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

[Deleted member 287549]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And when someone is shouting that they don’t care if they end up in jail for a life sentence, it would not be a stretch to be concerned that their intent is to do something that could lead to such a sentence. There is simply no way to know without video or eyewitness accounts if there was a legitimate threat of violence. But that statement alone indicates to me this was a level above the innocuous homeless/mentally ill encounters that we have all had in a major city.
OTOH, this marine should definitely NOT be allowed to run around performing maneuvers that can kill someone without him intending to do so. In my opinion, that should not go unpunished. But murder charges may be a stretch.
MOO

Agree with all of this. The statement that JN made about "not caring if they got a life sentence in jail" (or something very similar) would definitely cause a reasonable person to conclude that this individual was going to do something that would cause them to receive this sentence, i.e. a serious assault against another person/persons - or worse. In other words, you obviously don't get life sentences for non-violent crimes - nor do you get a life sentence for trying to harm just yourself.

 

[Lilibet]

Society cannot afford to give vigilantes free reign. Nor, can it afford to give people who break a 67 year old woman's nose less than 15 months in jail.

Of course.But assaulting that woman was horrific and the sentence didn't fit such a brutal crime.

Neely hadn’t even been sentenced yet. The time in jail was prior to pleading guilty and his lawyers arranging with the city for him to get treatment.

 

[Lilibet]

Perhaps his 67 year old victim had similar thoughts- just before Neely broke her nose and gave her other facial injuries?

Though Penny would not have known about Neely attacking the woman, Neely might not have been inclined to listen to soothing words, nor to accept a snack or a seat.

If Mr Neely’s victim had compassionate thoughts toward him before he hit her in the face, I hope she has kept her kind nature in spite of her injuries. You’re right, he might not have been inclined to respond favorably to kind words, an offer of a snack or a seat. We will never know, will we?…because Penny decided to take him down in a choke hold, which took his life. No one had a chance to try kindness first. Isn’t it better to try kindness and fail than to jump immediately to irresponsible aggression?

 

[kittythehare]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655391096870977539

 

[kittythehare]

Jordan Neely had struggled with not being able to help his mother before she was killed in 2007 and was still grieving her death, an attorney for his family said Saturday on MSNBC while also demanding justice.

Donte Mills, an attorney for Neely's family, told Al Sharpton on MSNBC's "PoliticsNation" that Neely "had demons" as a result of his mother's murder. Family members had been trying to get him help, he said.

Mills said Neely learned his mother had been killed the night before and Southerland had dumped her body while he was at school. Southerland was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the crime.

"He had to live with the fact that he left his mother dead in their home. So, that's a lot to live with and he had troubles with that. But throughout his life, he was determined to make other people happy and that's what he did," Mills said.

Jordan Neely struggled with not being able to help his mother before her murder, attorney says

Donte Mills, an attorney for Neely's family, said Neely “had demons” as a result of his mother’s murder, and his family was trying to get him help.

www.nbcnews.com

The fact that he had gone to school and left her there alone and dead in a suitcase is such a human response to the most awful tragedy!

 

[acutename]

Yep. It would be nice if we had some more witness statements and or video. JMO.

I do not know what I think either- there have been numerous reports of violence on subways lately- I do not understand, if the marine was just over-reacting, why two other men were helping him? It makes me think that at least initially, Neely seemed threatening enough for three people to try to restrain him...I have not been on the NYC subways in years so I have no personal opinion about safety but I have seen some people acting out on city streets and not all of them have been "in the here and now," so you cannot just talk to them or offer them things; they are in another world, IMO.

 

[kittythehare]

I do not know what I think either- there have been numerous reports of violence on subways lately- I do not understand, if the marine was just over-reacting, why two other men were helping him? It makes me think that at least initially, Neely seemed threatening enough for three people to try to restrain him...I have not been on the NYC subways in years so I have no personal opinion about safety but I have seen some people acting out on city streets and not all of them have been "in the here and now," so you cannot just talk to them or offer them things; they are in another world, IMO.

i presume that if the former marine is to face murder charges, his accomplices are unlikely to go free.
Having said that there was absolutely no need to hold down a man wrestling and kicking reflexively while in the throes of death.
To do so demonstrated gross ignorance of the process of death from throat crushing while the man was unable to move because he was held in a choke hold.
I don't think they were ministering angels demonstrating a zest and dedication and love for public safety public safety no more than I believe the killer was.

