Author: MichaelEhline

Investigation Continues as Legal Consequences Await

Date: May 6, 2023 – Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Queens, has been publicly identified as the individual responsible for the tragic death of Jordan Neely.

“…had a series of run-ins with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.” (Source, CNN)

Penny, the Marine, had remained unnamed until online sleuths discovered and revealed his information on Thursday night, prompting the press to follow suit. Authorities had previously refused to disclose his identity, adding to the case’s mystery.

Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, released a statement on Friday night asserting that Penny acted in self-defense and to protect other passengers after Neely began aggressively threatening them.

“When Mr. Neely began aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers, Daniel, with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived,” said Kenniff.

Kenniff emphasized that Penny had no intention to harm Neely and could not have foreseen his untimely death. The statement also highlighted Neely’s documented history of violent and erratic behavior and drew attention to the mental health crisis in the City. The incident occurred on Monday afternoon aboard an F train, where Penny was captured on video choking Neely.

See the Video Here:

The distressing footage showed Penny tightly gripping Neely’s chin above the neck while another unidentified man held his arms. The conductor and others on the train called for police intervention, and eventually, a bystander warned Penny about the potential consequences of his actions. Penny released what the media incorrectly are calling a choke hold, and Neely, who appeared unconscious, was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.

Penny, a West Islip High School graduate, enlisted in the Marines in 2017 and achieved the rank of sergeant before leaving the service in 2021. According to his lawyer, he is currently a college student. People who knew Penny expressed mixed sentiments, with some sympathizing with his circumstances and believing he acted in self-defense, while others mourned Neely’s tragic death.

As the investigation unfolds, the far-left, Soros-connected Manhattan District Attorney’s office is considering potential charges against Penny. The decision of whether to present the case to a grand jury will determine if charges should be brought. Legal experts suggest that based on the available video evidence, charging Penny with murder may be challenging under state law, which requires proving the intention to kill. The press’s irresponsible use of the term “chokehold” is also reminiscent of the political show trial of Rittenhouse.

Charges of second-degree manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide are possibilities if prosecutors can convince a more likely than not all Democrat Grand Jury that Penny was not reasonably acting in self-defense, potentially influenced by cradle-to-grave CRT influences. Their thoughts are unavailable, but their beliefs are why they have Alvin Bragg. To strengthen the case, authorities urge additional witnesses to come forward with firsthand accounts. Their testimonies will be vital in assessing the events and determining the appropriate legal course. The New York Police Department has encouraged anyone who witnessed the attack and has not yet come forward to share any information they may have.

Penny, represented by criminal defense attorney Thomas Kenniff, has not commented. The legal process awaits him as the community and authorities grapple with the tragic loss of Jordan Neely and seek a fair resolution in this distressing case.

Could Political and Racial Bias Against Whites Lead to Another Rittenhouse Situation?

In recent times, discussions surrounding the Critical Race Theory (CRT) narrative and the pro-self-defense argument have garnered significant attention. This has led to passionate debates and diverging perspectives over when a white male can defend himself or others and not be accused of racism, misogyny, etc. CRT, an academic framework that analyzes the influence of race on societal structures, has become a focal point in discussions about systemic inequalities.

Concurrently, concerns about personal safety and the need for self-defense have gained prominence among individuals who fear the consequences of rising crime rates and instances of violence. This article explores these narratives objectively, presenting different viewpoints and encouraging inclusive dialogue, attempting to find common ground and promote understanding.

Our most recent example is New York; subways have become a cesspool of lawlessness. A former US Marine, who happened to be melanated (white male), stopped a violent, black male with a history of convictions for violent crime. Because the Marine is white, the press, BLM, and civil rights attorneys are already sensationalizing this case.

