It's so twisted to characterize "I don't have food. I don't have a drink" as menacing. Also, it's mind shattering and soul crushing to read someone positing hypotheticals about whether others and Neely might or might not have made it out unscathed when the fact of the matter is Neely didn't make it out unscathed.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Oh, but that's the part they never read. "Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one" is more their speed, with "AR-15" substituted for "sword."
The WSJ question was, "Was Penny right to intervene?" Actually, my answer to that is yes. Intervening is fine. It's appropriate. My complaint is not that he intervened. There are lots of behaviors that can be described as "intervening". You could step up to Neely, face to face and engage him in conversation, making yourself the focus of him. Draw him out, talk to him ... this will make him less likely to act out, not more.
AND, I think Penny was unequivocally wrong to hold Neely in a chokehold for 15 minutes. That's way past any mandate. As I've said before, the question in my mind was whether Penny was negligent or reckless. Prosecutors have gone with "reckless". They may have more information than I have. They may think they will get information in discovery. They may be feeling pressure and expect to plea bargain back to something else.
Your point really highlights the problem with the editorial's analogy to stepping between a harasser and their target. Intervening is right, but I suspect a lot of conservative men wouldn't be on board with harassers being subject to summary execution (unless of course conservative men rather than victims get to be the ones decided who the harassers are).
Any one of these right-wing assholes who says this was "unfortunate" is lying to you. They don't think it's unfortunate, they wish it would happen a lot more often.
As for Penny, think back to Derek Chauvin's trial. What did Chauvin in was that it took so long for him to kill, a cop who shoots someone can claim it was a decision made "in the heat of the moment" and juries are often reluctant to second-guess, but when you take nine minutes to murder someone, the obvious question is, "Well, why didn't you STOP murdering him?" Penny too FIFTEEN minutes to murder Neely, the prosecution should set a timer and ask the entire courtroom to sit through this length of time in silence, thinking about how - at ANY time - Penny could have simply stopped the act of murder he was committing.
Exactly. I have been wondering how many of those people are feeling regret for not trying to stop Penny. 15 minutes watching someone having the life choked out of them had to have affected some of them - I hope.
Penny literally looks like a Nazi (blond, tall, thin) and he’s a veteran. I’m sure the weird ass right wing cult of veteran fetishization only makes this worse. And make no mistake, veteran’s culture is toxic and rotten af
He's already raised millions for his defense, and I hate to run ahead to how things could get even worse when they're already bad, but there may be a Congressional seat opening up soon in LawnGuyLand, depending on how the timing for the trial goes, we could be looking at Congressman Penny.
"What if Penny had done nothing? Would everyone — including Neely — have emerged from that subway car unscathed?"
What's going on here is a presumption of guilt, presuming that Neely would have done *something* harmful if he had been left unmurdered. Not the presumption of innocence that Penny will get from our legal system, of course, but Penny is white and Nelly is black, so this is to be expected.
Right again. Everyone saw a black man behaving erratically, which triggered fear, including fear in Penny. If a white man was shouting, would anyone have done what Penny did?
You got through this whole column without mentioning the obvious fact: Jordan Neely was Black. Trayvon Martin was Black. The men Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were marching in a BLM rally. The Right has always been pro lynching, but they’ve become more and more open about it. To omit the racial bias here is journalistic malpractice.
I've been wondering why no one in that train car, with the exception of a column recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, intervened when Penny was slowly throttling Neely to death right in front of them.
And I am fed up with military people being called "heroes." Is Penny a "veteran"? How does that make him qualified to decide who should be killed on a city subway? Nobody was being threatened inside that subway car, and anyone who has ever lived in a city is well used to people who talk to themselves, shout and rave but don't hurt others. Why didn't this "good samaritan" talk to Neely, try to calm him down? Why was it appropriate to accost him from behind, like a mugger, not showing any of the compassion the original samaritan showed a man who was injured and even dying?
What does this say about us?
Manslaughter 2nd? It's a low level felony that is often pleaded down to Reckless Endangerment. And no jail. We have a brand new Kyle Rittenhouse for the right wing racists to admire.
“but it’s clear his intention wasn’t to kill Neely.”
Hence the 2nd degree manslaughter. It wasn’t murder or even 1st degree manslaughter (2nd Degree – Second degree manslaughter occurs when someone is acting recklessly and aware of their potentially fatal actions.) Obviously, he should have known that a choke hold could be harmful, and especially when done for 15 minutes. That to me is acting reckless.