 

[Lilibet]

Agree with all of this. The statement that JN made about "not caring if they got a life sentence in jail" (or something very similar) would definitely cause a reasonable person to conclude that this individual was going to do something that would cause them to receive this sentence, i.e. a serious assault against another person/persons - or worse. In other words, you obviously don't get life sentences for non-violent crimes - nor do you get a life sentence for trying to harm just yourself.

So it sounds like you’re saying he was basically executed for what he yelled, apparently in frustration about being tired, hungry and thirsty. A life sentence would get him “three hots and a cot.” If anyone felt he was going to actually do something to earn a life sentence, they could have stayed close to him, as Penny obviously did, and take him down if he made one false move. But even then, don’t execute him just because you reasonably perceive a threat. Restrain him safely until LE gets there. There was NO excuse for what Penny did, no matter how many reasons anyone comes up with to try to turn the victim into the aggressor deserving of death. Verbal aggression is not a crime. Killing someone usually is.
JMO

 

[Lilibet]

I have seen some people acting out on city streets and not all of them have been "in the here and now," so you cannot just talk to them or offer them things; they are in another world, IMO.

Just to be clear, in my comments I have never said that offering a drink, a snack, a seat or a listening ear is an appropriate response to those who are not “in the here and now.” I’m not that naive. I know when to avoid contact. But Mr Neely arrived on the subway upset because he apparently needed those things. It might have helped to offer. If it didn’t help, just back off. No harm done. At least not until former-Marine Penny decided to rescue everyone from the perceived threat Mr Neely presented.
JMO

 

[mewmew]

Black Americans say white vigilantism played a role in Jordan Neely’s homicide

“It reignites the terror in the souls of Black folks when we witness these killings of our people without trial, without jury, without adjudication,” one psychologist said.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm wondering if jail had been a safe place for Jordan?
He at least had food and a bed there. Possibly meds too.

i wonder whether he longed to return to whatever safety he found there.

I wondered that as well. As someone who has been hospitalized and institutionalized, I sometimes have longed for the stability those institutions provide. Relying on my own sick brain everyday can be difficult — having someone give me meds everyday and set a schedule was helpful. I can relate with Mr Neely all too much. For some of us, it’s a hard world. JMO.

 

[kittythehare]

I wondered that as well. As someone who has been hospitalized and institutionalized, I sometimes have longed for the stability those institutions provide. Relying on my own sick brain everyday can be difficult — having someone give me meds everyday and set a schedule was helpful. I can relate with Mr Neely all too much. For some of us, it’s a hard world. JMO.

I know it is.
I really do.

yeah, he did well enough in jail prior to his court case so much that the judge was prepared to send him to treatment.. he had 15 months of care in jail, he sounded well by the time of the court case. 9NYT link, posted a few hrs ago)

I think the treatment centre was too much for him though and he absconded after 10 days, probably still longing for his safe prison.. I think that's what his alleged rant was about.. the hunger, the thirst... the reaching towards a life of safety in jail.

He'd only absconded a very short time when he was back using, one could presume and he was in full crisis again..

Like you, my heart goes out to him and to all humanity.
This was a savage attack.
Hopefully, at least perp gets charged..
What a way to die..