I am also an inactive US Marine. I am an expert in martial arts and have studied judo, BJJ, boxing, and other fighting arts my entire life. I am going to discuss this use of force from a neutral perspective and not assume, as academics do, that this case has anything to do with systemic racism. Having watched the Marine, it was clear that the choke was not deep for most of the hold and that he was trying to restrain the attacker while other passengers held down his arms until help could arrive. No racial slurs were used. The passengers were terrified of this aggressor, and that is why he was taken down. For legal reasons, this should be an open and shut case in virtually any other country or state than NY, DC, or California. Granted, the New York Times is already fueling a racist narrative to besmirch the Marine.

The Marine has no money, so the family is barking up the wrong tree if they think there is money. They can’t sue the City, as the police have zero duty to protect anyone. Their job is to protect the government unless they assume a duty to protect you. Let’s take a look at his known training.

Examining the Use of Rear Naked Chokes in Marine Corps Combat Training to Enhance Self-Defense Skills and Maintain Public Safety

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is known for its rigorous and comprehensive approach to self-defense training. One technique taught to Marines is the rear naked chokehold, a grappling maneuver that has raised discussions around its efficacy, safety, and potential implications for public safety. This article delves into the use of rear naked chokes in USMC training, exploring their purpose, application, and ongoing debates surrounding their usage.

The rear naked chokehold, a submission hold commonly employed in martial arts and combat sports, is taught to Marines as part of their hand-to-hand combat training. Its primary objective is to quickly and effectively neutralize an opponent by restricting blood flow to the brain, rendering them temporarily unconscious. The technique relies on precision, control, and understanding of the body’s vulnerable points, making it a valuable tool in high-stress situations.

Advocates of including rear naked chokes in USMC training argue that it provides Marines with a non-lethal alternative in scenarios where the use of lethal force may not be warranted. The ability to swiftly subdue an opponent can help prevent escalation and minimize harm to the Marine and the aggressor. Proponents argue that thorough training and strict adherence to protocols ensure the responsible and judicious application of this technique.

However, critics raise concerns regarding the potential risks associated with rear naked chokes, mainly when used outside the controlled training environment. Questions have been raised about the potential for injury, mostly if the technique is not applied correctly or if the recipient’s underlying health conditions make them more susceptible to harm. Critics also caution against the potential misuse of this technique by untrained individuals who lack the necessary knowledge and experience to execute it safely.

In response to these concerns, the USMC prioritizes comprehensive training and emphasizes strict adherence to guidelines and protocols. Marines undergo extensive training under the supervision of qualified instructors who ensure the proper execution and understanding of the technique. Additionally, ongoing assessments and evaluations help maintain proficiency and minimize the risk of injuries during training and real-world encounters.

It is crucial to note that rules of engagement and ethical considerations strictly govern Marines’ use of rear naked chokes. Marines are taught to prioritize de-escalation and to use force judiciously, employing the technique as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. The focus remains on maintaining public safety while preserving the lives of all individuals involved.

As debates continue around the use of rear naked chokes and other self-defense techniques, ongoing research, expert input, and open dialogue are essential to ensure the responsible application of such methods. Striking a balance between practical self-defense and public safety remains a priority for the USMC, which continually evolves its training programs to adapt to changing circumstances and ethical considerations.

Sources:

• United States Marine Corps Martial Arts Program Handbook. (n.d.). Retrieved from [link]
• Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2004). On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace. PPCT Research Publications.

Based on the video, if you look at a Marine’s forearm, you can see space between the trachea, and at least one jugular is not fully compressed. In any event, the Marine is not a police officer trained in restraint for NY Metro. He is arguing that he killed what he had to eliminate a very violent many, also known to be dangerous to women. These are irrefutable facts. Now, right away, the woke DA and City are looking at this as white on black, so obviously, the white Marine is a racist. Hence, despite letting criminals out of jail, including the one that this Marine just killed, it is systemic racism that caused all of this. CRT guides the City government. So let’s discuss.

Understanding Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) purports to mimic the framework that originated with the Black Nationalist Movement and crept into legal scholarship. It has since expanded to various disciplines. It examines how race intersects with social structures, power dynamics, and systemic oppression.

