The jury reached a verdict in the case of a former Marine restraining a drug-addled mentally afflicted man who mortally threatened subway passengers on a Manhattan subway. He was found not guilty. This verdict came on a lesser charge after the more serious charge of manslaughter resulted in a hung jury. This begs the question, what went on in the jury room, the hung jury obviously means that were jurors who voted for a guilty verdict. The acquittal was a result of a unanimous vote of not guilty. Some of the jurors who initially voted for a guilty verdict on a charge that was dismissed by the judge at the suggestion of the DA changed their minds and subsequently chose to vote not guilty. Was that a corollary to hearing more evidence? No. No further evidence was introduced. The judge in this case, a Judge Wiley, contradicted himself and changed his instructions to the jury. He told the jury, "You can only consider the culpability on the second charge of negligent homicide if you acquit on the first charge of manslaughter. However, since there was a hung jury on the first charge, DA Alvin Bragg suggested that the first charge be dropped and the jury deliberate on the second charge of negligent homicide. And the judge agreed. A mistrial was requested by the defense and summarily denied.
First, I have in a previous post labeled Alvin Bragg as a pig. I stand by that assessment. Bragg is a morally bankrupt, intellectually challenged slob. Somehow he has reached an elevated, elected position of law enforcement that implies an assumption of equality under the law for all. He's obviously incapable of doing that. Instead of a fair-minded arbiter of the law he is a political, racist thug. And, up to this point, unchecked. We are all still acutely aware of his behavior and antics in the case against Donald Trump. Bragg is an attorney, presumably trained in law. His job is to see that the law is applied fairly and equitably to all. Instead, he seems to see fit to apply it such that those who align with his ideologies are favored. To date he has succeeded in doing just that.
Daniel Penny has served his country as a U.S. Marine, has no record of breaking any laws. That day on the subway he saw a clear and present danger. An unstable person threatened innocent passengers with death in his presence. He chose to take action and neutralize the threat. His intention was clearly not to murder but to neutralize the threat. The threatening person died and the exact cause of death was arguable and mostly depended on the political perspective of the accusing party. However, it was proved that the threatening person was under the effects of drugs and suffered mental illness at the time. Did he deserve to die for his aggressions, of course not. Was Daniel Penney's intent to kill him, no. His intent was to protect innocent bystanders from injury or death.
This is America. We are afforded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by our constitution. If any of the aforementioned are threatened we have the right of defense. Daniel Penney was merely practicing his right of self defense and the defense of others whose life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness are being threatened. And he did...
