[Labyrinthos]

There’s a large disconnect between what you think the law should be and what NY law allows a person to do in self-defense of himself or others. Under NY law: “a person may use physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful] physical force by such individual.”

As applied to the case at issue, Penny must have first had a reasonable belief that Neely’s use of unlawful physical force was imminent; and second, Penny’s response must have been reasonably proportionate to the threat. What is “reasonable” in perceiving the threat and the response to the perceived threat are generally questions of fact for the grand jury and if the grand jury indicts, the trial jury.

Under NY law, verbal threats do not justify the use of physical force let alone deadly physical force. Like it or not, that’s the law. If Neely was throwing punches or kicks (regardless of whether he actually struck someone) or even stepped toward someone with a clenched fist, then Penny would have been justified in using non-deadly force to stop the threat. If Neely displayed a weapon while making verbal threats, the Penny would have justified in using non-deadly force and perhaps even deadly force to stop the threat. From everything that I have read, however, Neely’s threats were verbal only and he did not display a weapon, and there lies the problem.

[L.A.Justice]

Under NY law, verbal threats do not justify the use of physical force let alone deadly physical force. Like it or not, that’s the law. If Neely was throwing punches or kicks (regardless of whether he actually struck someone) or even stepped toward someone with a clenched fist, then Penny would have been justified in using non-deadly force to stop the threat. If Neely displayed a weapon while making verbal threats, the Penny would have justified in using non-deadly force and perhaps even deadly force to stop the threat. From everything that I have read, however, Neely’s threats were verbal only and he did not display a weapon, and there lies the problem.

Thanks for your explanation...It is useful...

I feel bad for Mr. Neely...I am sure that he had good intentions...But...He might get convicted in this case...

[libertarian66]

Resist, defy and struggle against any such laws. Smash the state. Especially NY state! And certainly, smash street criminals. The only mistake here was getting caught on the wrong side of some arbitrary rule called a “law.” Sure maybe next time wait for the next Neely to attack someone. And THEN put him in a chokehold. The time for passive cooperation is long, long gone.