CRT proponents argue that racism is not merely a personal belief or action but is deeply embedded in societal institutions and norms. By exploring the intersectionality of race, class, and gender, CRT aims to shed light on how power imbalances perpetuate systemic inequalities. This section provides an overview of CRT’s fundamental principles and perspectives.

Examining the Pro Self-Defense Narrative

The Second Amendment and Individual Rights

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The language of the amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual’s inherent right. This section delves into the motivations and arguments behind the pro-self-defense narrative, addressing concerns about personal security and the role of civilians in ensuring public safety.

They argue that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to have the means to protect themselves, their families, and their property from threats, including acts of violence. The historical context of the Second Amendment provides insights into its interpretation. During the American Revolution, the colonists faced oppression and the threat of tyranny from the British government. The right to bear arms was seen as a fundamental safeguard against potential abuses of power. It served as a means for individuals to protect their liberties and resist oppression.

Court cases have further shaped the interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to possess firearms for self-defense within and outside their homes. This decision affirmed the individual aspect of the right to bear arms, recognizing self-defense as a core purpose of the Second Amendment.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that individuals have a natural right to protect themselves and their loved ones. They assert that the ability to possess firearms provides a sense of security and serves as a deterrent against criminals. They believe responsible gun ownership empowers individuals to take an active role in their safety. Supporters of CRT claim that since our founding fathers were white, the right to self-defense is also racist. Hence, there is no right to defend yourself since it is racist to do so.

Source:

• Cornell, S., & Gruen, M. (Eds.). (1999). The Second Amendment on Trial: Critical Essays on District of Columbia v. Heller. The University of Massachusetts Press.

2.2 Empowering Individuals through Self-Defense

The pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the importance of empowering individuals to protect themselves. Supporters argue that self-defense is a fundamental human right that should not be restricted. They believe individuals have the inherent right to defend their lives, property, and loved ones from imminent harm.

Advocates argue that self-defense training and the ability to carry firearms provide individuals with the means to respond effectively to threatening situations. They contend that responsible gun ownership and proper training and education can enhance personal safety and deter potential attackers. By having the tools and skills to defend themselves, individuals can assert their autonomy and take control of their security.

Additionally, proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative highlight the potential benefits of self-defense in reducing crime rates. They argue that an armed and vigilant citizenry can serve as a deterrent to criminals, as they are less likely to target individuals who may be armed and capable of defending themselves. They assert that allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense can create a safer society.

Source:

• Lott, J. R. (2013). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of Chicago Press.

2.3 Addressing Public Safety Concerns

Critics of the pro-self-defense narrative raise concerns regarding public safety and the potential risks associated with widespread gun ownership. They argue that increased access to firearms may lead to more accidents, acts of violence, or misuse of weapons. They point to incidents of gun-related tragedies and claim that stricter regulations are necessary to prevent such incidents.

Gun control advocates emphasize the need for comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands. They believe that a balanced approach to gun ownership, including responsible gun laws and regulations, is crucial to ensuring public safety while respecting the right to self-defense.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative acknowledge the importance of responsible gun ownership and advocate for proper training and education. They emphasize the need for individuals to be knowledgeable about firearm safety, handling, and storage to prevent accidents and misuse. They also recognize the importance of mental health evaluations and measures to control access to firearms for individuals with a history of violence or mental illness.

Source:

• Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

(2016). Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. JHU Press.

3. The Context of Encounter: Psychotic Individuals on Subways – Recognizing Mental Health Challenges

In discussing encounters with psychotic individuals on subways, it is essential to recognize the challenges posed by mental health issues. Psychosis refers to a mental state characterized by a loss of contact with reality, which can manifest in delusions, hallucinations, and disordered thinking. Individuals experiencing psychosis often require appropriate mental health support and treatment.

Here, the decedent,

Mental health disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, can contribute to episodes of erratic behavior. These conditions may lead individuals to exhibit unpredictable or disruptive conduct in public spaces, such as subways. It is crucial to approach these situations with empathy and understanding, recognizing that the individuals involved may need psychiatric assistance rather than criminalization.

