	And they tackled him, and they put him on the ground, and they cuffed him.
	And it was all quite a remarkable thing.
	Everybody was stunned and was sort of watching this happen.
	And they let him off, and it was in complete silence.
	And I've regretted to this day that I didn't shout out, they got another bad guy!
	Let's give the police three cheers!
	Hip, hip!
	Now, I don't know in New York City whether they would or not, but...
	This is just sort of a stunned silence, no recognition of what these guys had achieved, and I have always regretted not showing some kind of real appreciation for the kind of things these guys go through all the time.
	But this is just to confirm your observation that you never know what's going to happen on the New York City subway.
	So I think you have dramatically set the scene for what Daniel Penny would have encountered.
	Right.
	So let's put yourself in the situation.
	Let's pretend you're there, okay?
	Jordan Neely, 30-year-old homeless man, he gets on the train.
	He's obviously disheveled.
	I believe he takes off his jacket, violently throws it on the ground, starts screaming, I'm hungry, I need a job, I'm ready to die today, someone's going to die today, and he's threatening people.
	So you as a regular person living in New York, are you going to say, oh, I might have a job opportunity for you and hand him a business card?
	Or are you going to say, well, I don't want to get into a confrontation with this man.
	I'm not armed.
	The police have no way of getting on a moving train.
	What am I to do?
	Right?
	So what happened in this situation is he gets on.
	He starts screaming and yelling, which if you're a native New Yorker, this is pretty normal.
	The whole mental health, the transients living in the subway tunnels, getting on, screaming and yelling.
	And people have become so accustomed to just looking down at their phones.
	That's kind of the...
	I hope I can just make it to two more stops and this guy doesn't attack me or he attacks somebody else so that I can escape.
	That's really what we've come to.
	And what Daniel Penny did, if you remember Sir Robert Peel, somebody who's credited for the creation of modern law enforcement, his seventh principle is the police are the people and the people are the police or the public.
	Yes, this is Robert Peel of England.
	He's the guy who set up the London police force, and they're called Bobbies.
	The officers are called Bobbies after his name, Robert.
	But anyway, yes, that guy.
	So we might be a little into the weeds on this, and if you and I were to insinuate that the public was aware of this principle and B, put it into practice every day, we'd be kidding ourselves, correct?
	Yes.
	If you look at it the way that his principles hold up today, it makes great sense even to this day.
	It's the police of the public and the public of the police.
	And what that means is the police are the only people that are paid and hired and charged with protecting us.
	But they can't be everywhere at once.
	And so the understanding of a safe community is that able-bodied men, and in some cases able-bodied women, will take, you know, the movements to defend their fellow passengers, their fellow citizens from violence, which is this.
	And so the thing that strikes me the most about this case is what the final straw for, well, for lack of a better term, the final straw for Mr. Penny was.
	So he was doing just like everyone else.
	He was on his way to the gym.
	He's a trained Marine Corps veteran.
	He sees the screaming and yelling.
	He was probably quite accustomed to it as well.
	And when there was a woman with her tiny child that was afraid she was going to die, that was her words, she hid she and her child behind her stroller.
	And when Neely went up and leaned over that lady, he said, I'm going to kill or something to that effect.
	That's when...
	Daniel Penny stepped up and put Mr. Neely in the lateral vascular neck restraint, which everyone enjoys calling a chokehold, which we can get into when you're ready.
	But once he gets him in that hole, that's where the story begins.
	Well, was Penny a regular New Yorker or was he a guy who was just visiting and unaccustomed to the savagery that one frequently encounters there?
	In reading it, I think he was there.
	I think he was living there.
	I'm not sure what he was doing.
	I believe he was attending school there.
	I see.
	I'm not positive about that.
	But he wasn't just a tourist who was like, wow, what's this?
	I better jump in.
	It was something that was so profoundly and eminently violent.
	That he felt the need to step in as per Peel's, the seventh Peelian principle.
	Well, before we get into further details on the penny case, and you're talking about the people are the police and the police are the people, was that the proper phrasing?
	When I see these videos of the most brazen shoplifting, for example, or people walking into a jewelry store with sledgehammers, smashing cases in broad daylight, scooping stuff out, That is infuriating to me.
	It would be all I could do to help to keep from attacking those guys, because what they're doing is such an insult to all of society.
	Every single one of us should be outraged by that.
	And in a healthy society, if something so destructive of public order would be going on, every person, man, woman, and child, would rush those guys and take them down.
	There's something about that kind of brazen and in broad daylight kind of hostile behavior that infuriates me.
	But these days, people are frightened.
