Daniel Penny Jury Got It Wrong: Evidence Shows Guilt

Examining the Case: Arguments for Daniel Penny's Guilt in the Death of Jordan Neely

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, has been a focal point of public attention and legal scrutiny. While Penny was ultimately found not guilty on December 9, 2024, it's important to examine the arguments and evidence that were presented by the prosecution to understand the complexities of the case and the reasons why some believe Penny should have been held accountable.

Background of the Case

On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, was killed after being placed in a chokehold by Daniel Penny on a New York City subway. Neely, known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, had a history of mental illness and erratic behavior. On the day of the incident, witnesses described Neely as acting aggressively and making threatening statements. Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, intervened and restrained Neely in a chokehold for nearly six minutes, leading to Neely's death.

Prosecution's Arguments

The prosecution argued that Penny's actions were reckless and excessive, leading to Neely's death. Here are the key points presented by the prosecution:

1. Excessive Force: The prosecution contended that Penny used excessive force by maintaining the chokehold for an extended period, even after Neely had ceased to be a threat. They argued that Penny could have restrained Neely without causing his death. The city's medical examiner declared the chokehold to be the cause of Neely's death.

2. Lack of Immediate Threat: Prosecutors highlighted that Neely was not armed and did not pose an immediate threat to Penny or other passengers once he was subdued. They argued that Penny's continued use of the chokehold was unnecessary and demonstrated a disregard for Neely's life.

3. Medical Evidence: The prosecution presented medical evidence showing that Neely died from compression of the neck, which was consistent with the chokehold applied by Penny. This evidence was crucial in establishing the cause of death and linking it directly to Penny's actions.

4. Witness Testimonies: Several witnesses testified that Neely was subdued and no longer resisting when Penny continued to hold him in the chokehold. These testimonies supported the prosecution's argument that Penny's actions were excessive and unjustified.

Legal Standards and Charges

To convict Penny of criminally negligent homicide, the prosecution needed to prove that Penny caused Neely's death with criminal negligence and that his actions were not justified. Criminal negligence involves a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Broader Implications

The case of Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely has raised significant questions about public safety, mental health, and the use of force. The trial highlighted the challenges faced by individuals with mental illness and the need for better support systems. It also underscored the importance of appropriate responses to perceived threats and the potential consequences of excessive force.

The case has divided Americans with some believing Daniel Penny is a hero and others saying Jordan Neely did not deserve to be killed. Those who argue that Penny is a hero are mostly from the right-wing conservative faction in American politics. They view Penny's action as self-defense and claim Neely was violent and a threat to people in New York City and deserved what he got. Those who support Neely say that he was homeless and simply asking for food and water. He had mental illness and often had outbursts due to a lack of medication and overall treatment. The city failed to help him. They claim he is also a victim.  

We are now in a situation where people are bringing in politics and race. On social media, we are already seeing people (mostly non-Hispanic white right-wingers) attack blacks claiming they are the cause of violence, and focus on Neely's criminal record assassinating his character to deflect from his mental illness, homelessness situation, and lack of help from the city of New York.  They even go to the irrational extreme of claiming drugs killed Neely or Floyd when they were walking about without issue until they met their deaths at the arms and knees of white men.  We also see people attack Daniel Penny because he is Caucasian calling his chokehold move on Neely a "lynching."  Threats are being made to do to him what he did to Neely.  Sadly, it has come to this. The racism is in fact clear as day.  We are seeing a white vs back narrative subliminally presented in the arguments on both sides. People are forgetting the facts of the story.  

• Did Neely deserve to be chokehold to death? 
• Did Daniel Penny and others do the right thing and did they act in self-defense?

Based on what we know, the answer to these are not so easy, but the law can help.  In New York and 14 other states, there is a duty to retreat clause. This means that citizens have a duty to escape or get away from a violent situation if the opportunity is there. If there is no option to retreat, then citizens can use force, even kill the assailant.  

The duty to retreat does not apply to citizens when they are at home in New York at home, place of work, and at the car in other states.  The law varies from state to state. This is why people need to educate themselves.  Many times people, particularly conservatives, think that it is okay to kill someone who attacks you. They claim it is a "right" to self-defense. This is not true. 

One cannot just kill an attacker and claim self-defense.  Since this case between Neely and Penny happened in New York City, we will focus on the law in New York State. You can read more about laws in other states here (https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/).

In New York state, Article 35 of the penal code states:

  (c) The physical  force  involved  is  the  product  of  a  combat  by

agreement not specifically authorized by law.

  2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person

under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

  (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or

about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the

actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with

complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the

necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no

duty to retreat if he or she is:

  (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

  (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police

officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to

section 35.30; or

  (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing

or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape,  forcible  criminal

sexual act or robbery; or

  (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing

or  attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that

the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of

section 35.20.

- https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.php   

So, as you read, there is a duty to retreat in New York State.  Daniel and the others had to retreat and not engage Neely unless there was no option to retreat. In light of this, Daniel Penny and the riders involved need to be charged for killing Jordan Neely. He broke the law (duty to retreat clause) of NY state. Screaming out for food, and water, or even throwing garbage does not warrant being choked to death.  Nor does having a criminal record.  Citizens cannot take the law into their own hands. This is not self-defense. Daniel and others had a duty to retreat.

Subway cars have end doors where people can move between cars.  They have emergency brakes that stop a moving train, allowing for exiting.  Attached are photos.  Moreover, cars have emergency windows that can be removed to exit.  There is no excuse.  The MTA offers guidelines here mentioning the emergency windows and how to exit a subway car, see: http://new.mta.info/document/76901.  If not charged, this will empower people to kill others for any outburst, whether mental illness-related or not. Even autistic people will be in danger depending on where on the spectrum they are and if this causes them to behave violently. People will kill others just for being bumped on a train, bus, or sidewalk.  We cannot have this in a civilized society where the rule of law supersedes.  Jordan Neely had a mental illness and was not helped. He could not help how he behaved due to it.  He did not deserve to be killed.  Attacking his character does nothing but turn the attacker into a despicable human being lacking morals and compassion.  Justice must be served.  The rule of law must matter.

