All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2024 - Lionel Nation
15:05
Marine Hero and Subway Good Samaritan Daniel Penny Proceeds to Trial After Defending Straphangers
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code Dirty10 for 10% off your order.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Let's talk about a case which has many, many people paying very close attention to.
And in keeping in mind how incredibly serious this is for New Yorkers in particular, people who have to travel the subway, and who are...
Regularly or have been accosted by deranged and mentally ill miscreants.
This is a particularly important case.
A New York judge denied the motion to dismiss against a Marine veteran who named Daniel Penny, who killed, say which one killed,
A deranged, miscreant, former Michael Jackson impersonator with an extensive arrest record won Jordan Neely last May.
And the court, the lawyers said, by the way, quote, while we disagree with the court's decision not to dismiss the indictment, we understand that the legal threshold to continue even an ill-conceived prosecution is very low.
That makes sense.
Nobody expected a motion to dismiss to be granted because the case is not so factually baseless or problematic that it has to be removed or what have you.
And the lawyer furthermore said, we are confident that a jury aware of Danny's actions in putting aside his own safety to protect the lives of fellow writers will deliver a just verdict.
Danny is grateful for the continued prayers and support.
And by the way, very, very good.
Very, very great, very, very wonderfully measured reaction on the part of his lawyer, which is very, very good.
Okay, so what happened?
Well, it's very simply this.
This fellow was deranged.
And this fellow, Jordan Neely, was on the F train on May 1st of last year.
And there's an altercation where he was basically threatening people.
You know, shouting, begging for money, scaring them.
And many people were wanting him to do something.
So what happened was, Mr. Penny pinned, that's essentially what happened, he pinned him, got him down, and began, among others, to administer a carotid restraint, also referred to as a chokehold by the unenlightened.
He was not choked.
It was a carotid restraint.
It was a compression placed on the carotid arteries causing the person to lose consciousness.
This is what's seen all the time.
You've seen professional wrestling, a sleeper hold.
You see it in MMA and mixed martial arts.
That usual kind of a thing there.
Okay, fine.
Now, this is good news, right?
Well, it turns out he killed him.
Might have had it on too long.
He didn't choke him to death, but that's the issue.
He killed him.
Now, most people, myself included, have a hard time trying to muster up feelings of sorrow for one of these degenerates who attack and make innocent people feel unsafe.
Maybe that's Wrong on my part.
Maybe I'm missing the point.
I don't know.
I don't necessarily see why, but maybe that's the way that is.
In any event, what does the law say?
Now, most people will not read the law.
Most people will not refer to the law.
But let me give you an idea of what...
Jurors will have to consider when they look at these particular charges.
First, let's look at this manslaughter in the second degree, or reckless homicide.
And basically what it says is, under our law, and I'm reading to you the jury instruction, this is what a juror would hear when ruling on the Guilt or innocence of this person.
Under our law, a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when that person recklessly causes the death of another person.
Now, now, now, the question is, what is recklessly?
The following term used in that definition has a special meaning.
Remember, recklessly causes the death.
Did he cause the death?
Yes.
Was it reckless?
A person acts recklessly with respect to a death when that person engages in conduct which creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur.
A substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur.
And when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards the risk, and when that risk is of such a nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
We see what's critical here is the word unjustifiable risk.
Was the risk justifiable?
Yes, because it was to quell, quash, stop, impede.
Directly interfere with this miscreant move to cause the death bodily harm of someone else.
Was that the best way possible?
Well, maybe at the time.
Was that particular application of force an unjustifiable risk?
Was it justified?
One could say yes.
And was that risk of such a nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation?
Well, we don't really know what per se was the deviation, but I'll get to the problem he has before him, but let us review.
Next!
This is criminally negligent homicide.
Under our law, a person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, that person causes the death of another person with criminal negligence.
And criminal negligence is defined as when that person engages in blameworthy conduct so serious that it creates or contributes to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur.
And when he or she fails to perceive that risk, and when the risk is of such a nature, In degree, that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
Okay.
Well, interesting.
Interesting.
Interesting.
There's only one problem that we have here.