	As you say, they look away, they look at their shoes.
	No, we've got this terrible feeling of fear and distrust and people don't rise up and act the way I think a healthy society would.
	And it's funny you bring it up because I get a lot of questions about that on our program.
	They say, what if I'm at the mall and I see them smashing these jewelry cases and I have a concealed carry permit.
	Can I challenge them at gunpoint?
	And I say, well, sure.
	But what do you think they're going to do?
	Do you think they're going to say, oh, okay, and all 30 of them are going to lay down in the prone position and wait for 30 minutes for the appropriate amount of officers to respond?
	No.
	They're either going to do one of two things.
	They're going to attack you and try to take your gun.
	Or they're simply going to run away, and now you're there waiting for the police to come so you can tell them that you tried.
	And so that's what makes this Penny case so important to me is, you know, you're familiar with the Ferguson effect where, you know, Michael Brown attacked Officer Darren Wilson, I think his name is.
	Yes.
	You know, dealing with a large potential robbery suspect is going to get me in trouble.
	I'm going to back off of that.
	And then obviously the George Floyd effect.
	Cops are backing way off.
	And then in addition to that, you have the mass exodus.
	So the mass exodus, the lowering of standards, and the complete shutting down of proactive policing is what's killing policing and communities in general.
	And this case here, the outcome of this case, I think is the true barometer for the direction of the country and at the very least the direction of policing in general.
	Because it's so clear that What was going on, and I can explain exactly what was going on, even with a personal experience of this exact type of thing.
	Okay, well then, please continue with a description of what happened once Daniel Penney put this Neely guy in that hold.
	So Daniel Penney has several choices, right?
	I mean, he's not armed, he doesn't have a weapon, so he's a trained, physically capable Marine.
	He has several choices.
	He could run up and just sock the guy in the chin, right?
	That doesn't look very nice.
	I mean, it's going to knock him out.
	He could hit his head and kill himself.
	What he did was he used the lateral vascular neck restraint, what is commonly misnamed the choke hold, because there's two types of neck restraints.
	There's an air choke and a blood choke.
	One is to shut off the windpipe.
	One is to shut off the two sides of your neck, the carotid arteries.
	That's the hold that he was applying.
	So that hold, the LVNR, as we'll call it from now on, Is the way to control the person, the easiest way to control the person, even smaller women, if they get this hold set in properly, they can control someone that's violently resisting with this simple hold causing almost zero injury.
	And so what he does is he puts the hold on and then he goes on to his back, which is called the cradle position.
	And so if you look, if you look at the picture, they like circulating around, you can see that Mr. Penny's elbow is directly underneath the chin and throw area of Mr. Neely, which indicates that he's got the lateral vascular neck restraint on.
	Now, if his forearm was across his neck, that would be a chokehold, correct?
	So when we receive this training, it's, you're taught, I mean, it's quarterly, you're taught very, very distinctly that your forearm cannot go across the neck of the person you're trying to use the lateral vascular neck restraint on.
	Because that will cut off his windpipe and he will strangle, right?
	Correct.
	And that would be the definition of a chokehold.
	What he's applying, just looking at that picture of the hold, that is the lateral vascular neck restraint, the same that is used in MMA fights across the country.
	And sometimes those can become chokeholds in themselves.
	They're creating discomfort in the windpipe, but there's a referee there, right?
	So...
	When he gets that hold in, he goes into the cradle position, which means he's on his back and he's got Mr. Neely cradled on his lap.
	And so what you do is you say, okay, this is going to take a minute.
	So you hook your feet over the top of his shins and hook your heels into the inside of his heels.
	And now you've got a complete ground control position.
	Now, what people want you to think...
	You know, they've said it was 15 minutes, it was 10 minutes, it was 8 minutes, it was 6 minutes.
	You've got all these different reports of how long this quote-unquote chokehold was being administered.
	Now, at most, that's a control hold, and it does not mean that he's applying pressure to the carotid arteries the entire time.
	He's just in a complete and controlled, dominated situation.
	And if I can, I have a quick story about this.
	Okay, please.
	So, when I was working patrol, we had this vast river, you know, Little path system where he jogs and goes on bikes.
	And ironically, there was an Eagle Scout that realized that it was very difficult for officers to tell where each other would be.
	So he created this mile marker system to kind of help.
	But as a patrol officer, you don't go anywhere near that black belt, those little paths or the river.
	So one day I'm driving around and I hear an officer say, hey, I'm at this dock near mile marker 0.16.
	And I'm like...
	You might as well be on the moon.
	And I'm sitting here trying to ask, where could he be?
	Trying to get further details.
	And he was fighting with this guy.
	And it was probably five to six minutes at least of me trying to find this officer.
	I'm literally running down this path because I couldn't get a car there.
	And I'm yelling out to him saying, where are you?
	Where are you?
	And finally I was able to hear him.
	And when I got there, he was in the same exact cradle position as you see Mr. Neely in.
	So he realized, okay, I'm in this fight.
	This is the best way for me to control this guy.
	I'm not going to sit here and go fisticuffs with him for six minutes.
	I'm going to cradle him in this LVNR position, and if he stops resisting, I'm going to let off the pressure.
	If he starts resisting again, I'll apply a little bit of pressure, and it's called feathering or fanning in and out.
	It doesn't necessarily mean you take the person in and out of consciousness, but it means you have the ability to do so.
	So what Penny was doing is he had this man in total control in the cradle position, and as Penny would stop resisting, he would loosen up his hold, and as Penny started resisting, he would apply pressure again.
	And you look at all the different witness accounts, you know, there was, you know, accounts that he had defecated in his pants, which is, that's indicative of holding it on too long, but then they determined that that was from an other person.
	That was old, for lack of a better term.
	Oh, I see.
	You mean Neely got on the train with his pants soiled already?
	Correct.
	If you look at some of the dialogue between Mr. Penny and one of the people assisting him, you'll hear that.
	If you want to put the 10-minute, the 15-minute, 6-minute Marker on it, be that as me.
	Look at Mr. Penny's face in the picture.
	Does it look like he's exerting himself?
	Does it look like he's, you know...
	No, he looks completely calm.
	But now, how do you know that he was tightening up or letting off as appropriate in the way you described?
	Because he never testified.
	And did any of the people who were witnesses testify that they could see that?
	Because I would imagine only Penny would know.
	because it seems to me if you have got your arms in a way to cut off the blood flow through a guy's jugular arteries, then it would just be a very, very slight movement, probably imperceptible to witness, whereby you do what you call the feathering.
	And so, because Mr. Penny didn't testify, what the witnesses said is they could see his chest rising and falling, and it's very, very visible on all the iPhone cameras that are used.
	Neely's chest is rising and falling.
	Correct.
	Yes.
	So as someone who's personally administered this hold at least a hundred times, there's a very distinct moment when you know, okay, he's unconscious, and then you let go.
	So whether or not, you know, obviously how much training, did he receive this training in the Marine Corps?
	Clearly he received something.
	Perhaps he was trained in ground fighting.
	But he put this hold on, and if Mr. Neely's still breathing, let me just put it this way.
	If he had been applying pressure to the carotid arteries for 10 minutes, as I'd like you to believe, let's just meet in the middle there, he's dead within a minute.
	So when the police get there, he's still breathing.
	When Mr. Neely lets him go, he's still breathing.
	Mr. Penny, when he lets him go, Mr. Neely is still breathing.
	So Mr. Penny's talking to the police and then you'll see the lone New York police officer attempting chest compressions because the sergeant at the scene said, I didn't want my officers to do mouth to mouth because I didn't want them to risk getting, you know, whether it be hepatitis or AIDS or because he had foam and, you know, cuts on his mouth, things of that nature.
	And when he says we didn't have the proper equipment with us.
	What he means is we're all issued these plastic over-the-nose-and-mouth CPR masks so we don't have to go mouth-to-mouth like that.
	And when he says we didn't have the equipment, that means it's back in their car.
	They don't have time to get it.
	So there's four officers standing around, one of which is giving chest compressions.
	Well, as I recall, according to some testimony, one, the police got there, they took his pulse, and he had a weak pulse, or at least he had a detectable pulse.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	And he was breathing.
	Correct.
	So does that, I mean, that kind of, I'm not sure how he put the cart before the horse on that, if he's, if the hold is, if he lets go of the hold and then...
	I see.
	So if he had, if he had maintained this arterial clamping hold for as long as just, you say, just one minute or two minutes, the guy's dead?
	Is that, is that the case?
	It takes that, the guy's dead that quickly.
	If I put that hold on you, and if I have it set correctly, and there's no obstructions, you don't have any bulky clothing, and I have it perfectly set, and I hold that on as hard as I can for a minute, you'll pass away.
	You'll be dead.
	You won't just pass out.
	You'll die.
	Correct.
	The hold takes about six to eight seconds for you to go unconscious, depending on how effective your hold is.
	I mean, like any other tactic, you know, your wrist can be in the wrong position, your head can be in the wrong position.
