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

[Murphy1950]

Wow! Had Neely specifically threatened women that day in that car? If not, why would Penny and the other two men feel the need to protect women? When did Mr Neely come to Penny?

So should the two men who helped be charged as accessories? <modsnip: not relevant>
For the record I think your opinion of Penny is way off base...but that is just My opinion.

 

[Lilibet]

So should the two men who helped be charged as accessories? <modsnip: not relevant>
For the record I think your opinion of Penny is way off base...but that is just My opinion.

If the investigation concludes that they should be charged as accessories, I support that, just as I support the charge for Penny. For the record, I have never stated that Penny should be charged with murder or anything more than what was decided by the DA. If you are referring to other opinions of mine being “off base,” you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Charlot123]

It's so complicated. When you read Neely's rap sheet, yes, a danger. Was it written on him that day, however? No. But then, we were not present there. It really depends on the witnesses.

 

[kittythehare]

It's so complicated. When you read Neely's rap sheet, yes, a danger. Was it written on him that day, however? No. But then, we were not present there. It really depends on the witnesses.

Truthfully if Neely's rap sheet figured in Penny's killing it makes it without any shadow of a doubt a vigilante killing, as defined in this peer reviewed paper

..vigilantism has six necessary features: (i) it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it; (ii) its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary; (iii) it is a form of 'autonomous citizenship' and, as such, constitutes a social movement; (iv) it uses or threatens the use of force; (v) it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms; (vi) it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or 'guarantees') of security both to participants and to others. This approach is distinct from attempts to define vigilantism as mere 'establishment violence' and neither assumes vigilante engagement to be extra-legal nor to involve the necessary imposition of punishment on victims.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23638013

There is no evidence to suggest Penny knew anything about Neely's history which was not all bad, btw.

That is not to say none will emerge.

 

[Sillybilly]

We're going to close the thread until morning to give everyone a bit of a breather.

Good Night everyone. Stay safe and be kind to each other.

 

[Knitty]

Thread is open.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

In the video I watched, Penny was grimacing because JN was struggling so hard. That is why I think his actions were appropriate and not "reckless." I do agree the witness testimony will be critical.

JMO

Jordan Neely was struggling so hard because he was literally fighting for air, you know, the air that Daniel Penny was recklessly preventing him from breathing.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I think self-defense was his reason for the chock hold. Two other men were also helping restrain JN.

JMO

Self defence from what? How can you possibly claim self defence when you approach a man FROM BEHIND, really, what was so dangerous for Daniel Penny in those moments that he was standing behind Jordan Neely that he felt his life or safety was threatened?.

 

[Sundog]

Self defence from what? How can you possibly claim self defence when you approach a man FROM BEHIND, really, what was so dangerous for Daniel Penny in those moments that he was standing behind Jordan Neely that he felt his life or safety was threatened?.

We'll get the answer to your question as we hear from witnesses in court if the case proceeds, either with a trial or if the charges are dropped if the grand jury doesn't return an indictment.

Until then, all we can do is speculate.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Self defence from what? How can you possibly claim self defence when you approach a man FROM BEHIND, really, what was so dangerous for Daniel Penny in those moments that he was standing behind Jordan Neely that he felt his life or safety was threatened?.

Self-defense and defense on the behalf of others.

It's curious these questions keep coming up since it's been well documented that JN was making threats of violence, saying he'd take a bullet, didn't care if he got a life sentence, would kill all the MF'ers, etc. Then ripped off his jacket and threw it to the floor.

Not a single person on that train car knew if he'd actually act upon what he was saying, and DP and the 2 others that attempted to restrain him, didn't wait to find out. It ended tragically with the loss of JN's life, but the threats of violence are fully documented.

Interestingly, hindsight being what it is, we the public now do in fact know that JN did have a history of acting out his violence tendencies on others. Realistically, we have no idea what JN might have done if DP hadn't stopped him. It's possible he would have just sat down and did nothing. It's also possible he could have punched another elderly man or woman in the face like he'd done before. JN was a violent person, and that is also very well documented.

jmo

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Kennedy joined “NewsNation Prime” on Sunday evening to discuss her conversation with Daniel Penny, who is charged with second-degree manslaughter in connection to Neely’s death.

“I think he’s concerned about what a lot of his detractors say, like ‘He’s a white supremacist. He’s a murderer. He’s vigilante.’ He was very clear with me. He says he’s none of those things,” Kennedy said, in part.

She added: “He said, ‘I love all cultures. I love all people.’ He does not come across as somebody that had any kind of chip on his shoulder when it comes to race.”

In his interview with Kennedy, Penny said he is “deeply saddened” by what happened and called Neely’s death “tragic.”

Kennedy said Penny told her that he rides subways in New York “all the time” and that this ride was “different than any other experience he ever had.”

