NY - Jordan Neely, killed by chokehold in subway during mental health crisis, Manhattan, 1 May 2023 *arrest*

[Deleted member 287549]

He was wearing a T shirt and sweat pants and he had allegedly thrown his jacket to the ground, a weapon would have been visible clearly.

Maybe - unless it was a small knife/other weapon that was concealed somewhere in his clothing, etc. Do you know exactly who around you is carrying weapons on them at any given time?! I sure as hell don't.

Going along with this, even if all of the subway passengers were 100% certain that he didn't have any weapons on him (which they wouldn't have known without searching him, and obviously they weren't going to do that) there is still the possibility he was going to attack one or more of them without an actual weapon.

I.e., even someone with bare hands can seriously injury/incapacitate and/or kill someone.

Yes, he didn't have any weapons on him ATT. But, again - the subway passengers didn't know that.

 

[10ofRods]

Nope, because even if Neely were making specific and targeted threats to individuals (which it doesn't appear he was)... in that scenario those people had an opportunity to retreat too - both before any of this started, and while he was being restrained.

The one being harmed with no ability to retreat is the only one who can argue self defense.

You make an excellent point. (and WELCOME TO WEBSLEUTHS! - a bit belated).

Once Neely was in the chokehold, the terrified passengers might have departed the car (and they should have been communicating about how many 911 calls had already been made). Someone on a New York forum mentioned that if the chokehold was really 15 minutes, the train ought to have made a couple of stops during that time.

It does appear that DP is the first to initiate physical contact. But no one has said that Neely stood over or directly threatened anyone, including DP. Neely was certainly scaring everyone and maybe DP thought that if he could momentarily subdue Neely, others could escape. I don't know.

But once he had Neely down, I do understand that DP was faced with only a couple of choices, none of which was a good course of action.

Does anyone remember which station Neely is said to have gotten on the train? I'm reading "Manhattan station" but I know it was reported which one (I know it's Line F). Much obliged if someone remembers which station it was, I'll try and look up the train schedules for it.

IMO.

 

[Sillybilly]

One can still be convicted of manslaughter even though it is not intentional. Reckless doesn't equate to intentional. To those of us who drive, we know to drive by the rules. If someone recklessly drives at 120 mph and kills someone as a result, it was recklessness to drive at that speed but it was not their intent to kill someone as a result. The likelihood is they will still be found guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

 

[kittythehare]

=


Depends on many variables. Where I live, someone shouting "I'm gonna do something to someone!" is not considered a direct threat. I do hope that some video shows exactly what was said. If the threat was more direct (Neely approached a particular person) then it changes the scenario greatly.

The sad thing is that, IME, schizophrenics like Neely frequently want to be contained and put in jail/jail mental ward. They get food and clothing, they get medication, they are prevented from making bad choices. This happens often (not always). I realize that a rational person would not handle things this way, but that's the whole point.

What bothers me is that the State of New York had the means to fulfill his wish, if that's what he wanted (to go to jail). Or if it was an option he was considering. At any rate, he ought to have been in a jail psychiatric ward and I do wonder why they had him on their list of most in need of care, and then did little to make sure than any of the arrest warrants resulted in action. I may be understanding events wrongly, but that's what I've gleaned so far.

I feel as if leaving passengers on trains in the breach, while the State had the means to confine this man for a considerable length of time (given his assaults on people in the past), is the real problem here.

IMO.

People did help him.
They were watching out for him, taking note of when and where they saw him and how he was.

I too think he longed for the security of prison, he obviously did well there in the 15 months he was incarcerated awaiting trial. he was sober and he was fed.

I think he could not handle the treatment centre in the Bronx though and fled after 13 days.. maybe the drugs were calling him, maybe something freaked him out.. maybe he was off his meds?
That's the part where I sense a failure might have occurred, 15 months and 10 days sober and whooosh..

But that's unjustly looking at it from the perspective of rational thinking and poor Jordan probably didn't have a single remaining rational thought in his head.

There is only so much anybody can do, any city or org.
If there is a story, it might be that treatment centre.
He enthusiastically entered it, looking forward to his second chance.
What happened?
I don't know, maybe nothing cos the most natural thing in the world for an addict or alcoholic to do is to use or drink.. maybe the craving took him..
None of it will bring him back, none of the pondering.

