Well, one month ago, I predicted that the Manhattan DA’s Office would read the statute to the Grand Jury thereby deliberately throwing the case, and that the charges against Daniel Penny would be dismissed.
Silly me! I had based my prediction on my own experiences with the same DA’s Office forty years ago this year. Once again, I find that America has changed dramatically in the course of my lifetime and, as always, for the worse.
Back in the 1980s, then as now, NYC was a corrupt democrat party machine-run one-party state. The democrats were liberals then, but they were cynical, corrupt, pragmatic liberals. Today’s democrat party sometime ago surrendered power to commie crazies like Bill de Blasio and professional race-baiters like Alvin Bragg.
The 1980s DA’s Office backed off and threw the case against me by informing the Grand Jury what the law actually says partly, I expect, because it was the right thing to do, but probably more significantly because it had been made clear to them that prosecuting me would bring down on their heads huge amounts of controversy and public criticism.
The 1980s guys were primarily pragmatists. Alvin Bragg is an ideologue whose career is built upon whipping up the emotions of his homies over all sorts of imaginary grievances. He can no more pass up the opportunity to depict that deceased deranged black criminal as a martyred victim than a rat can pass by a piece of cheese sitting on the trigger of a trap.
It is no fun, I can tell you, living with a possible upcoming criminal trial and facing big time legal costs for a defense, while contemplating (even a minority possibility of) conviction and imprisonment.
Happily, Daniel Penny’s Legal Defense Fund on GiveSendGo has, as of right now, amassed $2,883,009, and the law really is on his side. If he really goes to trial, the statute will for sure be read to that jury.
Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical