Penny jury made the right decision

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 15, 2024)

The Daniel Penny trial had me worried. I don't trust juries to do the right thing anymore; too often they simply rubber-stamp whatever the state-- meaning any political government-- wants. Most jurors seem to believe, "If the defendant isn't guilty, why is he on trial?"

The state is usually on the wrong side, especially when self-defense is the issue.

Penny stepped up to protect his fellow subway passengers in New York City from a mentally ill person who was making threats. For his act of compassion, government decided to treat him as a criminal.

The prosecutor tried to make the trial about race. He failed to trick smart observers. Only racists see race as a factor in the unfortunate event. Only racists call for riots and revenge because of the verdict. Penny's heroism helped people of every race.

This isn't a triumph of justice, though. Daniel Penny was harmed by the justice system, even though the harm has been mitigated by the jury coming to the right verdict. The police, prosecutor, and judge owe him restitution, which he'll never see.

Recently, I read about a Clovis woman who was acquitted of a murder charge. She's probably been harmed for the rest of her life by being dragged through the process. Those who charged her need to be held accountable, too.

Compare what Penny did with the actions of the man who shot and killed the CEO of United Healthcare.

In one case, a man saw a dangerous situation and did what was needed to protect his fellow passengers, and many condemned him for his selfless actions. In the other case, a man plotted to murder a specific individual, carried out his plan, then ran and hid, and many of the same people who condemned Daniel Penny laughed off the murder as something the victim deserved.

We've all had our problems with health insurance-- especially since the rise of "ObamaCare". I understand the frustration and helplessness, and the callousness demonstrated by insurers who demand deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket payments, and still refuse to cover some essential expenses. I wouldn't trust anyone who believes that's justification for murder to be on a jury.

When juries do the right thing, they benefit us all. When they go along with what the state wants, they are often worse than useless. I'm glad the Daniel Penny jury didn't hand New York City the verdict it sought.

-

Thank you for reading.
I appreciate your support.

Once more, with FEELING

Most people are statists because most people just aren't very smart.

Recently I made some comments that drew the wrath of "normal people".

One comment was saying I would not turn in an "illegal alien" for any amount of money, in one I was explaining why permanent DST is harmful, and in the other I was pointing out that government has no "authority" to ban TikTok (or any other web platform) and that the Bill of Rights prohibits them from doing so.

I get people having different opinions, but when they do I wish they could articulate reasons. They can't. 

They can only tell me how they feel about a topic. They can call me names, say "that's the most stupid thing I've ever read", tell me what government is getting away with and how this excuses it, go off on tangents that are unrelated to the topic (like that I have no friends or money), and attack a straw man of their own creation, but they can't give good, consistent and reasonable explanations of why or how I'm wrong. Because they have none available. 

They can't think, they can only feel. And I hurt their feelings. So they attack.

If you're going to communicate with "normal people", you're going to have to ditch reason and embrace feelings. I don't know if it's worth it. It is something to consider, though.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.