 

[Cryptic]

What's interesting about this is that if Neely had a concealed knife or sharp object, and if he had stabbed and killed Penny while Penny had him in a chokehold and unable to retreat, that would be a legally justified act by Neely.

Would it?

I am thinking that if I get on a subway and announce that I am willing to go to prison for life, that I could kill "mf'ers" and I also throw my jacket on the floor (symbolizing a willigness to fight immediately) and....

then I stab somebody who actually believed me and tried to stop me, I would be facing criminal charges of some sort.

 

[Cryptic]

Lots of people don't like Duty to Retreat because it doesn't sound as big and tough as Stand Your Ground, but this is exactly the sort of unnecessary escalation and confrontation it is meant to avoid.

I agree with you about this point. The Common Law based "duty to retreat" was based on a alot of common law wisdom learned over centuries.

I just dont think the confrontation was avoidable give that one witness was 62 years old with limited ability to retreat from her seat.

For me, it depends on how long the chokehold was applied. I could support a manslaughter conviction for a 15 minute chokehold that was continuously applied after a witness advised him that Neely was not resisting.

In the end, the force used to subdue Neely needed to be proportionate to the articulable threat.

 

[everybodhi]

Maybe - unless it was a small knife/other weapon that was concealed somewhere in his clothing, etc. Do you know exactly who around you is carrying weapons on them at any given time?! I sure as hell don't.

Going along with this, even if all of the subway passengers were 100% certain that he didn't have any weapons on him (which they wouldn't have known without searching him, and obviously there weren't going to do that) there is still the possibility he was going to attack one or more of them without an actual weapon.

I.e., even someone with bare hands can seriously injury/incapacitate and/or kill someone.

Yes, he didn't have any weapons on him ATT. But, again - the subway passengers didn't know that.

This is the problem, none of us knows who among us is armed, creating fear and paranoia in some people who feel justified in using deadly force against anyone deemed suspicious and a possible threat.
A lot of innocent people die in the US at the hands of the paranoid standing their ground. Jmo

 

[elevatorific]

Lots of people don't like Duty to Retreat because it doesn't sound as big and tough as Stand Your Ground, but this is exactly the sort of unnecessary escalation and confrontation it is meant to avoid.

I agree with you about this point. The Common Law based "duty to retreat" was based on a alot of common law wisdom learned over centuries.

I just dont think the confrontation was avoidable give that one witness was 62 years old with limited ability to retreat from her seat.

For me, it depends on how long the chokehold was applied. I could support a manslaughter conviction for a 15 minute chokehold that was continuously applied after a witness advised him that Neely was not resisting.

In the end, the force used to subdue Neely needed to be proportionate to the articulable threat.

bbm - It's significant then that we see in the video the train was stopped, at a station, doors open, no elderly woman in sight, and the chokehold was still being applied at that time, right?

 

[Cryptic]

bbm - It's significant then that we see in the video the train was stopped, at a station, doors open, no elderly woman in sight, and the chokehold was still being applied at that time, right?

The fact that the elderly witness was not in sight of a particular camera at a certain time does not mean she never existed.

Rather than trying to disprove the existence of a witness (and risking a "face plant"- people of all ages are common sights on NYC trains), I am thinking the prosecution is going to focus on:

A. The chokehold was still being applied.
B. Neely was not resisting.
C. The chokehold had been continuosly applied for "X" number of minutes.

In the end, the amount of forced used to subdue Neely must be somewhat in proportion to the articulable threat. Neely was small- though still capable of harming people, even when unarmed.

But.... once three people were pinning him down, a chokehold of any kind becomes harder to justify.

 

[elevatorific]

The fact that the elderly witness was not in sight of a particular camera at a particular time does not mean she never existed.

Rather than trying to disprove the existence of a particular witness (and risking a "face plant"- people of all ages are common sights on NYC trains), I am thinking the prosecution is going to focus on:

A. The chokehold was still being applied.
B. Neely was not resisting.
C. The chokehold had been continuosly applied for "X" number of minutes.

I'm not saying she didn't exist! Of course she did! I'm saying deadly force was still being used when everyone was fully able to retreat - train stopped at station. I only mentioned the elderly woman in response to your previous comment, if she was the one scared and threatened, she was gone by that time.

