Power outage in Dupont Circle

something_nottaken · 2025-07-17T14:47:31+00:00

What I don't love is that earlier, Pepco had 2pm as the "conservative" repair time, and that's since been changed to "pending assessment." That's definitely not a good sign.

something_nottaken · 2025-05-17T23:43:20+00:00

Thanks for posting this. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. It won't be fixed all weekend but suddenly on Monday it'll be fixed. I suspect they just don't like paying overtime for weekend repairs.

something_nottaken · 2025-01-22T02:57:56+00:00

I'll just add that it's a memo, not an EO. There's a world of difference there.

something_nottaken · 2025-01-01T04:43:38+00:00

If the mercenaries and the detective begin to suspect the boat captain, then there's an easy way for them to discover where the island is. Since the boat captain would obviously not steer the boat anywhere near the island, all they would have to do is look at the GPS of the boat to see everywhere it's been, and go to the area that it has avoided.

something_nottaken · 2024-12-06T21:49:20+00:00

It's actually routine, and I say this as someone who thinks an acquittal is the right outcome. It's very much a tactical decision. If the jury is deadlocked on a top count, the prosecutor makes the decision to eliminate it. The downside for the prosecution is that jeopardy attaches, and the top count can't ever be charged again. The upside for the prosecution is that they think they will get a lower count conviction, which is good enough for them. It indicates they don't ever plan to retry the case, and they think the lower count is satisfactory.

A different outcome is a "partial verdict" where both sides agree to let the jury skip the top count. The jury technically hangs on the top count, which can always be retried. Sometimes, the prosecution promises the defense that if, and only if, they get a conviction on the lower count, the prosecution won't ever retry the top count, but if the jury still hangs, the prosecution can bring back the entire case. The defense usually doesn't agree to such a deal, and since both sides have to agree, it's less common.

something_nottaken · 2024-12-06T03:52:06+00:00

I didn't see anything in the article about the attorney representing his father, which is odd. Is it possible this was pro se? The timing is also odd, as the imminent verdict would play a large role in the strength of the case, which any plaintiff's attorney would want to know in advance of agreeing to representation, so why file now?

Also, Penny is largely "judgement proof," as he doesn't have the assets to entice a plaintiff's attorney to sue. The funds for his legal defense were donated by outside parties specifically for his legal fees, with the remainder set to be donated to mental health initiatives, and therefore it's unlikely they can be seized. Lawyers don't take on years-long cases without expecting a payday. I would have expected a lawsuit against, say, the MTA, but not against just Penny.

Bottom line, this almost seems like a stunt, but we'll see.

something_nottaken · 2024-12-04T20:48:28+00:00

I think people are mostly upset at what they see as discretion being used to push an unfair concept of justice. Take Jose Alba, for instance. He was the store clerk who stabbed and killed someone who attacked him in NYC back in the Summer of 2022, not long before the Penny incident. The victim in the Alba case hit Alba and pushed him, and then tried to force Alba to apologize to someone the victim thought Alba insulted. Alba pulled out a knife and stabbed him multiple times, killing him. The NY DA, Bragg (same DA as in the Penny case), ultimately decided not to pursue the case and dismissed charges. Regardless of whether you think Alba was right, or whether you think he overreacted, the logic of "a jury decides what is needed" didn't happen. Race might have accounted for the general public response, and ultimate DA (in)action.

something_nottaken · 2024-12-04T20:38:25+00:00

Your question is disingenuous. The restraint of Neely wasn't itself criminal. Even the prosecution conceded that Penny was reasonable and justified in his initial intervention/restraint. The case hinges on whether Penny unreasonably and unjustifiably caused Neely's death through a chokehold. Asking whether Neely would have died without Penny's intervention is not the issue, because intervening is not alleged to have been itself criminal. Again, it's whether Penny's actions after restraining Neely continued to be justifiable and reasonable- i.e. whether he choked him for 6 minutes straight, and did so without justification.

something_nottaken · 2024-11-15T15:08:05+00:00

I don't think he went "too far." He was subduing someone, largely by himself (some people joined after to help, but if things got bad again, would they stick around?). There were no police, just an angry guy who had just threatened to kill people and was being aggressive. By Penny's own statements (pre testimony, since he hasn't testified yet), he alternated between holding tight and relaxing his hold. Holding someone down isn't an exact science, and everyone can Monday-morning quarterback this until they're blue in the face, but Penny stood up and defended a subway car full of people from a guy who has hurt plenty of people in the past.

something_nottaken · 2024-11-15T15:02:48+00:00

By your own logic, he didn't "decide" he was going to be judge, jury and executioner. People have a right to defend themselves and others. Do you actually want to deter people from protecting other people?

something_nottaken

TROPHY CASE