Is that the acts themselves are okay, except that this involved Ligature, through arms, compression, pressure, carotid pressure and restraint, carotid, carotid.
Was that necessary?
Was that necessary?
Was that required?
And when you place this on, and one could argue that Mr. Penny, former Marine, has some kind of training.
You do realize that you cannot leave this choke hold on indefinitely.
You cannot leave this on indefinitely.
You cannot leave this to the point that the person is unable to...
I'll put it this way.
You can't just leave this on until the person is dead.
Everybody knows when watching MMA or mixed martial arts that there's this tap out.
And that when, as soon as the, in the old days in professional wrestling, remember that, they would lift the arm of the individual three times and you had to stop.
But even the referee, if he sees that the person is under, will say, stop this, remove this ligature.
Let me rephrase it this way.
Let's assume Mr. Penny said, hey, quick, somebody throw me a belt.
Throw me a belt, throw me a rope, throw me a ligature, a cord or something.
And you wrap that around his throat and Pulled it, and he stopped, became limp, and you took the cord off and everything was fine.
Would that be?
Well, it wouldn't be death.
You wouldn't kill him.
It'd be a whole different argument.
You could say, well, did you need to put him at risk?
Well, he's alive.
But he was, after all, bothering people.
But when the person's dead, we don't even look anymore as to what they were doing, as to whether they were bothering.
You look at the person and you say, well, was this really necessary?
But in that case, let's assume they just left this rope or belt or cord or ligature.
What if he left it on?
Just kept pulling until the person was dead.
That's what happened here.
That's what will be argued.
That will be argued.
And that was critical.
That It is extremely critical because that is the argument that the prosecutor will say.
Look, what he did in trying to stop, good for him.
Trying to interrupt, trying to support, trying to protect, trying to help these strap hangers, good for him.
But he went too far!
They just, he kept, I mean, he didn't let go of him.
Two minutes, three minutes, the guy's not moving.
That's going to be the problem.
Now, between you and me, let's be honest, most people don't care.
Hey, that's what you get.
You know, when you go and you threaten people, you might run into an ex-Marine who might choke you out, hence, even though it's not a choke, may apply some kind of a restraint to you, and you may die in the meantime.
So that's the risk you take.
That's what happens, you idiot, you fool.
That's the risk you take.
But that's going to be the problem.
When the person was not responsive...
By the way, what about the other people who were holding him down?
Are they responsible?
Well, not really.
I mean, they were responsible, or they were assisting, if you will, in the...
And the subduing of him, not necessarily in the ligature, or the compression, I should say.
So while I think Mr. Penney deserves our praise, while I think he should be acquitted, while I hope it's a nullification rule, this is Manhattan.
Good luck with that.
This is an area that voted against Donald Trump like 99%.
I don't know what these people think.
I have no idea.
I would vote not guilty.
I would almost say, listen, do we have to have this trial yet?
I'm telling you right now I'm going to vote not guilty.
I'm just going to let you know.
So we'll go through and I'll pretend I'm listening to the evidence, but I'm telling you right now.
And that would be nullification.
The jury nullification prerogative.
Where I say, irrespective and notwithstanding the particular gravity or evidence that is adduced, I, nonetheless, find it...
I don't want to...
I feel sympathetic with him.
Like O.J. Simpson.
Like when the jury found for O.J. Simpson, you go, I'm okay.
O.J., not guilty.
Alright.
When the jury found, maybe perhaps even in the case of the bought-off juror, when they voted in favor of John Gotti, okay, well, what are you going to do?
These are things which need to be reviewed and need to be reviewed very, very carefully.
Now, my friends, I ask you to listen very heavily.
Think about this.
Think about the facts.
Always read the cases.
Always read the charges.
Go online.
Always read the jury instructions.
Jury instructions are better sometimes than just reading the statute.
And I think, and if there is a God, if there is some kind of a semblance of justice, Mr. Penny will not only be found not guilty and acquitted, he'll be handsomely remunerated by a...
A very grateful New York City.
What do you think?
Dear friend, dear colleague, dear patriot, please like this video.
Please subscribe to this channel.
I cannot ask you to do that enough.
Please hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
▲
Export Selection