(ETA - everyone except Neely, he couldn't retreat because he was in a chokehold, which is why at that time he would may have been within his right to kill the person holding him)

 

[kittythehare]

This is worth reading because I have seen too many conflicting stories from the 'journalist' that filmed the killing.
It also speaks to the confusion caused by media.
I'm glad Huff Po investigated

How The Media Made A Villain Out Of Jordan Neely

Anonymous police sources quickly set the narrative after Daniel Penny put Neely in a deadly chokehold on the subway.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Cryptic]

(ETA - everyone except Neely, he couldn't retreat because he was in a chokehold, which is why at that time he would have been within his right to kill the person holding him)

I see now. I agree, once the passengers left the car, chokehold type force becomes that much harder to justify.

As for Neely being able to use lethal force against somebody ("Yes, I made threats and provoked a justified take down, but.... I am now in danger of being killed after any threat I posed has ended".), I agree as well.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Maybe - unless it was a small knife/other weapon that was concealed somewhere in his clothing, etc. Do you know exactly who around you is carrying weapons on them at any given time?! I sure as hell don't.

Going along with this, even if all of the subway passengers were 100% certain that he didn't have any weapons on him (which they wouldn't have known without searching him, and obviously they weren't going to do that) there is still the possibility he was going to attack one or more of them without an actual weapon.

I.e., even someone with bare hands can seriously injury/incapacitate and/or kill someone.

Yes, he didn't have any weapons on him ATT. But, again - the subway passengers didn't know that.

BBM - Indeed they can. Its why we have this thread in the first place!.

 

[Jade]

<snipped for focus>

There have been no charges of murder.

The other two individuals (other than Mr. Penny) haven't been charged with anything, as far as I know. And the charge against Mr. Penny is second degree manslaughter.

I can't imagine the other two individuals who tried to restrain Mr. Neely will be charged with murder.

Murder in my opinion. I see now that using the legal term aided and abetted implied I was referring to charges but was meant to describe their role in it all going wrong.

Penny grabbed Neely from the behind with intent to subdue him including and probably intending to unconsciousness. As former military he has special knowledge of the risks of that intent.

Then there was no mercy or grace demonstrated by the three. No calming words, touches, promises.

I agree that the two wouldn’t be charged for murder.

All imo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Murder in my opinion. I see now that using the legal term aided and abetted implied I was referring to charges but was meant to describe their role in it all going wrong.

Penny grabbed Neely from the behind with intent to subdue him including and probably intending to unconsciousness. As former military he has special knowledge of the risks of that intent.

Then there was no mercy or grace demonstrated by the three. No calming words, touches, promises.

I agree that the two wouldn’t be charged for murder.

All imo

So you feel that DA Bragg's under charged Mr Penny?

 

[Murphy1950]

Murder in my opinion. I see now that using the legal term aided and abetted implied I was referring to charges but was meant to describe their role in it all going wrong.

Penny grabbed Neely from the behind with intent to subdue him including and probably intending to unconsciousness. As former military he has special knowledge of the risks of that intent.

Then there was no mercy or grace demonstrated by the three. No calming words, touches, promises.

I agree that the two wouldn’t be charged for murder.

All imo

"Then there was no mercy or grace demonstrated by the three. No calming words, touches, promises???"

NEWSFLASH....they are not trained social workers responding to situation. They were people going about their daily life and suddenly thrust under extreme pressure.

Why only mercy in one way?? Mr. Neely made zero effort to reign himself in. He could have looked over at an elderly person and offered a word of contrition or tamed his threat. He just went on. But that's ok.Because he couldn't help himself?? How do you know???

However if the adrenaline is flowing in trying to help protect people then you are guilty of murder?

The people involved in neutralizing situation only wanted stability. Nobody woke up that morning and said "ah, good day to murder someone" Put yourself there, at that moment, in their shoes, you'd be relieved to see them. I sure would. IMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Does anyone know the response time by LE to the subway car?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Does anyone know the response time by LE to the subway car?

I don't think I've seen it addressed. Should have been lickety-split since the folks best able to look out for Mr. Neely had him on their special watch list, that they allegedly kept a close eye on.

 

[kittythehare]

I don't think I've seen it addressed. Should have been lickety-split since the folks best able to look out for Mr. Neely had him on their special watch list, that they allegedly kept a close eye on.

LE would have received a report of an unconscious man following an assault, not likely he would have been in a position to provide his ID before somebody called LE.

 

[Ontario Mom]

LE would have received a report of an unconscious man following an assault, not likely he would have been in a position to provide his ID before somebody called LE.

I was being sarcastic.
He may have been on a list, but no one was looking out for this guy.