	If everything is just right and you're really shutting those down completely, I mean, there's absolutely no...
	we will concede that that hold is capable of killing you if it is held for a long time.
	So to say that he held the choke, this quote-unquote choke hold on for 10 to 12 minutes is absurd, and especially if he was still breathing when the officers got there, because that was a control hold that he may or may not have fanned him in and out.
	You know, who knows if he even—I think he probably rendered him at the end, but then when you look at the autopsy report, that tends to explain some of the other things, which unfortunately, as the George Floyd verdict showed us, the juries don't usually like to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances the juries don't usually like to take into consideration the extenuating circumstances that may have led Now, the other things, like the drugs in his body and the fact that he was having, didn't he have a sickle cell attack or who knows what?
	Tell us, give us a rundown of what else was going on with this guy.
	So, the defense, Mr. Penny's, the medical examiner that was called on Mr. Penny's behalf, said that the defendant suffered from sickle cell anemia, which can, you know, cause heart attack and stroke and lack of, you know, proper oxygen flow.
	He was also schizophrenic, which was news to me.
	I didn't know that could cause heart issues.
	So, he had that.
	He was amped up, and he was on K2, Which is synthetic marijuana, which I have to be honest, I didn't even know that was around anymore.
	We saw that in the early 2000s.
	It hit the streets like a tidal wave, and it was sold in smoke shops and head shops all across the city before we could figure out what the heck it was and determine it was a controlled substance.
	Tell us a little bit more about that.
	As I understand it, these are synthetically produced drugs that are very much like marijuana, but they don't fit the actual chemical description of tetrahydrocannabinol, and so they are not explicitly illegal.
	So in this sort of gray area, they are considered legal or they can be considered legal because they're not exactly the same chemical formula.
	Is that a correct understanding?
	Correct.
	We had to scramble to identify what this chemical was so that we could control it and make it a controlled substance.
	So when it first hit the streets, they use an organic material that mimics, it looks like marijuana.
	but it clearly smells chemical.
	You can tell it's not.
	Marijuana has a very distinct smell, and you could tell right away that this was not marijuana.
	And marijuana causes, you know, this calm, slow, you know, lowered inhibitions, just kind of dull reaction.
	It doesn't, in my experience, I've never seen anybody become violent on regular marijuana.
	So this stuff, it was almost a combination between PCP, LSD, and cocaine at the same time.
	It It would have these weird, psychedelic, hyperactive, violent, hallucinogenic effects, which was, I mean, as officers, we were like, why don't these guys just smoke regular marijuana?
	This doesn't seem to be that much fun.
	But when we first started seeing people that were on it, we were like, what is this?
	Is this PCP? And we really struggled to recognize what it was because, you know, as officers, we knew what someone on heroin looked like, someone on cocaine looked like, someone on meth looked like.
	And it closely mimicked someone on meth with a PCP, kind of hallucinogenic, impervious to pain side effect.
	It was very, very strange.
	And for the life of us, we couldn't figure why somebody would choose to use this particular product.
	And one of the adverse health effects is, it was like an incense product.
	That was what it was sold as at first, and then they would just smoke it.
	But it can create tachycardia, elevated heart rate, elevated blood pressure.
	It can render you unconscious, tremors, seizures, vomiting, hallucinations, agitation and anxiety, numbness and tingling.
	I mean, that completely nails it.
	And that's the opposite of marijuana.
	So the fact that that stuff is still out there, I'm very curious to know where he would have gotten this stuff because as far as I know, it vanished from the planet.
	But that stuff, in combination with him, Coming in all hyped up, sickle cell.
	Well, when you say all hyped up, you mean in this agitated, emotional, highly emotional state?
	Correct.
	Coming in saying, I'm ready to die today.
	I have no food.
	I have no job.
	And he's throwing his stuff down and screaming in people's faces, throwing garbage at passengers.
	And then...
	He's got this chemical in him, along with his pre-existing medical conditions, and then this restraint, which positional asphyxia is what they might want to refer to it as.
	But all of that combined, it just doesn't...
	Daniel Penny utilized the minimal amount of force necessary to control this person pending the arrival of the police.
	And it's just that the verdict in this case, like I said, is going to be the barometer of where we're going.
	Well, let us not forget that we're talking about New York City, people who are liberal, often anti-police, despite the fact that the reason that city is livable at all is because of the police.
	And the stand-on by the police has really made things much, much, much worse.
	Well, I do see your point.
	In your view, he probably, a penny should not even have been charged, that the police should have looked at this and said, this guy stepped in as was necessary.
	And of course, the police at the time wouldn't have known what toxic chemicals were in his body or what the other circumstances were.
	But if you just walked on that scene, you didn't know anything about the dead guy.
	But you, that Penny had explained to you what he had done.
	Would you have just assumed that this was a legal intervention that had an unfortunate consequence?
	Or, for you to arrive at that conclusion, would you have had to know what was in his chemical system?
	Well, that answer is given by what the police did that night.
	Mr. Penny was, he was taken to the station, he was interviewed for three hours, and he was let go with no charges.
	Okay.
	And so, he gave the story.
	Okay, I see.
	And then after being released, only then did DA Alvin Bragg decide, hey, look, I have another, you know, the thirst for white on black racism is so great and the supply is so small.
	This is my opportunity to manufacture it.
	Let me convene a grand jury.
	And if you know anything about grand juries, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
	I mean, it's a one-sided argument.
	And now here we are with this dog and pony show in the hopes that we can somehow hang another Hyatt on the fence of political correctness.
	So in your view, if poor Daniel Penny gets—well, one of the arguments they make is—and this is a prosecution argument— They say he used too much force for too long and was reckless with Neely's life.
	And then they go on to say, because he didn't recognize his humanity.
	This is sort of the racism idea.
	If this had been a white guy who was equally threatening, scaring the daylights out of people, I remember one of the people said that she'd never been so afraid in her life.
	Another woman said that she was so afraid she thought she might even throw up.
	This guy was really acting in a fearsome way.
	And the theory by the prosecution is, if this guy had been white, then none of this would have happened.
	Or he would have let him loose or whatever it is.
	According to the prosecution, under the law, deadly physical force, such as a chokehold, which they love to use, is permitted only when it's absolutely necessary and for only as long as is absolutely necessary.
	And here, the defendant went way too far.
	That's the position they're going to be taking here.
	And this would be my closing.
	I would say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you genuinely believe that Mr. Penny wanted and tried to kill Mr. Neely that day?
	Well, there's an answer to that.
	Second degree manslaughter charge only requires that they prove he acted recklessly and not intentionally.
	So you have to prove that it wasn't even reckless.
	They added the reckless to the secondary and voluntary so they could have that out.
	They could say, oh, a reasonable person should have known that if you held your arm around the neck of a person that he could be killed.
	But, I mean, do we have any proof of how long pressure was applied?
	I mean, do we have times when pressure was applied?
	Does anyone believe that he was applying pressure the entire 10, 6, 5, whatever minutes it was?
	That's absurd.
	And my concern, there's three possibilities here.
	Like you said, we are in New York, the liberal juries, the home of the Bronx jury, correct?
	Yeah, the famous Bronx jury.
	Now, do you know the racial composition of the jury?
	I do not.
	That'd be interesting to know.
	Knowing the racial demographics of New York City, you would bet I would say two to three whites, two to three Hispanics, and then the rest black would be fair.
	But here's the question.
	We've got this ultimate...
	Al Sharpton ramping everybody up, marches in the streets, the media ramping everybody up.
	So is the jury going to stick to the regular Bronx jury method and say, yep, it's white on black, convict him, hang hide on the fence, send him off?
	Or is a genuine, legitimate, literal Bronx jury going to say, you know what?
	We've had enough of this too.
	It's time to set things right.
	And the third possibility that I'm most worried about Right.
	That's my biggest concern.
	And that's the jurors in Minneapolis admitted that.
	Yes, yes.
	One of those three things is going to happen.
	Yeah.
	Well, in this case, though, it hasn't had nearly the coast to coast nonstop attention that the George Floyd case had.
	And so far as I know, they haven't had to put National Guard troops around the courthouse, barricades, none of that stuff.
	So it doesn't have the high profile.
	So I'm guessing that the pressure on the jurors is not going to be nearly as great.
	I hope not.
	And this could end up, I hope, being something like the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.
	That was the guy who, I guess it was in that place, Waukesha.
	Is that where it took place?
	He was there to protect against rioters.
	And then the Antifa started coming at him.
	And he ended up killing two guys, I think, and blowing a big hole in the arm of a third guy.
	And the prosecutors thought, oh, we've got to slam dunk.
	Here's a white guy, you know, a young white guy with an AR-15 who was blazing around, killing people.
	We'll put this guy away.
	But the jury said no, no.
	These guys came after him with firearms and he defended himself.
	So let us hope we have a similar innocent verdict.
	Of course, in some respects, Daniel Penny, who knows who's paying for his defense.
	But if that guy has any money at all, it's all gone now unless some people have been paying pro bono for him.
	I hope that be the case.