I've noticed in these cases the defenders of the murdering white guy always head directly to "state of mind", arguing that we can't know what he was thinking, certainly can't know for sure if his actions were racially motivated, etc.
It makes sense as a strategy, anything to steer the conversation away from what the white murderer actually *did*, which was murder someone.
I truly believe that Penny might have been trying to prevent harm coming to others in the car, but as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved in good intentions.” There are a number of less harmful actions Penny could have taken, but he chose one that was potentially fatal. If Penny is really a decent person, then he should plead guilty and accept the consequences of his actions.
A parody of the parable was making the rounds on Mastodon this morning. It makes sense now. At the end, Jesus's interlocutor's take away is that we need more guns on the subway.
What about the fact that Neely had 44 prior arrests and had spent months in jail for physically assaulting a subway rider.
Some people see a man in need on the side of the road and others see a known criminal with a history of assault and kidnapping. Would you cross the road for the latter?
Unless Penny knew about those priors and the prior behavior, they are irrelevant.
Gaining a hold on Penny that immobilizes him but doesn't threaten his life would have been a better choice. I think it's likely that Neely was capable of that.
AND, even if Neely knew about the prior assault, that assault did not employ deadly force. Nor was Neely threatening deadly force. Hence, deadly force is not justified. It is my belief that Penny did not think of a choke hold as deadly force, and that's why Neely died.
I trained in martial arts for over 20 years. Given that part of that training gave me the ability to employ deadly force with only my own body, I found it quite relevant to understand the law (not to mention the ethics) regarding this. It's not ambiguous on this point.
I think that’s why he turned Neely on his side so he wouldn’t choke on his own saliva. It’s a horrible horrible thing that happened. I’m just glad we have a court of law to decide what to do next.
YES! That’s the whole point to the parable of the Good Samaritan! The Good Samaritan was willing to overlook the stigma of the situation and willingly went to help someone who others (who were supposedly righteous) would avoid.
When Penny looked at Neely, he was supposed to be good to him, not put him in a worse situation.
Overlooking the stigma of a homeless person raving about being hungry and thirsty is quite different than a homeless person raving about wanting to go to jail who was also known kidnapper and assaulter.
If Penny had flashed a gun, would that have changed anything in your mind, hypothetically? Meaning, making his threats known to everyone with eyes in the moment versus just known to those who had seen him commit crimes in the past?
I can sum up all of what Jesus taught with, “Everyone is your neighbor, no matter what.” Penny looked at Neely as a threat, and not his neighbor. He was no better than than the priest and Levite who avoided the traveler because contact with blood would make them impure. Neely needed help, and Penny could have done something less harmful than a chokehold. So, to answer your question, if Neely flashed a gun, I would have still tried to help him. THAT is what Jesus would have done.
Murder? Penny wasn't charged with murder. Murder is defined as the deliberate killing of one human being by another.
He was charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter. All his lawyers have to do is show that Neely was a threat to those around him (as evidenced by his 44 prior arrests, attempted kidnapping of the 7-year old girl, sucker punching a 67-year old woman who was a stranger in the face and breaking her nose and cheekbone, punching the 64 year old man, etc etc etc) and Penny put him in the choke hold (along with two other passengers who helped to restrain his arms) in self-defense.
Thankfully we live in a society where it is innocent until "proven" guilty.
Yeah, like everyone on that car "knew" this mentally ill black man deserved to die because they all knew his criminal history. You may think I'm stupid, but I can promise you that as a court clerk with more than 10 years' experience, I know more about NYS criminal laws than you do. Penny killed a man because he was black and mentally ill, and Penny was afraid of him.
At the time the murder took place, nobody knew anything and still, you think you do. Obviously, you believe Neely deserved to die.
It's so twisted to characterize "I don't have food. I don't have a drink" as menacing. Also, it's mind shattering and soul crushing to read someone positing hypotheticals about whether others and Neely might or might not have made it out unscathed when the fact of the matter is Neely didn't make it out unscathed.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Oh, but that's the part they never read. "Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one" is more their speed, with "AR-15" substituted for "sword."
The WSJ question was, "Was Penny right to intervene?" Actually, my answer to that is yes. Intervening is fine. It's appropriate. My complaint is not that he intervened. There are lots of behaviors that can be described as "intervening". You could step up to Neely, face to face and engage him in conversation, making yourself the focus of him. Draw him out, talk to him ... this will make him less likely to act out, not more.