“This is just my theory, but he (Penny) didn’t seem like somebody that really like lost it in the moment and you know, realizes he went too far. My take on it was something bad maybe really did happen on that subway,” Kennedy said.

Reporter on chokehold death: Penny said ‘I love all people’

“He said, you know, ‘I love all cultures. I love all people.’ He does not come across as somebody that had any kind of chip on his shoulder when it comes to race.”

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Self-defense and defense on the behalf of others.

It's curious these questions keep coming up since it's been well documented that JN was making threats of violence, saying he'd take a bullet, didn't care if he got a life sentence, would kill all the MF'ers, etc. Then ripped off his jacket and threw it to the floor.

Not a single person on that train car knew if he'd actually act upon what he was saying, and DP and the 2 others that attempted to restrain him, didn't wait to find out. It ended tragically with the loss of JN's life, but the threats of violence are fully documented.

Interestingly, hindsight being what it is, we the public now do in fact know that JN did have a history of acting out his violence tendencies on others. Realistically, we have no idea what JN might have done if DP hadn't stopped him. It's possible he would have just sat down and did nothing. It's also possible he could have punched another elderly man or woman in the face like he'd done before. JN was a violent person, and that is also very well documented.

jmo

I was responding to the op, who said DP, in their opinion, wasn't reckless when he he strained harder to choke JN because Neely was struggling so hard, because it was in self defence.
I didn't address a threat to others because thats not what the op claimed.

My opinion is that it wasn't self defence, because Penny was behind Neely and the video witness said that there was no interaction between JN and DP until DP stepped up from behind and took him down in a chokehold.

My question is, what was the threat to DP at that time? All in response to the op.

Whether he was defending others remains to be seen, although we also know that despite using words that could be perceived as threatening, JN didnt actually threaten anyone in particular, and the only violent thing he actually did was throw down his jacket.

I actually can see both sides and I can accept that DP thought he was doing the right thing, but I think that he acted hastily, that's just my opinion, I also think he had other options available to him other than a possibly deadly chokehold, especially from behind.

 

[Deleted member 287549]

Quoting from the link:

We know that Penny committed a crime because we know that there were nonviolent ways to handle the situation that Penny, and others on the subway, didn’t appear to even try. The easiest way to diffuse the situation on the train that day would likely have been to offer Neely a sandwich. Or a bottle of water. Or five bucks. That’s still the most shocking thing about this whole situation. The “hostile” and “aggressive” things that Neely said on the train were, “I don’t have food. I don’t have drink. I’m fed up.” And in response, nobody thought to give him food or water or money. None of Penny’s defenders can explain why choking a man to death is defending other passengers on the subway, but giving a desperate man some indication of compassion and charity is not.

Honestly, it's not always this simple. JN was acting aggressive/belligerent & also making threatening statements. He was not going around & "gently" panhandling. I have been asked for money by homeless people, and their attitude has ranged from polite all the way to violent/aggressive.

In this JN case, I don't necessarily think that offering him food/drink/money would have placated him. By all accounts & per the witness statements, he was angry/threatening/unhinged right after he got on the train. If you've ever been around someone acting like this, you typically don't want to engage them/interact with them - because, in many cases - this may make matters worse. The best way to handle the situation is to avoid them - if you can.

Going along with this, it's important to note that you would need to have been around mentally ill/violent/unhinged people on a regular basis to understand what I'm talking about here. To those who have this experience (myself included) - people like this can be extremely unpredictable & in many cases the smallest thing can set them off.

Again - if you don't want people to react negatively towards you and/or treat you as a threat - DO NOT make any threatening statements/comments - either directly or indirectly. With all of the incidents of horrific mass violence that have occurred in the U.S. (especially in the past several years) I believe that people have a RIGHT to be concerned/worried when someone is acting belligerent/violent/threatening in public.

 

[IDK]

Due to all the recent, tragic, mass shootings in the US, I think many people are on high alert when in public places, including public transportation.

Was there any way for Penny to know whether or not Jordan N. had a gun? JN was making very concerning statements. I wonder if this fear that Jordan potentially had a gun contributed to the response by Penny?

My opinion and concern.

 

[Cryptic]

I actually can see both sides and I can accept that DP thought he was doing the right thing, but I think that he acted hastily, that's just my opinion, I also think he had other options available to him other than a possibly deadly chokehold, especially from behind.

This also reflects my thoughts as well (though you express it better than me).

My willingness to convict Perry of Manslaughter would depend on:
A. How long the chokehold was maintained?
B. Was Perry advised that Neely was not resisting and in danger of dying?

I would not convict Perry if say, Neely went into cardiac arrest as soon as the chokehold was applied, or Perry stopped chocking Neely when advised that he was no longer resisting, appeared to be in danger of dying- but it was too late.

But....

I would have no problem convicting Perry if he kept the choke hold applied for a very extended period of time- way beyond what might have been needed to control Neely and Perry continued to choke him after being told that Neely was not resisting and was in grave danger.