	I would certainly hope so.
	And then what's going to happen is the Neely effect will take place.
	We see videos on my program all the time that says, why don't people intervene?
	Why don't people intervene?
	and it's, I'm sorry, the penny effect.
	It's the penny effect.
	People don't want to because if it's a black suspect and somehow you either punch him or take him down and he dies, then you're the next Derek Chauvin, you're the next Daniel Penny.
	People are just going to look even deeper into their phones and completely ignore any public safety whatsoever.
	And as the police departments, as Mayor Adams and his highest command staff are found to be stealing overtime money and he's being indicted, as that department crumbles, lowers standards, begins hiring illegal aliens, and is thousands of officers short, if we add this to the pot, that city will and is thousands of officers short, if we add this to the pot, that city will become
	You know, I think that although you express this tragic downward spiral very eloquently, many Americans, although they wouldn't express themselves quite as well as you do, they see that happening.
	They at least have an intuitive sense that this is happening.
	And it will be very interesting to find out later on, if there are juror interviews, what they thought.
	Now, let us hope that all they thought was that either this guy was obviously innocent or, and this is the way the arguments have to be put in order to get a criminal conviction, that there was a reasonable doubt.
	That he did not act recklessly.
	Because that's what it is.
	The prosecution's got to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
	I mean, that's a high bar.
	A very high bar.
	And I was reading New York Post an article about this just the other day.
	And they say this is absolutely a slam dunk for an acquittal.
	They think the evidence is so flimsy.
	And the other thing they're talking about is this forensic pathologist who testified with an Indian name, Satish Chundru.
	He said that the chokehold, well, they keep calling it a chokehold, didn't kill him.
	Instead, it was the combined effects of sickle cell crisis, schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and synthetic marijuana.
	And apparently he really stuck to his guns.
	He says, nope, nope, nope.
	The idea that this cold killed him, nope, absolutely not.
	And let us think, let us think that this guy was an unshakable rock and that he certainly planted sufficient doubt in at least one juror's mind, because that's all it takes, that this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So what, if you are a betting, well, of course, we haven't heard closing arguments yet.
	And closing arguments can be a very powerful effect on the juror.
	If it's really brilliantly done, we will see what happens.
	The prosecution is going to bring out their best artillery.
	Of course, the defense is going to bring out their best artillery, and we will see who is the most eloquent.
	But at this point, if you were a betting man, would you bet for an acquittal or would you bet for a conviction?
	So I don't know if they've allowed for lesser included, but that's usually what a jury like this will do when they're afraid of being responsible for causing a riot or being blamed for more racial division.
	They usually lean towards that.
	But I mean, I would like to have hope in a jury in the United States in 2024, especially in New York.
	But just saying that sentence out loud is somewhat absurd in and of itself.
	That's my question.
	Have New Yorkers, have regular New Yorkers with the migrant issue, the violence in the streets issue, the calling 911 and nobody responds issue, the mass exodus of police issue, the mayor being indicted, the upper echelon of the police department being indicted for stealing money, have they had enough yet?
	Do they finally want someone to help protect them?
	That's the question.
	Are they going to say, yes, I've had enough.
	This whole black versus white thing is enough.
	It's a matter of safety.
	this man was doing what he thought was right at the time.
	Do we somehow just check the box and say, yep, we're a Bronx jury.
	We're going to do what Bronx juries do.
	Or do we turn that corner?
	Do we help America turn that corner and say, hey, enough is enough.
	We're going to stop allowing this type of stuff.
	We're going to stop excusing it.
	We're going to stop being incited by Al Sharpton and the likes of Jesse Jackson.
	And we're going to say, let this man go.
	And then what will happen after that?
	I will be astonished if there's not a massive police presence, massive National Guard presence after this verdict.
	And then don't forget, they can still try him civilly for illegally causing his death.
	Oh, that's right.
	There can always be a civil case.
	Yes, I have not seen any kind of suggestion of lesser charges.
	That should have occurred to me, but nobody seems to be saying, well, okay, jury, you can convict this guy of, I don't know, disturbing the peace if you decide that he did not recklessly cause his death.
	Now, maybe for a prosecutor who's worth his spurs, anything as feeble as that is considered so much of a loss that he wouldn't even give that as a possibility.
	Right.
	That comes out early in the trial.
	It's either this or that, and you have to offer them lesser included if that's possible.
	The judge can't just say, oh, hey, just so you know, in case you don't like these, it has to be done at the beginning of the trial.
	So I haven't seen anything either.
	He's in charge of second-degree involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.
	So it's either total acquittal or...