AND, I think Penny was unequivocally wrong to hold Neely in a chokehold for 15 minutes. That's way past any mandate. As I've said before, the question in my mind was whether Penny was negligent or reckless. Prosecutors have gone with "reckless". They may have more information than I have. They may think they will get information in discovery. They may be feeling pressure and expect to plea bargain back to something else.
Your point really highlights the problem with the editorial's analogy to stepping between a harasser and their target. Intervening is right, but I suspect a lot of conservative men wouldn't be on board with harassers being subject to summary execution (unless of course conservative men rather than victims get to be the ones decided who the harassers are).
Any one of these right-wing assholes who says this was "unfortunate" is lying to you. They don't think it's unfortunate, they wish it would happen a lot more often.
As for Penny, think back to Derek Chauvin's trial. What did Chauvin in was that it took so long for him to kill, a cop who shoots someone can claim it was a decision made "in the heat of the moment" and juries are often reluctant to second-guess, but when you take nine minutes to murder someone, the obvious question is, "Well, why didn't you STOP murdering him?" Penny too FIFTEEN minutes to murder Neely, the prosecution should set a timer and ask the entire courtroom to sit through this length of time in silence, thinking about how - at ANY time - Penny could have simply stopped the act of murder he was committing.
Exactly. I have been wondering how many of those people are feeling regret for not trying to stop Penny. 15 minutes watching someone having the life choked out of them had to have affected some of them - I hope.
Penny literally looks like a Nazi (blond, tall, thin) and he’s a veteran. I’m sure the weird ass right wing cult of veteran fetishization only makes this worse. And make no mistake, veteran’s culture is toxic and rotten af
He's already raised millions for his defense, and I hate to run ahead to how things could get even worse when they're already bad, but there may be a Congressional seat opening up soon in LawnGuyLand, depending on how the timing for the trial goes, we could be looking at Congressman Penny.
There will be lots of invites to be interviewed on Fox News, and Trump will invite Penny to Gag-A-Lardo.
I don't think it's fair to judge him based on what he looks like. He can't help that. His despicable actions are enough.
"What if Penny had done nothing? Would everyone — including Neely — have emerged from that subway car unscathed?"
What's going on here is a presumption of guilt, presuming that Neely would have done *something* harmful if he had been left unmurdered. Not the presumption of innocence that Penny will get from our legal system, of course, but Penny is white and Nelly is black, so this is to be expected.
Right again. Everyone saw a black man behaving erratically, which triggered fear, including fear in Penny. If a white man was shouting, would anyone have done what Penny did?
You got through this whole column without mentioning the obvious fact: Jordan Neely was Black. Trayvon Martin was Black. The men Kyle Rittenhouse murdered were marching in a BLM rally. The Right has always been pro lynching, but they’ve become more and more open about it. To omit the racial bias here is journalistic malpractice.
I've been wondering why no one in that train car, with the exception of a column recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, intervened when Penny was slowly throttling Neely to death right in front of them.
And I am fed up with military people being called "heroes." Is Penny a "veteran"? How does that make him qualified to decide who should be killed on a city subway? Nobody was being threatened inside that subway car, and anyone who has ever lived in a city is well used to people who talk to themselves, shout and rave but don't hurt others. Why didn't this "good samaritan" talk to Neely, try to calm him down? Why was it appropriate to accost him from behind, like a mugger, not showing any of the compassion the original samaritan showed a man who was injured and even dying?
What does this say about us?
Manslaughter 2nd? It's a low level felony that is often pleaded down to Reckless Endangerment. And no jail. We have a brand new Kyle Rittenhouse for the right wing racists to admire.
“but it’s clear his intention wasn’t to kill Neely.”
Hence the 2nd degree manslaughter. It wasn’t murder or even 1st degree manslaughter (2nd Degree – Second degree manslaughter occurs when someone is acting recklessly and aware of their potentially fatal actions.) Obviously, he should have known that a choke hold could be harmful, and especially when done for 15 minutes. That to me is acting reckless.
I've noticed in these cases the defenders of the murdering white guy always head directly to "state of mind", arguing that we can't know what he was thinking, certainly can't know for sure if his actions were racially motivated, etc.
It makes sense as a strategy, anything to steer the conversation away from what the white murderer actually *did*, which was murder someone.