 

[kittythehare]

MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE (Depraved Indifference Murder) Penal Law § 125.25 (2) (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967) (Revised December 12, 2006 1 and June 5, 2012 2 )
Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].3 The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning:4

A person RECKLESSLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT WHICH CREATES A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH TO ANOTHER PERSON when he or she: engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person's death will occur, and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, and when that grave and unjustifiable risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.5 Reckless conduct that results in death, however, is not enough to constitute this crime. And that is true no matter how grave or substantial the risk of death was.6 To constitute this crime, the evidence must also show that the defendant acted under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life. The fact that taking the life of another can itself, in a sense, 5 See Penal Law § 15.05(3); People v Boutin, 75 NY2d 692, 696 (1990). See also Hafeez; People v Sanchez, 98 NY2d 373 (2002) overruled on other grounds by Feingold (Both Sanchez and Hafeez emphasize that depraved indifference murder has a heightened degree of recklessness compared to the degree of recklessness necessary to constitute reckless manslaughter. Depraved indifference murder requires a recklessness which creates a “grave” risk of death, and reckless manslaughter requires a recklessness which creates a “substantial” risk of death. If both crimes are charged to the jury, the difference in the degrees of recklessness should be explained as set forth in the CJI2d charge: “Depraved Murder and Reckless Manslaughter Compared”). 6 “Reckless homicide cannot be elevated into depraved indifference murder merely because the actions of the defendant created a risk of death, however grave or substantial that risk may have been” (Suarez, 6 NY3d at 213). 2 be considered a "depraved" act does not, however, turn every killing into depraved indifference murder.7 DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE refers to a person’s state of mind in recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a grave risk of death.8 A person has a depraved indifference to human life when that person has an utter disregard for the value of human life – a willingness to act, not because he or she means to cause grievous harm [to the person who is killed], but because he or she simply does not care whether or not grievous harm will result.9 In other words, a person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life - - that person does not care how the risk turns out.10 Depraved indifference to human life reflects a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts. It is evinced by conduct that is wanton, deficient in a moral sense of concern, devoid of regard for the life or lives of others,11 and so blameworthy as to justify the 7 “That taking the life of another can itself, in a sense, be considered a ‘depraved’ act does not, however, turn every killing into depraved indifference murder as proscribed by the Penal Law” (Suarez, 6 NY3d at 208). 8 “We say today explicitly...: depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” (Feingold, 7 NY3d at 294). 9 "...'depraved indifference is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life– a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn't care whether grievous harm results or not' " (Feingold at 296, quoting Suarez, 6 NY3d at 214). 10 People v Lewie, 17 NY3d at 359, supra. 11 For the court’s information, the remaining portion of the sentence exists only for the crimes of depraved indifference murder. It does not appear in the other depraved indifference crimes, such as assault and reckless endangerment, where death does not result. 3 same criminal liability that the law imposes on a person who intentionally kills.12 [Add, if appropriate: A person acts with a depraved indifference to human life when, having a conscious objective not to kill but to harm, he or she engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim.]13 [Add if appropriate: 12 “Reflecting wickedness, evil or inhumanity, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts, depraved indifference is embodied in conduct that is ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy’ as to render the actor as culpable as one whose conscious objective is to kill” (Suarez, 6 NY3d at 214 quoting People v Russell, 91 NY2d 280, 287 [1998]). This definition also applies “when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight –arising from a situation created by the defendant– properly establishes depraved indifference murder”(Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212). “rrespective of what the actor does or does not do after inflicting the fatal injury, depraved indifference murder is not made out unless the core statutory requirement of depraved indifference murder is established” (id. at 210). Accordingly, this definition of “depraved indifference to human life” may also be used in what the Court of Appeals has termed to be “classic abandonment of a helpless victim” cases (id. at 212; See e.g. People v Mills, 1 NY3d 269 (2003) [pushing a young child into water and walking away]; People v Kibbe, 35 NY2d 407 (1974) [pushing an intoxicated person from a car onto a dark and snowy road]; But see People v Mancini, 7 NY3d 767 (2006)[assaulting a person and then leaving him does not necessarily constitute a depraved indifference to human life]. 13 “[A]lthough we have reversed depraved indifference murder convictions in most cases involving isolated attacks, we have held that the crime is nevertheless established when a defendant– acting with a conscious objective not to kill but to harm– engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim” (Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212).