Source:

• National Alliance on Mental Illness. (n.d.). Schizophrenia. Retrieved from https://www.nami.org/About-Mental-Illness/Mental-Health-Conditions/Schizophrenia

3.2 Exploring Factors Contributing to Erratic Behavior

Various factors can contribute to erratic behavior exhibited by individuals with mental health challenges. These factors may include a lack of access to adequate mental health care, medication non-compliance, or the presence of co-occurring substance use disorders. Stressful life events, trauma, or social isolation can also exacerbate symptoms and contribute to disruptive behavior.

It is important to address these underlying factors through comprehensive mental health support systems. Providing accessible and appropriate mental health services, including early intervention programs and community-based resources, can help individuals manage their conditions effectively and reduce the likelihood of disruptive incidents in public spaces.

Source:

• Kessler, R. C., Angermeyer, M., Anthony, J. C., et al. (2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6(3), 168–176.

3.3 Analyzing Perceived Threats and Fear in Public Spaces

Public safety concerns arise when individuals encounter psychotic individuals displaying erratic behavior in public spaces like subways. Recognizing individuals’ subjective experiences and fears in these situations is essential. Individuals may feel threatened or unsafe when confronted with unpredictable behavior, leading to heightened anxiety or fear.

It is essential to approach these concerns with sensitivity and address them through comprehensive strategies that balance safety and compassion. Promoting awareness and education about mental health conditions can help mitigate fears and foster empathy. Additionally, implementing training programs for law enforcement and public transportation staff can equip them with the skills to de-escalate situations involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Source:

• Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., et al. (2012). Challenging the Public Stigma of Mental Illness: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Studies. Psychiatric Services, 63(10), 963-973.

3. Comparative Analysis:

Critical Race Theory vs. Pro-Self-Defense

Approaches to Addressing Societal Injustices

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the pro-self-defense narrative offer distinct approaches to addressing societal injustices, albeit from different perspectives. CRT focuses on systemic racism and the impact of historical and structural factors on marginalized communities. It calls for institutional transformations and challenges the status quo to achieve racial equity and social justice.

In contrast, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual rights, particularly the right to self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment. It emphasizes personal autonomy.

It values personal autonomy and individuals’ ability to protect themselves and their loved ones from potential threats.

4.2 Emphasizing Collective Action vs. Individual Empowerment

CRT advocates argue that addressing societal injustices requires collective action and systemic change. They do this by silencing anyone they disagree with. They highlight the need for community engagement, policy reform, and challenging systemic structures perpetuating racial disparities. CRT focuses on the interconnectedness of social identities and aims to dismantle oppressive systems such as merit and earning things based on hard work, as hard work is racist. They do this through collective efforts, infiltrating public schools, colleges, and local school boards.

On the other hand, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual empowerment and personal responsibility. It highlights the role of self-defense as a means for individuals to assert their autonomy and protect themselves. Proponents argue that empowering individuals to defend themselves contributes to overall public safety.

4.3 Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The debate between CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative raises questions about balancing rights and responsibilities within society. CRT emphasizes the responsibility of institutions to address systemic racism and ensure equity, arguing that individual rights should not overshadow the collective well-being of marginalized communities. Conversely, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the right of individuals to protect themselves but also acknowledges the responsibility of owning firearms. Proponents often advocate for responsible gun ownership, including proper training, background checks, and adherence to laws and regulations.

4.4 Finding Common Ground for Social Justice

Despite their different perspectives, CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative can find common ground in addressing social justice issues. Both recognize the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and advocating for policies that promote safety, equity, and well-being. By engaging in constructive dialogue and understanding the underlying goals of each perspective, it is possible to bridge the gap and work towards comprehensive solutions. This may involve addressing both the faith-based, academic systemic factors contributing to alleged racial disparities and implementing measures to ensure responsible gun ownership that prioritizes public safety over skin color.

Sources:

• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
• Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. A. (2007). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 30(2), 649-694.

, who had