In 2017, I served on a trial where a young man killed an elderly man with a metal pipe in the South Bronx (see: https://bronx.news12.com/jason-rivera-charged-in-death-of-80-year-old-manuel-rosario-at--york-grill-deli-34829640). In the video, we saw both men arguing. The young man walks out of the store and the elderly man goes to the back of the bodega and grabs a pipe going after the young man.  We see another cell video of both arguing outside and the young man hitting the elderly man with a pipe.  Many of the jurors thought the younger guy was defending himself. However, I brought up the duty to retreat clause and before deliberation, the judge told us the law.  

I remember this when studying paralegal in high school.  We did internships at the Bronx Court House on the Grand Concourse and 161st.  Like conservatives on social media, the jury I was with assumed the young guy was legitimately defending himself. However, this was not the case.  He had a duty to retreat. The elderly man was really no threat. He easily took the pipe away from him.  Therefore, the young man could have left with the pipe, tossed it aside and left, or simply just called 911 while holding the pipe and not engaging the elderly man. Instead, he took the pipe away and began to beat the elderly man fracturing his cheekbone and skull overall.  A few of the jurors got upset with me because I took the case seriously. They just wanted to issue a verdict and go back to their jobs. They were worried about not getting a paycheck. I was more concerned about justice. 

Two young Dominican guys were even making snarky remarks causing the older jurors to shake their heads in disbelief and call them out for their immaturity.  Anyhow, my delay in the deliberation worked and the right decision was made that even the judge, district attorney, and court officers applauded us. 

The other jurors pointed me out as the reason for delaying deliberations.   We ended up deciding a guilty verdict for manslaughter against the young man. He may have thought he was defending himself because the elderly man went after him with a pipe, but that was not self-defense.  He had a duty to retreat.  Similarly, Neely was not truly a threat. Screaming and crying out for food is not a threat.  It is a disturbance of the peace.  

Conclusion

While Daniel Penny was ultimately found not guilty, the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution provide a compelling case for why some believe he should have been held accountable for Jordan Neely's death.  In my opinion, based on my juror experience, my legal studies and other cases, Daniel Penny is guilty.  Some are making the argument that Neely was threatening and that threats can result in the loss of your life under self-defense, but let us examine the law in NY.

In New York, the law surrounding self-defense is quite specific. Under New York Penal Law, you are allowed to use physical force to defend yourself or others if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent harm. However, the use of deadly physical force is only justified under certain conditions.

Key Points of New York Self-Defense Law:

1. Reasonable Belief: You must have a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. This means that the threat must be immediate and not just a verbal threat without any accompanying physical aggression.

2. Imminent Threat: The threat must be imminent, meaning it is about to happen. If someone makes a threat but does not take any immediate action to carry it out, using deadly force may not be justified.

3. Proportional Force: The force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat faced. Deadly force can only be used if there is a serious threat of death or serious physical injury.

4. Duty to Retreat: New York follows the "duty to retreat" principle, which means that if you can safely avoid the threat by retreating, you are required to do so before using deadly force. However, this duty does not apply if you are in your own home.

In summary, while you can use physical force to defend yourself if you believe you are in immediate danger, using deadly force is only justified if the threat is imminent and serious, and if you cannot safely retreat. It's always best to consult with a legal professional to understand the specifics of your situation. So as you can read, it is not black and white. One cannot say every threat is "imminent and serious" and one cannot immediately react physically. The situation must analyzed carefully. 

This is why this trial was not decided properly under the law. There was no justification for Daniel Penny killing Jordan Neely.  The jury simply did not take the case seriously or was coerced by social media to other parties.  The verdict simply does not make sense and invalidates NY State law. Because of this decision, it is open season now against the homeless, people with mental illness, or other disabilities which makes them prone to outbursts and emotional and mental episodes. 

I feel like going to the Bronx Criminal Court to talk to the judge in the case where I served as a juror in 2017. We decided on a guilty verdict for a young Hispanic man in his mid-20s who killed an older man after the older man confronted him with a metal pipe. After the Daniel Penny verdict, this young man should be freed. It is only fair. Unless there is one set of rules for non-Hispanic whites and another for African Americans and Hispanic Americans. 

The Abel Cedeno case needs a relook as well. He was 18 years old when he fought off two younger African American classmates who had bullied him for years or months. His mom complained but school officials did nothing. Abel complained, and the school ignored him. So one day, he brought a blade/knife to school. 

The bullies harassed him and assaulted him with paper balls, spitballs, and pencils and Abel snapped and confronted them and a fight broke out. One of the bullies got stabbed in the chest and later died. Abel, an LGBTQIA youth was arrested, charged, and sentenced to 14 years for manslaughter and 8 for assault. Daniel Penny kills Jordan Neely with a chokehold -his Marine instructor never taught him and who testified it was performed wrong- who was merely screaming that he was hungry and only had a muffin in his pocket and is exonerated.

Something is way off here where two young Hispanic men get imprisoned for literally defending themselves and a White non-Hispanic young male gets exonerated for attacking and choking a homeless man with mental illness to death who was simply having a mental health episode.

As stated, it is not open season one the homeless, etc.  We will see people killing each other now and crying out in self-defense.  We will see people calling everything a threat and attacking people who allegedly make them.  In the Bronx, I remember my friends saying to each other platonically, "I will F*ck you up!" This, of course, can be interpreted as, "I will beat you up."  Today, I still hear the youth saying the same line to each other playfully.  Will one of these youths get choked to death because they say the phrase which can be interpreted as a verbal threat of physical violence?  

In New York City, we often see Protestant preachers on the street yelling and shouting and sometimes condemning random people to hell. They yell extremely loudly with microphones and speakers and even without them. Their screams can be unnerving and annoying causing one's blood to boil, so to speak. This is especially true when they target gays or even Catholics with images of the crucifix of Mary on their person of ten condemning them to hell or calling them idolaters or sinners.  Their shouting and condemnations can be considered a "threat." Does this mean gays and Catholics can choke them to death?  What about protestors? We are seeing the more often now due to the Israel-Palestine conflicts. They often get rowdy and say "threatening" things. Will they get choked out as well now? Will this be okay and legal?  Where do we draw the line?  This is what the Daniel Penny verdict has brought upon New York City.  