A person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another when he or she creates the risk but is unaware of the risk solely by reason of his or her voluntary intoxication.14 However, in determining whether the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life, you may consider whether the defendant's mind was affected by intoxicants to such a degree that he was incapable of forming the mental state of depraved indifference to human life.15] In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements: 14 Penal Law § 15.05 (3). 15 Penal Law § 15.25 provides that “Intoxication is not, as such, a defense to a criminal charge; but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged.” In Register, the Court of Appeals held that “depraved indifference to human life” was not a culpable mental state, that “it is not an element in the traditional sense but rather a definition of the factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur – objective circumstances which are not subject to being negatived by evidence of defendant’s intoxication.” Feingold overruled Register, and held that “depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” (7 NY3d at 294). Thereafter, in People v Coon, 34 AD3d 869 (3d Dept 2006), the Third Department noted that the defendant’s level of intoxication by his voluntary use of crack cocaine made him “incapable of possessing the culpable mental state necessary to prove depraved indifference.” Similarly, in People v Wimes, 49 AD3d 1286, 1287 (4th Dept 2008), the Fourth Department noted that "[t]here was no mention of intoxication during the plea allocution, despite the fact that intoxication could have negated the element of depraved indifference in the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty." The Second Department, however, has declined to hold that voluntary intoxication may negate the culpable mental state of depraved indifference to human life (see People v Heidgen, 87 AD3d 1016, 1025-1026 (2d Dept 2011), aff’d without deciding that issue People v Heidgen, 22 NY 3d 259, 279 (2013) (the jury was instructed that it should consider whether the defendant was too intoxicated to be able to form the requisite mental state and the propriety of the instruction was not in issue in the Court of Appeals). See also People v Wells, 53 AD3d 181 (1st Dept. 2008), and Compare with People v Valencia, 14 NY3d 927 (2010). 5 1. That on or about (date), in the county of (County), the defendant, (defendant’s name), caused the death of (specify); 2. That the defendant did so by recklessly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of death to (specify); and 3. That the defendant engaged in such conduct under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life. If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime. If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime.

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-25%282%29.pdf

i'll be very surprised if a GJ does not come up with this.

 

[IceIce9]

Agree with all of this. The statement that JN made about "not caring if they got a life sentence in jail" (or something very similar) would definitely cause a reasonable person to conclude that this individual was going to do something that would cause them to receive this sentence, i.e. a serious assault against another person/persons - or worse. In other words, you obviously don't get life sentences for non-violent crimes - nor do you get a life sentence for trying to harm just yourself.

I will say again that I don’t have all the answers. But I do know that people should have the right to ride public transportation without being threatened. And they should be able to walk on a sidewalk without being violently assaulted.

 

[Cryptic]

Penny didn’t know about Neely’s assaults on other people, but I think it’s very likely that Neely presented himself that day as a dangerously violent person.

In the end, I agree with you.

As other members have pointed out, Neely's "I dont care if I get a life sentence." can be seen as a threat. But, there is no evidence that he tried to act on that implied threat.

 

[kittythehare]

Jordan Neely's family calls Daniel Penny's statement 'admission of guilt' in their own new statement

Jordan Neely's family released a statement Monday morning in response to the one that Daniel Penny released last week.

abc7ny.com

"Daniel Penny's press release is not an apology nor an expression of regret. It is a character assassination and a clear example of why he believed he was entitled to take Jordan's life. In the first paragraph, he talks about how "good" he is and the next paragraph he talks about how "bad" Jordan was in an effort to convince us Jordan's life was "worthless." The truth is, he knew nothing about Jordan's history when he intentionally wrapped his arms around Jordan's neck, and squeezed and kept squeezing. In the last paragraph, Daniel Penny suggests that the general public has shown "indifference" for people like Jordan, but that term is more appropriately used to describe himself. It is clear he is the one who acted with indifference, both at the time he killed Jordan and now in his first public message. He never attempted to help him at all. In short, his actions on the train, and now his words, show why he needs to be in prison," says Attorneys Donte Mills and Lennon Edwards. Lastly, Attorney Donte Mills states "Mayor Eric Adams, give us a call. The family wants you to know Jordan matters. You seem to think others are more important than him."