 

[Cryptic]

Again - if you don't want people to react negatively towards you and/or treat you as a threat - DO NOT make any threatening statements/comments - either directly or indirectly.

I agree. But..... I think some additional "do nots" should be added for balance:

If you are an intervening citizen and do not want to cross that fuzzy line between needed intervention and criminal vigilantism:

- Do Not Automatically resort to potentially lethal chokeholds if the threat is not actually harming anybody and has not demonstrated that they are armed. Unarmed and non attacking threats can be physically subdued with out chokeholds.

- Do Not ignore advise from other citizens that the threat under a chokehold is no longer resisting and is endanger of being killed.

- Do Not maintain chokeholds for extended periods of time. Brain death can result after 3 minutes. So, any chokehold longer than that is getting questionable, very questionable.

- Do Not assume that applying chokeholds in real life will be identical to applying chokeholds in a training class.

- Do not conclude that completing a training class that includes chokeholds makes you and expert and gives you the ability to control a chokehold's force in the field.

- Do.... use chokeholds as a last resort when the level of articulable danger posed by the threat clearly justifies their use.

 

[kittythehare]

I agree. But..... I think some additional "do nots" should be added for balance:

If you are an intervening citizen and do not want to cross that fuzzy line between needed intervention and criminal vigilantism:

- Do Not Automatically resort to potentially lethal chokeholds if the threat is not actually harming anybody and has not demonstrated that they are armed. Unarmed and non attacking threats can be physically subdued with out chokeholds.

- Do Not ignore advise from other citizens that the threat under a chokehold is no longer resisting and is endanger of being killed.

- Do Not maintain chokeholds for extended periods of time. Brain death can result after 3 minutes. So, any chokehold longer than that is getting questionable, very questionable.

- Do Not assume that applying chokeholds in real life will be identical to applying chokeholds in a training class.

- Do not conclude that completing a training class that includes chokeholds makes you and expert and gives you the ability to control a chokehold's force in the field.

- Do.... use chokeholds as a last resort when the level of danger posed by the threat clearly justifies their use.

(1) Blood Choke. A blood choke is performed on the carotid artery, which carries oxygen-enriched blood from the heart to the brain. The carotid artery is located on both sides of the neck. (a) When executed properly, a blood choke takes between eight to thirteen seconds for the opponent to lose consciousness. (b) The blood choke is the preferred choke because its intended effect (i.e., the opponent losing consciousness) can be executed quickly, ending the fight.

(1) REAR CHOKE. (a) Purpose. The rear choke is a blood choke performed when you are behind the opponent; the opponent is on the ground, or when you are taking the opponent to the ground. DEMONSTRATE/

(a) Purpose. The figure-four is a variation of the rear choke and it allows you to gain more leverage on the rear choke. If you cannot secure the rear choke, you may apply the figure-four variation to increase the pressure of the choke on the opponent.

https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/FMTBE/Student%20Materials/MCECST/B_Tan_Belt_Execute_Chokes_%20SO.pdf?ver=pJH__SmOfUgRAWuTKRUJDQ%3D%3D

 

[Cryptic]

(1) Blood Choke. (a) When executed properly, a blood choke takes between eight to thirteen seconds for the opponent to lose consciousness.

I think this is the key word in the entire training. In the end, applying a blood verse and oxygen chokehold can be very difficult. And.... a "field enviroment" is very different than a training enviroment.

 

[kittythehare]

I think this is the key word in the entire training. In the end, applying a blood verse and oxygen chokehold can be very difficult. And.... a "field enviroment" is very different than a training enviroment.

To apply it under any circumstances at all is extraordinarily dangerous.

He had training in de escalation techniques.

He had training in lots of immobilisation techniques.

Because HE perceived danger,
You simply cannot kill people based on your perceptions.
It won't fly nor should it.

 

[Deleted member 287549]

Agree 100% that performing a choke-hold on anyone is extremely dangerous. And, even if someone is certain what they're doing & doesn't intend for this to be lethal....I can still easily see how this could result in unintentional brain damage or death. IMHO this should never be used unless it's an extreme case.

I honestly don't know what the answer is here. The main options for the train passengers seem to have been:

1) Ignore JN, or

2) For everyone to have moved to another car.

But, as I stated before - moving away would very possibly have escalated the situation. Also, ignoring JN may have escalated the situation as well.

3) If DP and others were in genuine fear for their lives (possible) & if DP had tried to subdue JN with just a body hold - I don't know how effective that would have been & it may have still resulted in JN and/or others getting injured (possibly seriously). I.e., was DP strong enough to have done this without JN freeing himself?! And, if this had happened - would/could others have intervened and assisted DP with the body hold?!

Going along with this, how did DP or others know that JN didn't at the least have a knife/blade on him?! He didn't, but - again - they didn't know that ahead of time.