I have nothing against Daniel Penny and hope he is safe now in his free life despite having a permanent target on his back, but he had to face the consequences of the violations of the law he made and the death of Jordan Neely. He is young and made a mistake thinking it to be the right thing to do.  He did not have to play "hero."  In New York City, we will see all kinds of strange and odd behavior. I remember in the Bronx as I sat at a park in the Little Italy area there was a homeless unkept looking lady. She was sitting on one of the benches. She had a dress or nightgown-looking attire like what elderly women wear. Out of nowhere, she lifted her dress grabbed her labia majora, and began to urinate using her hand to guide the stream of urine.  People around gasped in shock and disgust and ran off.  

She was known in the area and was often aggressive with people.  One time when I went to get my PO Box mail, she asked me for money and I did not have and told her, she then slightly hit the letters in my hand when I passed by her out of frustration.  I did not attack her back or choke her to death. It was no big deal.  I did not see her as a threat.  Unfortunately, before the pandemic, I found out from friends at the 48th precinct of the NYPD at the Build the Block meetings that she was a victim of assault. Someone attacked her, beat her up, urinated on her, and broke her legs.  However, this article says she was hit by a car (https://bronx.news12.com/20yearold-man-arrested-for-peeing-on-homeless-woman-in-the-bronx-42132848).  It took this evil act for the city to finally get her help!

Had Daniel Penny been around her, he probably would have choked her to death just for her erratic behavior! We cannot have this!  This cannot be the norm.  As stated, New York City is full of people like Neely and this homeless woman from the Bronx. They are now prime targets of overzealous people looking to play Batman as vigilantes.  This is a bad precedent that the Daniel Penny verdict now begins in one of the largest and most crime-plagued cities in the world. 

Jordan Neely needed help and never got it. All he had on him was a muffin, no weapons.  He was not a threat. The Daniel Penny trial shows us that the stereotype of black people being scary still exists. We often hear of the "Angry Black woman." These are stereotypes created by racists which are meant to tarnish black people.  Even today on social media, we see statements like "usual suspects," or statements like "show the color of the person," "we can assume what people did it..' and things like that which insinuate that Black people are automatically criminal by nature.  These are racist statements that stem from non-Hispanic Whites being raised to fear Black people.  Daniel Penny and others who claim Neely was a threat perpetuate this racist sentiment.   

This is why Black Lives Matter was formed. While some of its founding members have missed donations, the overall purpose of this movement was to highlight that Black people are targeted and are treated like they do not matter.  I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if Daniel Penny was Black and Jordan Neely was White.  Would he have gotten a not-guilty verdict? 

As a relative and friend of many people with Autism, I now worry for them that someone might come "to the rescue" and choke them out just because of their antics and outbursts which are often seen by ignorant people as a "threat" or "strange."  They simply are not educated on what Autism is and are prejudged.  Hopefully, Attorney General Leticia James and Governor Hochul will do something to protect people in New York from being victims of people claiming to "come to the rescue."  

We still need to work hard for a world where Black Lives Matter, Homeless Lives Matter, Mentally Ill Lives Matter, and White people can live and not be paranoid of people of color.  

The trial serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal proceedings and the importance of a fair and thorough judicial process. It also highlights the need for ongoing discussions about justice, safety, and mental health in our society.  

We pray for all involved; for Daniel Penny, the soul of Jordan Neely, and their families. It is not an easy situation.  No on is truly at fault. No one helped Jordan Neely and Daniel Penny should not have been put in that situation or placed himself in that situation.  We may escape man-made "justice," but in the end we all will be judged by the Creator, the Just Judge who is The Truth and cannot be deceived nor holds any bias or agendas.  

Sources:

: [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/daniel-penny-trial-spotlighted-issues-homelessness-mental-illness/story?id=116603921)

: [MSNBC](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/daniel-penny-found-not-guilty-jordan-neely-verdict-rcna183265)

: [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/daniel-penny-verdict-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely/)

: [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-penny-found-not-guilty-chokehold-death-jordan-neely-rcna180775)

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

Daniel Penny not guilty in Jordan Neely death – NBC Boston

Daniel Penny acquitted in NYC subway chokehold case over Jordan Neely’s death | PBS News

Daniel Penny found not guilty in chokehold death of Jordan Neely

Daniel Penny acquitted in NYC subway chokehold case over Jordan Neely's death

Veteran Daniel Penny is acquitted in NYC subway chokehold case over Jordan Neely's death

: [FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/state/new-york-law/new-york-self-defense-laws.html)

: [Vitaliano Law](https://www.vitalianolaw.com/blog/new-york-self-defense-laws/)

Daniel Penny Trial Update VI

Title: The Daniel Penny Trial: A Complex Journey Through Justice

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, has been a focal point of public attention and legal scrutiny. As the trial progresses, recent developments have added layers of complexity to an already intricate case. This blog post delves into the latest updates, including the dropping of charges and the jury's deadlock.

Background of the Case

On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, was killed after being placed in a chokehold by Daniel Penny on a New York City subway. Neely, known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, had a history of mental illness and erratic behavior. On the day of the incident, witnesses described Neely as acting aggressively and making threatening statements. Penny, a 25-year-old Marine veteran, intervened and restrained Neely in a chokehold for nearly six minutes, leading to Neely's death.

The Charges

Daniel Penny was initially charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The prosecution argued that Penny's actions were reckless and excessive, leading to Neely's death. The defense, on the other hand, contended that Penny acted in self-defense and in defense of other passengers on the subway.

Jury Deliberations and Deadlock

The jury began deliberations on the charges against Penny on December 3, 2024. After more than 20 hours of deliberation over several days, the jury reported that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the second-degree manslaughter charge. This deadlock prompted Judge Maxwell Wiley to issue an Allen charge, instructing the jury to continue deliberating and make every possible effort to reach a verdict.

Despite the judge's instructions, the jury remained deadlocked on the manslaughter charge. The defense requested a mistrial, arguing that the Allen charge could be coercive. However, Judge Wiley denied the request, stating that it was too early to declare a mistrial and encouraged the jury to continue their deliberations.

