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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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?
That Wilhoit quote is perfect.