In other news

Drones that reported size have to be military issue. It's interesting the congressman was apparently given false info. I'm aware that it's against federal law to shoot down Drones but I'm surprised there's been no attempt to at least interact with them with helicopters or something. Military shot down spy balloons but haven't shot down military size drones of apparently unknown origin, that have been seen for a couple of weeks now.
It's definitely a strange state of affairs.

It's the manual to begin like that, not to drop the charges *while the jury is deliberating*. Even juju admitted that's exceptionally rare if not close to unique.

Try to read the whole context of what we are talking about next time.

It's you who doesn't understand the whole context. Procedurally, the prosecutor here can add charges after the evidence closes but only lesser included offenses. That is far more problematic to a fair trial than dropping charges, even during deliberations.

Your insistence that because it happened during deliberations is an important factor is probably meritless. Responses to jury questions during deliberations rarely lead to a successful challenge to a verdict, let alone give a civil cause of action against a prosecutor.

Just like the maga pundits, you have offered no compelling evidence of wrongdoing or a viable theory to go after Bragg for the Penny case and your complete dismissal of the judges actions as irrelevant is laughable.

Penny was tried because he killed someone in public, on video, in a situation where a reasonable person could question whether it was truly self defense/defense of others.

Most responses to the Colonel could start like this.

I didn't know he had rank. I thought he was a "I have family in the military" parasitic guy like Playbig.

He's Colonel Jessep. He posts so that we can be free.

Lucifer can't handle the truth?

I am not saying the judge actions are "irrelevant", i am saying there is no intention to sue the judge for anything.

Penny didn't kill anybody btw, he was tried because a person unfortunately died while he was properly and lawfully restraining him after that person made significant credible violent threats to bystanders.

He was tried because the prosecution wanted to claim Penny had killed that person unlawfully, because the prosecution wanted to punish his exceptionally moral and heroic behaviour.

Because the prosecutor is an evil enemy of society who abuses his power to try to mold society in the horrific ways he considers proper. This is why going after the prosecutor is 100% correct , anything legal that can decrease the quality of life of people like Bragg is morally correct.

As far as the legal system goes, i started from the beginning with the idea that it is unlikely for the malicious prosecution case to win in court. But it's worth a shot, bankrolled by someone with infinite funds, to inflict as much damage as possible, within the limit of the law, to a person who fully deserves it.

And the dropping of charges during deliberation can be ground enough to get the malicious prosecution trial started, which as good as a win, and Bragg knows it too well, being prosecuted is itself a sentence.

An Evil enemy of society? Jasus you'd have made a great apparatchick back in the day. 😆

I'm sure that if they do in fact sue they'll throw in everything they can to see what sticks. But dropping a charge that the jury has already indicated they are hung on is not one of the things that will actually drive it forward.

If the dropping of the charges was so wrong, the judge shouldn't have allowed it. And since he did allow it, logically following your beliefs, he should be sued for it along with Bragg. Your "logic" here is inconsistent.

Obviously, I am not even addressing the immunity issues at play when using either of them

I didn't claim he murdered anyone or committed any crime but he definitely killed the guy.

Kill - cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

This should be obvious and not the result of any language barrier

Not necessarily, that's one of the main points. The medical examiner agrees with you wrt the cause of the death but fact is, others (including the jury) disagree. It's not obvious nor automatic that Penny actions caused the death of Neely.

Would you say the Paramedics refusing to treat him also contributed to his death? Should they be charged?

It wasn't "wrong", it was a clue to understand the whole fabrication behind the malicious prosecution. It's to show malicious intent.

The dropping of charges PER SE wouldn't be ground for suing. It could, coupled with other things starting with the evidently obscene prosecution itself instead of giving him praise for his heroic actions, be used to show how horribly in bad faith Bragg was from the beginning.

How desperate to "punish" Penny for completely, self-evidently lawful actions he was. Which made him drop the charges he, at that point, felt the jury could never deliberate upon, in a last chance hope that they would find him guilty of the lesser ones.

Nice backpedal.

I don't know what medical opinions were put before the jury for them to decide between but generally a jury does get to disagree with an uncontested expert opinion. So I don't know why or how you claim the jury disagreed with the cause of death.

The jury may have disagreed that Penny's negligence caused the death rather than his conduct wasn't a cause of the death. In other words, found no breach of the reasonable person standard or negligence on Penny.

wtf? i wrote exactly the same before

This sounds like a losing argument to me. Not a case I would ever take on a contingency basis even without the immunity issues. And your claim he should have praised for his heroic conduct is an equally ridiculous basis to bring a cause of action against Bragg.

Penny probably gets a settlement for malicious prosecution if he brings an action because it has obtain such a high profile and was a loss. And the NYC moves on if Bragg loses his next election....

Because the defense offered a different expert opinion that negated your claim that "Penny killed Neely".

Remember you claimed "it was obvious" that Neely was killed by Penny, i said no, it isn't.

/

A forensic pathologist hired by the defense testified that Neely died from a combination of his schizophrenia, synthetic marijuana, sickle cell trait and the struggle from being in Penny's restraint

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dan...

So according to the defense expert, Neely died because (other that the extremely weak state he was in because of his health and drugs in the system and whatnot) he struggled, if he had accepted the restraint he could have avoided death.

Here is the first time you mentioned it -

Seems to be right out front, being only one of two things you mentioned. Also, your weird conclusion that dropping a charge is somehow nefarious is the entire point of the discussion. No one - NO ONE - has made any comment on anything else except that.

"If he had accepted the restraint he could have avoided death" vs Penny's restraint killed him is pretty comical wordplay but you can pay an expert to say anything these days.

Penny's chokehold was a proximate cause of his death whether it was lawful or not and/or whether Neely fought against it.

It is a simple but for argument.

Generally speaking, whether someone is a weakened state because of intoxication, a medical condition, age, etc. is legally irrelevant when assessing causation.

In some cases, it might be relevant to intent although I would not have thought it especially relevant in this case.

Its funny how many think the CEO of an insurance company deserved it but are outraged at the death of this man

I don't know if they had any duty to act here. Practically speaking, imo causation by omission is suspect.

I don't think Penny had any duty to intervene here either.

Interesting that Luciom did not include the next few sentences in his quote from the article.

But the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Neely, Dr. Cynthia Harris, told jurors it was her medical opinion “that there are no alternative reasonable explanations” for his death and that those proposed by the defense were “so improbable — that it stands shoulder to shoulder with impossibility.”

During cross-examination, one of Penny’s attorneys, Steven Raiser sought to cast doubt on Harris’ testimony about how she and her colleagues had come to a unanimous decision as to Neely’s cause of death. Raiser suggested that they had failed to consider all the facts before making that determination.