Dropping of the Manslaughter Charge

On December 6, 2024, after further deliberations, the jury informed the judge that they were still unable to reach a unanimous decision on the manslaughter charge. In response, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the manslaughter charge to allow the jury to consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. The defense again requested a mistrial, but the judge granted the prosecution's request, allowing the jury to focus on the remaining charge.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Throughout the trial, jurors heard testimonies from various witnesses, including subway passengers, police officers, medical experts, and a Marine Corps instructor who taught Penny chokehold techniques. The testimonies provided a detailed account of the events leading up to Neely's death and the immediate aftermath.

Jurors also reviewed video footage recorded by bystanders and police body cameras, which captured the chaotic scene on the subway and Penny's interactions with law enforcement. These videos were crucial in illustrating the context of the incident and the actions taken by Penny.

Broader Implications

The Daniel Penny trial has raised significant questions about public safety, mental health, and the use of force. The case has divided public opinion, with some viewing Penny as a protector of fellow subway riders and others seeing him as a vigilante who took the law into his own hands. The trial has also highlighted the challenges faced by individuals with mental illness and the need for better support systems.

Conclusion

As the jury continues to deliberate on the charge of criminally negligent homicide, the outcome of the Daniel Penny trial remains uncertain. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal proceedings and the importance of a fair and thorough judicial process. Regardless of the verdict, the trial has sparked important conversations about justice, safety, and mental health in our society.

If Penny is exonerated, this will lead to an open season on the homeless, mentally ill and vigilantism. People will be killed just for acting strangely or screaming.  Citizens will take it upon themselves to become "heroes" and kill people under a false pretense of "self-defense."  

Sources:

: [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/daniel-penny-jury-trial-vote-jordan-neely/story?id=116404879)

: [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/daniel-penny-trial-top-manslaughter-charge-dismissed-in-nyc-subway-chokehold-case-after-jury-deadlock/ar-AA1vpMbr)

: [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jury-daniel-penny-trial-tells-judge-cant-reach-agreement-manslaughter-rcna183185)

: [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/jury-in-daniel-penny-trial-tells-judge-they-can-t-reach-agreement-on-manslaughter-charge/ar-AA1voU4m)

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

Daniel Penny Trial Update V

Title: The Daniel Penny Trial: Closing Arguments and the Path to Justice

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, has captivated public attention and sparked intense debate. As the trial reaches its final stages, the closing arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense offer a comprehensive view of the case and its broader implications.

Background of the Case

On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, was killed after being placed in a chokehold by Daniel Penny on a New York City subway. Neely, known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, had a history of mental illness and erratic behavior. On the day of the incident, witnesses described Neely as acting aggressively and making threatening statements. Penny, a 25-year-old Marine veteran, intervened and restrained Neely in a chokehold for nearly six minutes, leading to Neely's death.

Prosecution's Closing Arguments

The prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran, argued that Penny's actions were reckless and excessive. They emphasized that Penny held Neely in a chokehold for far too long, even after Neely ceased to be a threat. The prosecution presented evidence from the city's medical examiner, who concluded that the chokehold caused Neely's death. They also highlighted video footage showing Penny demonstrating the chokehold to police, which they argued showed a clear understanding of the potential lethality of his actions.

Yoran stated, "Under the law, deadly physical force such as a chokehold is permitted only when it is absolutely necessary and for only as long as is absolutely necessary. And here, the defendant went way too far". The prosecution contended that Penny's actions were not justified and that he acted with indifference to Neely's life.

Defense's Closing Arguments

The defense, represented by attorney Steven Raiser, painted a different picture. They argued that Penny acted in self-defense and in defense of other passengers on the subway. Raiser described Neely as "violent and desperate," causing passengers to be "frozen with fear". The defense contended that Penny did not intend to kill Neely but was forced to maintain the chokehold out of fear that Neely would break free and pose a further threat.

Raiser also challenged the prosecution's medical evidence, presenting an alternate theory that Neely's death was caused by a combination of factors, including a genetic condition, synthetic marijuana in his system, and the struggle itself. The defense argued that Penny's actions were not those of a vigilante but of a concerned individual trying to protect others.

Key Testimonies and Evidence

Throughout the month-long trial, jurors heard testimonies from various witnesses, including subway passengers, police officers, medical experts, and a Marine Corps instructor who taught Penny chokehold techniques. The testimonies provided a detailed account of the events leading up to Neely's death and the immediate aftermath.

Jurors also watched videos recorded by bystanders and police body cameras, which captured the chaotic scene on the subway and Penny's interactions with law enforcement. These videos were crucial in illustrating the context of the incident and the actions taken by Penny.

Broader Implications

The Daniel Penny trial has raised significant questions about public safety, mental health, and the use of force. The case has divided public opinion, with some viewing Penny as a protector of fellow subway riders and others seeing him as a vigilante who took the law into his own hands. The trial has also highlighted the challenges faced by individuals with mental illness and the need for better support systems.

Conclusion

As the jury prepares to deliberate, the closing arguments have provided a comprehensive overview of the case and the key issues at stake. The outcome of the trial will have far-reaching implications, not only for Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely's family but also for broader societal discussions on justice, safety, and mental health. The trial serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in such cases and the importance of a fair and thorough judicial process.

---

: [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/closing-arguments-daniel-penny-trial-jordan-neely/story?id=116198488)

: [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/daniel-penny-trial-enters-closing-arguments-in-jordan-neelys-subway-chokehold-death/ar-AA1v7azd)

: [ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/closing-arguments-expected-monday-daniel-penny-trial/story?id=116350793)

: [AP News](https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny-nyc-subway-chokehold-death-trial-f1c93630217a3abb9e675db465ebe272)

: [NBC New York](https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/daniel-penny-trial-closing-arguments/6031882/)

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

Trial of Daniel Penny: Part III

The Trial of Daniel Penny: A Comprehensive Overview

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, has captivated the nation, drawing attention to issues of public safety, mental health, and the use of force. Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide following the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, on a New York City subway in May 2023. This blog post delves into the details of the trial, witness accounts, video evidence, and the medical examiner's testimony.

Background of the Case

On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely boarded a northbound F train in Manhattan. Witnesses reported that Neely, who was known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, began behaving erratically, shouting that he was hungry, thirsty, and unafraid of going to jail. Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, intervened by placing Neely in a chokehold, which he maintained for several minutes. Neely lost consciousness and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.

Witness Accounts

The trial featured testimony from numerous witnesses who were present on the subway that day. One witness, Eric Gonzalez, testified that he assisted Penny in restraining Neely, hoping that Penny would release the chokehold. Gonzalez stated that he told Penny, "I'm going to grab his hands so you can let go," but Penny did not release Neely until he went limp.

Another witness, Moriela Sanchez, made a 911 call during the incident, describing Neely's threatening behavior and expressing relief when Penny intervened. However, she also testified that Penny's hold seemed excessively tight and appeared to be intended to harm Neely.

Video Evidence

Video footage played a crucial role in the trial. Bystander videos captured the moments leading up to and following the chokehold. One video, recorded by Ivette Rosario, showed Penny maintaining the chokehold even after Neely had stopped moving. Rosario testified that she heard other passengers warning Penny that he was going to kill Neely.

Additionally, body camera footage from responding officers and Penny's voluntary police stationhouse interview were presented in court. In the interview, Penny demonstrated the chokehold and claimed he did not apply pressure, stating, "I just wanted to keep him from getting to people".

Medical Examiner's Testimony

Dr. Cynthia Harris, the medical examiner who performed Neely's autopsy, testified that Neely's cause of death was compression of the neck, or asphyxia. Harris presented autopsy photos showing hemorrhaging in Neely's neck, chest, and spleen, as well as small pools of blood in his eyes from ruptured blood vessels. She explained that these injuries were consistent with being placed in a chokehold for nearly six minutes.

Harris also addressed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids (K2) in Neely's system, but she testified that the drug did not contribute to his death. She emphasized that Neely's death was a direct result of the chokehold, stating, "It's my medical opinion that there are no alternative reasonable explanations for Mr. Neely's death".

Closing Arguments

In their closing arguments, the prosecution argued that Penny's actions were unnecessarily reckless and showed an indifference to Neely's life. They highlighted the duration of the chokehold and the warnings from other passengers as evidence of Penny's excessive use of force.

The defense, on the other hand, contended that Penny acted in self-defense and was trying to protect other passengers from Neely's threatening behavior. They argued that Penny's military training influenced his actions and that he did not intend to kill Neely.

Conclusion

The trial of Daniel Penny has raised important questions about the use of force, public safety, and the treatment of individuals experiencing mental health crises. As the jury deliberates, the nation watches closely, awaiting a verdict that will have significant implications for similar cases in the future.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in such incidents and the need for a nuanced understanding of the factors at play. Whether Penny's actions were justified or excessive is a matter for the jury to decide, but the trial has undoubtedly sparked a broader conversation about how society addresses these challenging situations.

More information:

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

Video makes clear that Jordan Neely died from fatal chokehold, even if he had enough drugs in his system to 'put down an elephant': ME

NYC medical examiner testifies at Daniel Penny trial in Jordan Neely chokehold | Fox News

Daniel Penny Trial Highlights Debate On Chokehold Use - The Pinnacle Gazette

Daniel Penny's chokehold was sole cause of Jordan Neely's death, medical examiner testifies

Trial of Daniel Penny: Part II

The Trial of Daniel Penny: A Comprehensive Overview

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, has captivated public attention due to the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway in May 2023. Penny faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide for allegedly fatally choking Neely, a well-known Michael Jackson impersonator who was reportedly threatening passengers on the subway. This blog post provides a detailed account of the trial, including witness testimonies, video evidence, and the broader implications of the case.

Background of the Case

On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely boarded a northbound F train in New York City. Witnesses reported that Neely, who was experiencing homelessness and mental health issues, began making aggressive comments and threatening passengers. Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old former Marine, approached Neely from behind and placed him in a chokehold. Neely was later pronounced dead at a hospital, with his death ruled a homicide by compression of the neck.

Key Developments in the Trial

1. Opening Statements: The trial began with opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution argued that Penny used excessive force and continued the chokehold for nearly six minutes, well past the point when Neely posed any threat. The defense contended that Penny acted to protect himself and other passengers from Neely's aggressive behavior.

2. Witness Testimonies: 

   - Eric Gonzalez: One of the key witnesses, Eric Gonzalez, testified that he helped Penny restrain Neely by holding his hands, hoping Penny would release the chokehold. Gonzalez admitted to initially lying to the police about Neely trying to hit him, stating he did so to justify his actions.

   - Caedryn Schrunk: Another witness, Caedryn Schrunk, described Neely's behavior as threatening and said she felt a sense of relief when Penny restrained him. She testified that Neely did not physically attack anyone but made aggressive threats.

   - Johnny Grima: Grima testified that he tried to help Neely by pouring water on his forehead after Penny released the chokehold. He expressed frustration that Penny told him to stop.

3. Expert Testimonies: 

   - Joseph Cavaller: A former Marine sergeant who trained Penny, explained the different types of chokeholds. He testified that a "blood choke" applies pressure to the carotid artery and should not be held for more than five seconds in training. Cavaller noted that Penny's chokehold appeared to be an attempted figure-four blood choke but could have been an air choke.

4. Video Evidence: 

   - Body Camera Footage: Jurors were shown body camera footage of Penny's initial encounter with police, where he explained his actions and expressed that he was trying to de-escalate the situation.

   - Cellphone Videos: Videos taken by witnesses on the subway were also presented in court. These videos showed Penny restraining Neely while bystanders pleaded for him to let go.

Broader Implications

The trial has sparked widespread debate and divided public opinion. Some view Penny as a good Samaritan who acted to protect others, while others see him as a vigilante who overreacted. The case has also highlighted issues related to mental health, homelessness, and the use of force in self-defense situations.

Conclusion

As the trial continues, it remains to be seen how the jury will interpret the evidence and testimonies presented. Daniel Penny faces up to 19 years in prison if convicted. The outcome of this trial will likely have significant implications for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the use of force and the treatment of individuals experiencing mental health crises.

For more detailed updates on the trial, you can follow the coverage on 

[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/daniel-penny-trial-jordan-neely-chokehold-death-martial-arts-instructor-1986054), 

[ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-daniel-penny-restrain-jordan-neely-speaks/story?id=115515853), and

 [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/daniel-penny-subway-chokehold-death-trial-witnesses/).