	I don't know if they'll...
	Because if you read reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter, they're almost hand-in-hand.
	So it's almost like an overcharging as a buffer.
	And just in case they don't like one, they can pick the other, which is another thing that concerns me.
	So we'll see what they do.
	We'll see what happens.
	But I thoroughly believe that's going to be a barometer for what...
	Well, I think.
	I must say that when I look at the New York papers, at least even in the New York Times, there is a general sense that Penny should not be hung out to dry.
	Even in the New York Times.
	A New York Post, obviously, all of the readers say, this guy is a hero.
	He should be getting a medal, not an indictment.
	But even the New York Times, I think those are people who, a lot of them probably live in New York City.
	They go on the subway and they see what you saw.
	And they see what I saw.
	I mean, it's not a nice place to be.
	I mean, sometimes you can go, I would sometimes go for weeks without getting some kind of unfortunate encounter.
	You see these crazy non-whites getting into arguments with each other or threatening white people and everybody just wants to back away.
	Nobody wants to get involved.
	This guy might pull out a knife and stab you or a gun and shoot you.
	There's this real sort of undercurrent of terror, especially when you've got some Menacing looking black guy who is doing the threatening.
	People just don't want to get involved.
	But my view is, as I've said to you before, when I see this kind of absolutely brazen flouting of all the normal rules of civilized society, I want to rush in and tackle this guy.
	My main inclination, I don't know, is to put a real chokehold on him.
	I suppose I shouldn't be saying that, but it is such an outrage to me.
	But, by the way, can you explain why does everybody call these things a chokehold?
	Now, even in MMA, aren't they called chokeholds when in fact they are, whatever you call it, the lateral something or other?
	They're not really chokeholds in mixed martial arts either, are they?
	It's just the common vernacular.
	It's the easiest to discuss.
	It's called the lateral vascular neck restraint, LVNR, which ironically, almost every agency, mine included, in the United States after George Floyd removed this effective hold from the force continuum of every agency, even though the LVNR had nothing to do in the United States after George Floyd removed this effective hold from the force continuum
	And so now all you see is officers relying on this useless works one out of 10 times taser, which causes infinitely more harm and injury to suspects.
	I mean, the LVNR would have...
	I mean, you go all the way back to Rodney King.
	The LVNR would have ended Rodney King in 1991. Many of these cases were forces used.
	If we had the LVNR, we wouldn't be seeing these forces.
	If you brought back the lateral vascular neck restraint, it is not up for debate.
	Police uses of deadly force would go down significantly.
	That's a fact.
	Boy, oh boy.
	You know, I remember...
	Gosh...
	I can't remember which officer it was who was involved in the Rodney King case.
	There was a Hispanic by the name of Timothy Brezeno, and then there was a fellow named Wind.
	Timothy Wind.
	Timothy Wind.
	And then there was another white guy.
	Lawrence Powell.
	Yeah, it was Powell.
	Powell, that's right.
	I think he wrote a book about it later on.
	In any case...
	Stacey Kuhn did, too.
	Stacey Kuhn's book is actually very good.
	Okay, maybe it was Stacey Kuhn.
	He said that when he learned that somebody had videoed the thing...
	His attitude was, that's great.
	This will make a wonderful training video for people to understand how you escalate as the lesser attempts fail to neutralize this guy.
	He was pleased.
	He wasn't worried the least bit about it.
	And I guess his view would have been, I wish we'd been wearing body cameras because we thought that we did exactly the right thing.
	Mm-hmm.
	The book is Presumed Guilty by Stacey Kuhn, and he talks about that.
	Let me ask you, as a citizen, what do you think would have been less offensive to the eye, for lack of a better term?
	All those baton strikes that were ineffective because Lawrence Powell had to be remedially trained on the strength of his baton strikes?
	Many people don't know that.
	But what do you think would be more offensive, seeing all of those baton strikes, glancing off?
	or seeing one officer get behind Rodney King and apply the lateral vascular neck restraint.
	And another thing about that case people like to forget is Rodney King had two black male passengers who gave up peacefully and were arrested without incident.
	People like to forget about that.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	No, they did what they were told and nothing happened to them.
	And what's the same with George Floyd?
	There were two other passengers with him too, I believe.
	Was it one or two?
	There's two.
	It was a male and a female.
	That's right.
	And they did what they were told and everything turned out fine.
	Now, these things over and over and over, you get the same pattern.
	Well, Officer John, I was going to talk to you about these assassination attempts, but we have chewed into pretty much three quarters of an hour here.
	And would you be willing to come back and do another equally informative program on the assassination attempts?
