Daniel Penny: Subway Hero? Or Racist Murderer?

↑ Cheiny ↓

Mon, Dec 09 2024, 4:11 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

Sorry, maybe it's me. You've posted on this thread numerous times but for some reason you're careful not to give an opinion and instead participate in a way that keeps us guessing. I'm not sure why that is.

Isn’t it interesting that all those who’ve been defending Neely are also those who unabashedly sang Kamala’s praises and hate Trump. Coincidence? Hardly.

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Mon, Dec 09 2024, 8:26 pm

fleetwood wrote:

But I guess if he was found guilty then obviously it's a corrupt jury . Right???

1. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth....

2. Do you think it's possible that a jury can be corrupt? For example did you think that Trump would get an honest verdict when he was being tried in a district that voted against him to the tune of 85%?

I'm surprised you have so much faith in the system.

↑ fleetwood ↓

Mon, Dec 09 2024, 8:34 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

I have faith in the system..I've been part of the system. But admit that anytime a verdict doesn't go Trump's way..its always because the jury is corrupt. As if he's never guilty. Give me a break
The hypocrisy is astounding

↑ Hello99

Mon, Dec 09 2024, 8:52 pm

fleetwood wrote:

It is hard for any famous person to have an impartial jury especially someone as famous as the president of the united states. Do you think the jurors in his case didn't have any prejudice towards him? I believe that the same reason he was convicted in NY is the same reason the Florida case was dropped. In high profile cases it is hard for jurors to set aside their beliefs about a person and vote strictly based on the facts of the case. Did OJ do it?

↑ shoshanim999 ↓

Mon, Dec 09 2024, 10:30 pm

fleetwood wrote:

In fairness without even looking at specifics and details of a case involving Trump, I think it's obvious it would be literally impossible for him to get a truly impartial jury.

I'm not saying the jury is corrupt in that they are dishonest, only that they are disqualified because they have predetermined prejudicial opinions about Trump which should disqualify them.

Do you really think a district that voted 85% against Trump is impartial? Be fair.

And yes, I also think that many of the charges brought against Trump were only brought because he was the opposing candidate. To be honest, I think a person has to be completely brainwashed if they claim that all the cases against Trump were motivated entirely in the name of justice and weren't influenced by perceived political benefit.

↑ fleetwood ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 6:43 am

shoshanim999 wrote:

So what do you suggest? Because Trump has committed quite a few crimes in the past few decades. Do you prefer a trial by judge? I think not because if Trump is convicted than the judge must be corrupt. How about change of jurisdiction? Then what happens if Trump is convicted? Must be a corrupt jury because it's unfathomable to any of you that Trump could actually be guilty of something.

Back to Penney. Yes,he should have been arrested. This case needed to go to trial. There were so many questions of law and of fact that a trial was necessary. This is how things work in the criminal justice system. The D.A. could not have just decided to not charge Penney. Someone died here! A jury needed to decide if that death was a crime.

Penney was acquitted and now he will have to deal with a civil suit. Unfortunately for him he is not done with it all just yet ...

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 10:18 am

The Judge was biased to get a conviction.

When the judge dismissed charges after the jury was deadlocked on the first charge instead of declaring a mistrial,
The Judge broke the rules

The Judge was hoping the jury would agree to convict Penny on the lesser charge (4 years) as a compromise.

BH the judge's biased attempt to get a conviction didn't work.

↑ fleetwood ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 10:20 am

#BestBubby wrote:

What rules did the Judge break

icedcoffee ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 11:02 am

#BestBubby wrote:

It's the prosecutors who requested the top charge be dropped, in the hopes they could get him on the lesser charge instead of having a mistrial. The judge simply approved their request. What rule was broken?

↑ shoshanim999

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 11:55 am

icedcoffee wrote:

I don't know the law but it doesn't make sense that the prosecutor can simply request a charge be dropped during the trial if the jury deadlocked and then have them consider a lesser charge. And then I suppose if the jury can't decide again go 1 tier lower again?

Isn't that precisely the risk the prosecutor takes when deciding on the charges? If they aim too high the jury will either acquit or deadlock and have a mistrial.

And more importantly, the defense team didn't defend Penny against the lower charge. Their witnesses didn't necessarily help Penny with the lower charge. They were defending Penny against the manslaughter charge. How would it make sense for the jury to consider a negligent homicide verdict when Penny's defense team wasn't defending him for that? Can someone explain?

↑ miami85 ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 12:37 pm

fleetwood wrote:

What rules did the Judge break

In this case the Judge gave very specific instructions to consider the first charge only before going down. By dismissing the manslaughter charge the judge changed the metric of the case. I heard some legal analysis say that if it had been a lower charge initially, then the lawyers would've presented some evidence differently, possibly Penny would've testified in his own defense. Thus, it would've been taken up on appeal because the defendant couldn't properly defend against the lower charges.

Not sure how the jury was "deadlocked on Manslaughter", but acquitted on the lower charge, but I'm glad they did the right thing.

↑ fleetwood ↓

Tue, Dec 10 2024, 12:59 pm

miami85 wrote:

Again..what rule did the judge break?