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

 

Trial of Daniel Penny: Part 1

The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine, has garnered significant attention due to the circumstances surrounding the death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway in 2023. Penny is facing charges of second-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide for allegedly fatally choking Neely, a well-known Michael Jackson impersonator who was reportedly threatening passengers on the subway.

Key Developments in the Trial

1. Martial Arts Instructor's Testimony: Joseph Cavaller, a former Marine sergeant who trained Penny, testified about the different types of chokeholds. He explained that a "blood choke" applies pressure to the carotid artery to knock someone out, while an "air choke" puts pressure on the Adam's apple. Cavaller noted that in training, a blood choke is never held for more than five seconds.

2. Incident Details: On the day of the incident, Neely was reportedly making aggressive comments and threatening passengers. Penny approached Neely from behind and placed him in a chokehold. Neely was later pronounced dead at a hospital, with his death ruled a homicide by compression of the neck.

3. Witness Testimonies: Witnesses have provided varying accounts of the incident. Some described Neely's behavior as threatening, while others noted that he did not physically attack anyone. Eric Gonzalez, a Bronx man who helped Penny restrain Neely, testified that he tried to assist Penny in releasing the chokehold by holding Neely's hands.

4. Defense and Prosecution Arguments: The defense argues that Penny acted to protect himself and other passengers, using a headlock to restrain Neely without applying excessive force. They have questioned the medical examiner's findings, suggesting Neely's health problems and drug use could have contributed to his death. The prosecution, however, contends that Penny's military training should have made him aware of the potential lethality of the chokehold.

5. Expert Testimonies: Experts on chokeholds have testified about the techniques used and the potential dangers. They have discussed the differences between blood chokes and air chokes, and the appropriate duration for applying such holds.

Broader Implications

The trial has sparked widespread debate and divided public opinion. Some view Penny as a good Samaritan who acted to protect others, while others see him as a vigilante who overreacted. The case has also highlighted issues related to mental health, homelessness, and the use of force in self-defense situations.

As the trial continues, it remains to be seen how the jury will interpret the evidence and testimonies presented. Penny faces up to 19 years in prison if convicted.

For more detailed updates on the trial, you can follow the coverage on 

[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/daniel-penny-trial-jordan-neely-chokehold-death-martial-arts-instructor-1986054), 

[ABC News](https://abc7ny.com/post/daniel-penny-trial-former-marine-misused-combat-technique-nyc-deadly-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely-trainer-testifies/15545913/), and 

[NewsNation](https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/daniel-penny-chokehold-testify/).

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/05/marine-daniel-penny-kills-homeless.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-jordan-williams-self.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/10/trial-begins-for-marine-daniel-penny.html

https://www.sacerdotus.com/2023/06/daniel-penny-arraigned-jordan-williams.html

Appeals Court Knocks Down NY Non-Citizen Voting Rights

NYC’s Non-Citizen Voting Law Ruled Unconstitutional on Appeal

In a significant ruling, a state appeals court has declared that a New York City law allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections is unconstitutional. This decision marks a victory for Republican elected officials who had challenged the law in court.

The contested law, known as the "Our City, Our Vote" bill, was passed in 2022 with the aim of allowing green card holders and other individuals living in New York City with federal work authorization to participate in local elections for offices such as mayor and City Council. The law would have applied to approximately 800,000 new eligible voters in a city with a population of 8.5 million.

Championed by progressive Democrats, supporters argued that the bill would make politics more representative and create a more inclusive environment for immigrants. However, opponents—primarily Republicans—expressed concerns about potential logistical challenges leading to voter fraud. Some critics also suggested that Democrats were motivated by a desire to bolster their own numbers.

The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by several plaintiffs, including Council Republican leader Joe Borelli, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, and Borough President Vito Fossella. A Staten Island lower court judge initially struck down the law months after it was enacted in January 2022.

The recent appeals court ruling was based on two key points:

1. State Constitution: The court determined that the clause in the New York State Constitution stating that "every citizen shall be entitled to vote" refers exclusively to United States citizens. Therefore, non-citizens do not fall under this provision.

2. Municipal Home Rule Law: The court ruled that changes to elections must be passed by voter referendum rather than solely by a local legislature. Allowing non-citizens to vote would constitute a significant change, and the council and mayor failed to put this issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

Appellate Judge Paul Wooten wrote in the majority decision: "We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void."

While Mayor Eric Adams' administration had defended the law and appealed the lower court's ruling against it, this latest decision upholds Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio's initial ruling from June 2022.

Judge Lilian Wan issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that invalidating the noncitizen voting law effectively prevents municipalities across the state from deciding who is entitled to participate in local elections. She emphasized that duly elected representatives had opted to enfranchise these residents.

In conclusion, this appeals court decision has settled an ongoing debate about non-citizen voting rights in New York City. While some may view it as disenfranchisement, others see it as upholding constitutional principles and maintaining clarity regarding eligibility for voting rights.

This decision was a no-brainer. How can non-citizens vote in a nation where they are not citizens?  This goes to show us that the council men and women voted into the City Council are not well educated folks. Any educated American or even a national from another nations knows that only citizens can vote in any particular nation, not just the United States of America. Think about it. What if I were to go to Canada, England, Spain or Japan and vote? I would steer those nations in a different manner. First, I would not know their laws. Second, I would not know their current events in the political field. Third, I would not know the details surrouding day to day living in those nations. This is because I am not a citizen! I am just visting! It would make absolutely no sense to have the power to vote in a nation that is not mine from conception and birth where I am not naturalized.  

Kudos to the Republicans for appealing this stupid law passed by the City Council. It makes no sense and was dead on arrival, so to speak. Perhaps the Democrat majority in the City Council wanted to skew the voting in their favor by getting more voters? 

---

Sources:

1. [NYC’s non-citizen voting law ruled unconstitutional on appeal - POLITICO New York](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/21/nyc-non-citizen-voting-law-unconstitutional-00142525)

2. [NYC non-citizen voting law struck down as unconstitutional - New York Post](https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/us-news

Appeals court rules NYC law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections violates state constitution  | The Hill

NYC non-citizen voting law struck down as unconstitutional (nypost.com)

NYC non-citizen voting law struck down | Fox News

NYC’s non-citizen voting law ruled unconstitutional on appeal - POLITICO

Atheists File Complaint Against Judge Kemp

As reported in this post (https://www.sacerdotus.com/2019/10/brandt-jean-18-brother-of-botham-jean.html), there has been an outpouring of disapproval of the act of forgiveness exhibited by the brother of Botham Jean, Brandt Jean. Some have oddly equated the act as a form of white supremacy while others call the act a display of an "Uncle Tom." Some have tweeted that Brandt brought shame to the black community and that he has to be kicked out of it. The response is truly disgusting and shows the level of coldheartedness that some have adopted. It is borderline psychopathic.

