Jump to content

Daniel Perry - NOT GUILTY

5GallonBucket

By 5GallonBucket
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

5GallonBucket

5GallonBucket

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

It sure is.  I think this is good news though. 

I guess…..I look at it more like “there is actual jurors that want to convict a man who protected others from a violent man with a known history”

Another reason why I don’t understand why anyone with any sense would live in a liberal city/county.

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

The judge dismissed the Manslaughter charge at the request of the prosecution. The other option was to declare a mistrial.

The judge has sent the jury back to deliberations for the lesser included offense of Criminal Negligent Homicide.

According to the way I read the judge’s comments, the jury could not move on to the lesser charge unless they have acquitted Penny of the more serious charge. If the judge declared a mistrial, the prosecution would have to start the whole thing over and I’m guessing that they could see the handwriting on the wall. They were definitely not going to get the Manslaughter charge which is basically murder, but in sudden passion in this case. 

For that reason, the prosecution asked for the dismissal of the Manslaughter. From my understanding of double Jeopardy, that charge can never be brought up again. If it was a mistrial, then the prosecution could go after Manslaughter a second time. With this dismissal, that charge is now forever off of the table.

If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision in the lesser charge, the judge will declare mistrial and the prosecution has to decide whether to do it all over again but only for the lesser charge. 

 

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, mat said:

I was kind of hoping they would convict him so Trump could pardon him on day one.

Trump could not have pardoned him. 

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, mat said:

Why not

The Constitution doesn’t allow it.

Trump would be the president, not the governor.

The president has the constitutional authority to pardon anyone for a federal crime. A president has absolutely no authority over a state crime.

 This was the state homicide.

It is dual sovereignty. Each state is a separate country within the federal authority of the United States. The president has no authority over state politics, which was pretty much the entire intent of the Constitution.

baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tvc184 said:

The Constitution doesn’t allow it.

Trump would be the president, not the governor.

The president has the constitutional authority to pardon anyone for a federal crime. A president has absolutely no authority over a state crime.

 This was the state homicide.

It is dual sovereignty. Each state is a separate country within the federal authority of the United States. The president has no authority over state politics, which was pretty much the entire intent of the Constitution.

Didn’t fleeing across state lines make it federal? Just curious.

CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted

I'm not up on the legal jargon, but you shouldn't squeeze the life out of somebody and then walk away.  The "victim" needed to be subdued... I don't have a problem with the choke hold to render him unconscious.  Hanging onto it until he's dead is a completely different story.  I'd be curious as to what kind of training the young man had.  If he knew that keeping the choke locked in would lead to death, then he was wrong, IMO.  

It's kind of the complete opposite of what happened with George Floyd.  The officer put a knee on Floyd's neck which did not result in Floyd's death.... but he was convicted anyways.  In this case the guy absolutely and without question choked the "victim" until he was dead.  But he gets a walk.  

It's like this... somebody threatens you and you have to protect yourself.  Punches are thrown, somebody gets KO'd and cracks their head on the pavement.  I get that there are some legal defenses in that scenario.  However, if you knock the assailant out, then stomp on his unconscious head until his brain is hanging out, you've committed a crime, imo.  Same thing here. 

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I'm not up on the legal jargon, but you shouldn't squeeze the life out of somebody and then walk away.  The "victim" needed to be subdued... I don't have a problem with the choke hold to render him unconscious.  Hanging onto it until he's dead is a completely different story.  I'd be curious as to what kind of training the young man had.  If he knew that keeping the choke locked in would lead to death, then he was wrong, IMO.  

It's kind of the complete opposite of what happened with George Floyd.  The officer put a knee on Floyd's neck which did not result in Floyd's death.... but he was convicted anyways.  In this case the guy absolutely and without question choked the "victim" until he was dead.  But he gets a walk.  

It's like this... somebody threatens you and you have to protect yourself.  Punches are thrown, somebody gets KO'd and cracks their head on the pavement.  I get that there are some legal defenses in that scenario.  However, if you knock the assailant out, then stomp on his unconscious head until his brain is hanging out, you've committed a crime, imo.  Same thing here. 

The difference between the two cases is political, jury mindset and also the difference between self defense and using force to take a person into custody. Obviously the officer who was holding down George Floyd was not doing so in self-defense so there is a different part of the law. 

I know that you are trying for an analogy. Saying that stomping out the brains of an unconscious man and holding onto a person are the same is beyond a stretch. If a person is unconscious and out of the fight, it is clearly not the same of a person who may still be struggling and who, if let up, may again by a threat.

I love what if scenarios but in this case let’s stick to what we know for the moment.

A guy came in and threatened people, apparently with at least implied death threats. Those people were trapped on a train. Penny tackled the guy and held onto him  

Remember in self defense the defendant has to prove NOTHING. Again, self defense does not have to be proven. 

 The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no way this was self defense. This isn’t even a tie goes to the runner in baseball but proving that the ball got to first base when the batter was still 5 feet away making it no doubt. 

If a juror believes that there is an 85% chance that this was not a case of lawful self defense but rather a homicide, the juror should be voting not guilty.

 That is a huge burden to overcome for the prosecution to prove that the death was not accidental in a case of self defense.

I agree with many people that this probably should never have even been brought to trial. In many jurisdictions it would not have been.

I was the supervisor on scene of a fatal shooting. Two guys got into an argument and one pulled a gun. Self defense? I have no clue, but he didn’t shoot. He just pulled to get the other guy to leave. The other guy left. 

 The other guy went and got his gun however and came back to the scene, maybe like a shootout in an old western. Remember that he had successfully left the scene and the threat. He was no longer in danger. He voluntarily came back to confront the guy. Is it stand your ground when you go get a gun and come back looking for a fight?

So the guy that left and came back with a gun, shot and killed the guy who had possibly pulled the first gun in his own self-defense.

The DA did not prosecute the case. Self defense….

 That is far different than the case we are discussing. In this case, Daniel Penny was thrown into a situation that he did not create and he was charged with a homicide. In the case I worked, obviously in a very different jurisdiction, a guy left the scene and voluntarily came back to the fight with a gun and was not charged.

Can you at least see the rationale that the jury may have had? Was there beyond a reasonable doubt that this was nothing more than a killing? 

5GallonBucket

5GallonBucket

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I'm not up on the legal jargon, but you shouldn't squeeze the life out of somebody and then walk away.  The "victim" needed to be subdued... I don't have a problem with the choke hold to render him unconscious.  Hanging onto it until he's dead is a completely different story.  I'd be curious as to what kind of training the young man had.  If he knew that keeping the choke locked in would lead to death, then he was wrong, IMO.  

It's kind of the complete opposite of what happened with George Floyd.  The officer put a knee on Floyd's neck which did not result in Floyd's death.... but he was convicted anyways.  In this case the guy absolutely and without question choked the "victim" until he was dead.  But he gets a walk.  

It's like this... somebody threatens you and you have to protect yourself.  Punches are thrown, somebody gets KO'd and cracks their head on the pavement.  I get that there are some legal defenses in that scenario.  However, if you knock the assailant out, then stomp on his unconscious head until his brain is hanging out, you've committed a crime, imo.  Same thing here. 

Have you ever been in such situation …. I ll answer no you haven’t 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,282
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Unknown472929300
    Newest Member
    Unknown472929300
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...