I truly believe that Penny might have been trying to prevent harm coming to others in the car, but as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved in good intentions.” There are a number of less harmful actions Penny could have taken, but he chose one that was potentially fatal. If Penny is really a decent person, then he should plead guilty and accept the consequences of his actions.
A parody of the parable was making the rounds on Mastodon this morning. It makes sense now. At the end, Jesus's interlocutor's take away is that we need more guns on the subway.
WSJ admitting they don't care about the mentally ill without saying they don't care about the mentally ill. That's low even for them.
What about the fact that Neely had 44 prior arrests and had spent months in jail for physically assaulting a subway rider.
Some people see a man in need on the side of the road and others see a known criminal with a history of assault and kidnapping. Would you cross the road for the latter?
What about the fact that I Can't Believe It's Not Butter tastes just like butter?!?!?!
I can also list things that are irrelevant to this situation.
This is the correct response.
Yeah, I would. I believe, based on what I've read, that Jesus would want you to as well. That's kind of the point.
Unless Penny knew about those priors and the prior behavior, they are irrelevant.
Gaining a hold on Penny that immobilizes him but doesn't threaten his life would have been a better choice. I think it's likely that Neely was capable of that.
AND, even if Neely knew about the prior assault, that assault did not employ deadly force. Nor was Neely threatening deadly force. Hence, deadly force is not justified. It is my belief that Penny did not think of a choke hold as deadly force, and that's why Neely died.
I trained in martial arts for over 20 years. Given that part of that training gave me the ability to employ deadly force with only my own body, I found it quite relevant to understand the law (not to mention the ethics) regarding this. It's not ambiguous on this point.
I think that’s why he turned Neely on his side so he wouldn’t choke on his own saliva. It’s a horrible horrible thing that happened. I’m just glad we have a court of law to decide what to do next.
“Would you cross the road for the latter?”
YES! That’s the whole point to the parable of the Good Samaritan! The Good Samaritan was willing to overlook the stigma of the situation and willingly went to help someone who others (who were supposedly righteous) would avoid.
When Penny looked at Neely, he was supposed to be good to him, not put him in a worse situation.
Overlooking the stigma of a homeless person raving about being hungry and thirsty is quite different than a homeless person raving about wanting to go to jail who was also known kidnapper and assaulter.
If Penny had flashed a gun, would that have changed anything in your mind, hypothetically? Meaning, making his threats known to everyone with eyes in the moment versus just known to those who had seen him commit crimes in the past?
Please tell us how many people in that subway car knew Neely was a "known kidnapper and assaulter," and how that justifies killing him.
Or, remember that when you've found yourself in a hole, stop digging.
According to reports, at least 5 riders did. Why are you so angry Marycat2021?
You don't get to ask questions about what you think I am.
You're a troll. Go away.
Please do not call people names Marycat2021. It's really quite unbecoming. I have been nothing but respectful to you.
I can sum up all of what Jesus taught with, “Everyone is your neighbor, no matter what.” Penny looked at Neely as a threat, and not his neighbor. He was no better than than the priest and Levite who avoided the traveler because contact with blood would make them impure. Neely needed help, and Penny could have done something less harmful than a chokehold. So, to answer your question, if Neely flashed a gun, I would have still tried to help him. THAT is what Jesus would have done.
Because Penny and everyone else knew Neely had been arrested 44 times. Got it. Being arrested in the past justifies being murdered. Got it.
Murder? Penny wasn't charged with murder. Murder is defined as the deliberate killing of one human being by another.
He was charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter. All his lawyers have to do is show that Neely was a threat to those around him (as evidenced by his 44 prior arrests, attempted kidnapping of the 7-year old girl, sucker punching a 67-year old woman who was a stranger in the face and breaking her nose and cheekbone, punching the 64 year old man, etc etc etc) and Penny put him in the choke hold (along with two other passengers who helped to restrain his arms) in self-defense.
Thankfully we live in a society where it is innocent until "proven" guilty.
Yeah, like everyone on that car "knew" this mentally ill black man deserved to die because they all knew his criminal history. You may think I'm stupid, but I can promise you that as a court clerk with more than 10 years' experience, I know more about NYS criminal laws than you do. Penny killed a man because he was black and mentally ill, and Penny was afraid of him.
At the time the murder took place, nobody knew anything and still, you think you do. Obviously, you believe Neely deserved to die.
Stop bothering me.
Oh, Marycat2021. I don't "think" you are...
That Wilhoit quote is perfect.