Freedom From Religion Foundation files complaint against Judge Tammy Kemp over her exchange with Amber Guyger at the end of the proceedings yesterday. pic.twitter.com/1X7KXANxze

— Blake Hanson (@BlakeFox4News) October 3, 2019

After going after him, some went after the judge, Tammy Kemp, particularly atheists. The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a complaint to the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. They claimed that the judge went too far in her display on the court. The judge not only cried but also hugged the convict Amber Guyger and even gave her a personal Bible. This came after giving her talk on the Bible. Here is video from Court TV:

JUDGE EMBRACES GUYGER: Judge Kemp reads the bible to #AmberGuyger and hugs the convicted murderer after her sentencing.

Watch LIVE coverage on #CourtTV: https://t.co/tnYdPcDRMU #BothamJean #AmberGuygerTrial pic.twitter.com/bcdNCF86Jc

— Court TV (@CourtTV) October 3, 2019

Complaint filed over Judge Kemp's hug after #AmberGuygerTrial: https://t.co/Kl9V1hNvgr pic.twitter.com/bQ1mRZp2b3

— NBC DFW (@NBCDFW) October 3, 2019

Here is the complaint that Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor filed:

October 3, 2019
State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PO Box 12265
Austin TX 78711
Re: Judge Tammy Kemp, Judge of the Texas 204th Judicial District, proselytizing
in her official capacity
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to raise possible
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge Tammy Kemp of the 204th
Judicial District. FFRF is a national nonprofit organization with more than 30,000
members across the country, including more than 1,300 members in Texas and an
active state chapter. We protect the constitutional principle of separation between
state and church.
Judge Kemp tried Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger in her courtroom
from Sept. 23–Oct. 2, 2019, for the murder of Botham Jean. We write to raise your
awareness of Judge Kemp’s actions at the close of the trial — during which she
gifted a Christian bible, instructing the convicted criminal on how to read the bible
and which passages to pay attention to, and witnessing to that convicted murderer.
These proselytizing actions overstepped judicial authority, were inappropriate and
were unconstitutional.
Courtroom video shows that after the sentencing and the victim impact statement,
Judge Kemp left the courtroom, then returned holding her personal bible. She
walked over to Amber Guyger at the defense table and proceeded to preach:
You can have [my Bible]. I have three or four more at home. This is the one I
use every day. [inaudible] This is your job for the next month. You read right
here: John 3:16. And this is where you start, ‘For God so loved the world that
he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever…’ You stop at ‘whosoever’ and
say, ‘Amber, [inaudible] You start with the Gospels. Then [inaudible]. You
read this whole book of John. [inaudible] [inaudible, but likely where judge
said: This will strengthen you. You just need a tiny mustard seed of faith.
You start with this.] This has been put in front of you for a reason.
[inaudible] He has a purpose for you. There is no reason why [inaudible]1
1 Law & Crime Network video of the event, Oct. 2, 2019. Available at youtu.be/h7FkaL5GCZY. WFAA video of
the courtroom, Oct. 2, 2019. Available at youtu.be/9bPo2Dq7iK8. Other sections of this quote were pieced
2
Judge Kemp then hugged Guyger and said to her, “It’s not because I’m good. It’s
because I believe in Christ. I’m not so good. You haven’t done as much as you think
you have, and you can be forgiven. You did something bad in one moment in time.
What you do now matters.”2
The exchange was four minutes long. Much of this exchange appears, as of now, to
be inaudible, and the sound cut out more than 30 seconds before the hug, but what
is audible is sufficient to show an ethics violation. We do not yet know whether it
was transcribed (that itself is problematic).
We understand that it was an emotional moment, particularly when the victim’s
brother, Brandt Jean, publicly forgave and hugged Guyger. It is perfectly acceptable
for private citizens to express their religious beliefs in court, but the rules are
different for those acting in a governmental role. We, too, believe our criminal
justice system needs more compassion from judges and prosecutors. But here,
compassion crossed the line into coercion. And there can be few relationships more
coercive than a sentencing judge in a criminal trial and a citizen accused and
convicted of a crime.
It appears from the exchange that Guyger may not have identified as Christian, but
Guyger’s religion does not change the constitutional or ethical analysis. Even were
Guyger an avowed devout Christian,3 the gesture would still have been
inappropriate and unconstitutional because Judge Kemp was acting in her official
governmental capacity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said time and again that the First Amendment
“mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between
religion and nonreligion.” McCreary Cty., Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,
545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985); Epperson v.
Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-
16 (1947). The government must remain neutral toward religion because “the
preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility
and a choice committed to the private sphere.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe,
530 U.S. 290, 310 (2000).
In their personal capacity, citizens may freely worship and exercise their religious
beliefs in any way they see fit. In their official capacity as government officials, they
are bound by the Establishment Clause.
together by first-hand reporting from Jason Trahan, “‘You start with this’: Judge Tammy Kemp gives Amber
Guyger a Bible after sentencing,” WFAA, Oct. 2, 2019. Available at bit.ly/2IhTn9c 2 Id. specifically, Trahan. 3 In fact, Judge Kemp read from the New International Version of the bible, a translation by evangelicals for
evangelicals (as admitted in its preface). So if Guyger is a Catholic or Baptist, this would still be coercive in
another respect.
3
Judge Kemp is free to attend church as a private citizen. She may even proselytize
in her private life or teach Sunday school, and so forth. However, it violates a vital
constitutional principle for a sitting judge to promote personal religious beliefs
while acting in her official capacity. She was in a government courtroom, dressed in
a judicial robe, with all of the imprimatur of the state, including armed law
enforcement officers, preaching to someone who was quite literally a captive
audience, and even instructing her on which bible verses to read! The judicial office,
title, trappings, and power belong to “We the People,” not to the office’s temporary
occupant. Delivering bibles and personally witnessing as a judge is an egregious
abuse of power.
Judge Kemp transmitted her personal religious beliefs as a state official in an
official proceeding of the gravest nature, a setting that imposed on everyone in the
courtroom: attorneys, staff, family members and the convicted.
This was a widely publicized trial that every attorney in Judge Kemp’s district
watched, along with much of the rest of the nation. Judge Kemp effectively signaled
to everyone watching—defendants and attorneys alike—that she is partial to
Christian reform and Christian notions of forgiveness.
Judge Kemp otherwise appears to have handled a difficult trial with grace and
aplomb, but that cannot excuse her inappropriate and unconstitutional actions,
which are a serious abrogation of the freedom of conscience protected by our First
Amendment and by Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Bill of Rights.
We respectfully ask that you investigate these actions for violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, especially canons 1, 2, 3, and 4C, and that you take all
appropriate steps to ensure no future misconduct. Thank you for your time and
attention to this matter.
Very truly,
Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor

I must admit, the display is a bit odd. In fact, I somewhat agree with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They do have a point that the judge is supposed to remain neutral and that religion should not be presented in a governmental setting by an official of the government. This judge does appear to be proselyting in a tax paid court during official court hours. Then again, I am not familiar with any rule that prohibits this. Let us not forget that courts do display the motto "In God We Trust" behind the judge's desk and that Bibles are used to swear upon. If this display of religion is allowed, then why not the one this judge displayed? I am curious to learn how far the complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation goes.  As we all know, no one pays mind to this small group that profits off the naive.  They simply serve as whiners and troublemakers and offer nothing constructive to the American way.  In fact, they even charge for membership and ask for donations while criticizing Churches who have collections.  See here from their website:

In any event, they do bring up some important points regarding this display by Judge Kemp.  For those wondering, I am concerned at the judge's display because what if it were a Muslim judge who gave Koran to a convicted person and read it to him or her? What if it was an atheist judge who promoted his or her views to a convict? This is concerning.

What do you think? Post below on Disqus. Remember to follow the rules for commenting.




Source:

https://ffrf.org/images/1JudgeKempletter.pdf

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/10/03/freedom-religion-foundation-complaint-against-judge-tammy-kemp-amber-guyger-bible/

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/10/03/1925063/0/en/Statement-on-the-Complaint-Filed-by-Freedom-From-Religion-Foundation-Against-Dallas-Texas-Judge-Tammy-Kemp.html

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Kemps-Hug-Not-Embraced-by-All-After-Guygers-Trial-562089651.html

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/10/03/right-judge-amber-guyger-case-talk-religion-give-bible/

Sweet Home Alabama

Alabama's Supreme Court ordered the state's probate judges to stop issuing licenses to marry to LGBT couples.  The decision was a "slap-to-the-face" to federal judges in Alabama and elsewhere who overturned bans on so-called same-sex marriage where they argued that such bans were a violation of the Constitution.

The court which is composed of Republicans sided with organizations seeking to protect the family and the institution of marriage between one man and one woman.  The judges ruled stating that the US Constitution does not give the authority to judges to reject state law.  They must administer it, which in this case only defines marriage between one man and one woman.  The ruling was worded in a 134-page document.

This is good news and hopefully will inspire the United States Supreme Court to side with traditional marriage.  It is unAmerican and wrong for unelected men and women to decide the law of the land. What is the point of having legislative bodies or voting if unelected judges can decide the laws of our nation?  We must stop this judicial activism before it destroys our nation.







Source:

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=642402&event=4AN12324A

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/alabama-same-sex-marriage_n_6796380.html

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/03/alabama-supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriage/21149245/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/04/in-defiant-ruling-alabama-supreme-court-stops-same-sex-marriage-in-state/

Supreme Court Ignores "Gay Marriage" Cases

The Supreme Court of the United States of America today declined to hear the cases regarding so-called "Gay Marriage" in several states.  This could be mean several things.  The court obviously does not want to get involved in the debate and may have indirectly decided to leave the decision up to the states.  Others believe this move actually helps the cause by not stopping or overturning decisions put on hold. However, it is also possible that the Supreme Court may be waiting for the elections to take place to see what happens when and if new politicians are elected.

Only time will tell what will really happen. In any event, the battle is not over and there will be many more court cases and appeals to those case decisions. The media claims that majority of Americas are in favor of same sex marriage, but these claims are exaggerated.  Even the secular nation of France was believed to be on the side of same-sex marriage until it shocked the world with is marches composed of millions of protesters who do not want to see the definition of marriage distorted.





Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16546959/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/06/the-supreme-court-confirms-what-we-already-knew-the-fight-over-gay-marriage-is-over/

Daughter Sues Parents

"I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"

How many times have we heard parents - maybe our own - say this in an attempt to reinforce their authority?

At one point in time this would often settle an argument. However, the times have changed.  Children are being raised by the "village" instead of parents.  Their egos are inflated to the point that they feel entitled.

Psychologists often describe the generation of youth today as the "me" generation.  They are self-centered, egotistical, materialistic, reckless, socio-pathic; the list goes on.

A New Jersey teenager is suing her parents claiming that her parents stopped making her high school tuition payments, kicker her out of their home at 18 and refused to fund her college.  Rachel Canning, the plaintiff is suing to get the court to force her parents Sean and Elizabeth Canning to pay up and care for her needs.

Seriously?

The parents who are the defendants clarified that they set rules to be followed by Rachel which she refused to abide by.  These rules were to do chores, get rid of a boyfriend who was leading her down a wrong path as well as other typical parental rules. Rachel refused and was "emancipated" by her own choice and due to the fact that she turned 18.

The judge in the court during the hearing refused her request which asked for $624 a week for child support, $5,300 for tuition for her Catholic high school, $13,000 legal fees and access to her college fund.  The judge made the right choice.  Rachel has no right to make these silly demands especially how she refused to obey her parents and is of legal age.  Times are changing.  Our youth are stray far and far.  The Fourth Commandment which calls us to 'honor our father and mother' is being pushed aside.







Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/daughter-18-sues-parents-for-support/2014/03/06/75beb836-a49e-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=28957925