	Absolutely.
	I'm always happy to come on.
	On our show, we talk about hundreds of clips a week we go over, and this one has just struck me because I said this is going to be a turning point.
	As I'm sure you can understand, as can our listeners, is that I pretty much have my finger on the pulse of the direction of law enforcement itself, but this one here affects the way the public is going to act.
	And the more restrained and afraid and tucked into a corner the public becomes, the more in danger they are.
	And now we're to the point in major cities, the second largest city in the United States, Chicago.
	You can call 911 as the victim of a violent crime and nobody will come.
	So what are we to do?
	If we defend ourselves, we get indicted for, you know, using mean force against a perpetrator?
	Or do we just call them, just tuck into, maybe build a bomb shelter under our homes and lock the door and wait for them to go away?
	I mean, if we're going to start putting every one of these people that try to do the right thing and a drug-addled career criminal with 42 arrests, including three that included assaulting women, Are we going to just come up and yell in the faces of women with young babies?
	If we're just going to turn the other cheek on that, how do you think our society is going to go?
	Are we going to get better or are we going to get worse?
	Are we going to get more dystopian or less dystopian?
	And it's just – if we put this man in jail and we're going to demonstrate a pattern that we're going to use, oh, the police didn't think he did anything wrong?
	Well, I'm Alvin Bragg.
	I'm going to indict him anyway.
	And it's just – This is a very, very important case, and I'm with you.
	The fact that it's not being plastered all over is kind of a good sign.
	The fact that the New York Times has deigned to barely whisper that it might be justified is a good sign.
	But I have very little faith in our justice system anymore, especially not a legitimate, literal Bronx jury.
	But we shall see.
	We shall see.
	Alvin Bragg, of course, I'm sure our listeners know this, but he's the guy who brought that case against Donald Trump in which he got these 43 felony convictions.
	And that, of course, was an absolute Rube Goldberg jury rigged case in which a federal felony was piled on top of a very doubtful state crime, which was a misdemeanor.
	And legally, it was a practically unsupportable case.
	But he got a conviction, and I'm sure he thinks he's been patting himself on the back about that forever since.
	And here he's going to be, you know, go after the great white racist criminal and get himself another scalp.
	And one of the mistakes a lot of our listeners are making is saying, if Penny gets convicted, Trump should pardon him.
	Well, Trump can only pardon federal felonies.
	Only the New York governor can pardon this, and you and I both know that's not happening.
	Kathy Hochul is not going to pardon.
	Well, I can't see her pardoning any white guy who had anything to do with a black guy.
	Well, well, Officer John, well, thank you so much for this.
	I really appreciate your help on this matter.
	Please tell my listeners how they can listen to your program and what's it called, where they can find it.
	Do tell.
	Thank you.
	The name of our show is Denial, Deceit, and Delusion.
	It's in honor of the late Colin Flaherty.
	You find it on Rumble by typing in all one word, Jack the Barbershop Guy.
	That's the name of our channel.
	If you type that in, all of the shows will be there.
	If you search Denial, Deceit, and Delusion, you won't find it.
	But if you go there, send me an email.
	My email is on all of the shows, and I can kind of put you in the direction of some of our other companions that have similar shows.
	Undeniable Truth, Let's Talk Black Crime.
	We have a bunch of friends that are doing similar shows exposing just the proliferation of crime in the United States.
	Now, can you tell me, your show often takes the case of a body cam camera or some kind of, in any case, a video of an encounter, and you analyze it from a veteran cop's point of view.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, that's one of the side shows that I do.
	I've named it The Swan Song for the Centurion Epoch.
	The centurion epic?
	You're talking about the Roman days here?
	It's the last days of the police officer that's doing the right thing for the right reasons, in my opinion.
	So I'll take these body cams and I analyze them frame by frame for you.
	And I've done the George Floyd in its entirety on there, if you want to look for that.
	But that's my little...
	it's on the same page, but that's my little side gig that I do on our program.
	But our main program is Denial, Deceit, and Delusion.
	You can find it if you search Jack the Barbershop Guy, all one word.
	Jack the Barbershop Guy.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you so much.
	And then...
	I'm not quite sure when it will be, but I will have to have you back and we'll talk about sort of a retrospective on these assassination attempts.
	A little information is filtering out bit by bit.
	You are paying more attention to it than just about anybody else I know.
	And that means that you can piece things together in a way that will be very useful and insightful.
	For my listeners, just the way you have taken apart this Daniel Penny case.
	So thank you so much.
	We really appreciate you coming on, and I look forward to the next time you come back.

▲