 

[Deleted member 287549]

I don't have any answers here - just providing some opinions/thoughts.

To clarify, I agree 100% that DP shouldn't have done what he did. He seemed to be trying to incapacitate JN, and ended up killing him.

In a similar situation, I would probably have gotten up & gone to another subway car - to remove myself from that situation. In fact, I have done exactly this when I have felt uneasy around someone while taking public transportation. The problem is that in situations like this the disturbed person will see you leaving the car - and will sometimes follow you, etc. But, since DP stayed in that subway car we don't know what would have happened here.

In this particular case - JN seemed to certainly be perceived as a threat by DP & others on the subway. Whether he was an actual threat?! We don't know.

 

[kittythehare]

Jordan Neely was a human, no different to any other human and with the same right to live that we all have.
Daniel Penny killed him.
Mercilessly.
That's the case.

Hopefully, this week a Grand Jury will decide to charge Daniel Penny with Depraved Indifference Murder

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-25%282%29.pdf

This has got nothing at all to do with how any of us regard those less fortunate than us.

#JusticeForJordanNeely

 

[IceIce9]

Jordan Neely was a human, no different to any other human and with the same right to live that we all have.
Daniel Penny killed him.
Mercilessly.
That's the case.

Hopefully, this week a Grand Jury will decide to charge Daniel Penny with Depraved Indifference Murder

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-25%282%29.pdf

This has got nothing at all to do with how any of us regard those less fortunate than us.

#JusticeForJordanNeely

I believe a reasonable person would have considered Neely’s words and actions to be threatening.

I think Penny’s actions were justified up to a point, he should have incapacitated Neely without killing him.

There are many instances of homeless people who have savagely attacked innocent people, even murdering people who were just going about their day.

We don’t know whether Neely would have actually harmed anyone or not. But he was threatening.

I firmly believe that people have the right to ride public transportation without being threatened, attacked, injured, or killed.

I also believe that people who have never been in a dangerous situation with a homeless person might not see this the same as those of us who have had scary experiences.

JMO

 

[kittythehare]

I believe a reasonable person would have considered Neely’s words and actions to be threatening.

I think Penny’s actions were justified up to a point, he should have incapacitated Neely without killing him.

There are many instances of homeless people who have savagely attacked innocent people, even murdering people who were just going about their day.

We don’t know whether Neely would have actually harmed anyone or not. But he was threatening.

I firmly believe that people have the right to ride public transportation without being threatened, attacked, injured, or killed.

I also believe that people who have never been in a dangerous situation with a homeless person might not see this the same as those of us who have had scary experiences.

JMO

Homeless people are not a homogeneous group.

Everybody is an individual and unique.

Every murder is different and involves different personalities and circumstances.

We don't actually know whether he was threatening or not.

I'm a tad simple, maybe, I've dealt with hundreds of alcoholics and addicts over the years as a nurse and as a homeopath, I often got a whack and i often got a kick, lots of kicks.... they tended to bring them to emergency departments and our job was to keep them safe but we didn't take it personally. And if we carried a fear of them we would have been unable to do our jobs. You learn to duck and you learn to move and evade.

Fear is not a defence.

Everybody has all sorts of rights in all sorts of situations and that is a general conversation.
It is not specific to the killing of Jordan Neely.

Sorry but perceiving homeless people as savages is a step too far, not just for me, for the law too.

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

Absolutely never said that. I'm saying it is going to keep happening, because people are seething with anger in communities that are overwhelmed with mentally ill homeless populations. Just because I acknowledge what I see with my own eyes, doesn't mean I agree with it. In my community there has...

www.websleuths.com

Here's a link to info on extrajudicial assassinations

When Death Becomes Murder: A Primer on Extrajudicial Killing – Columbia Human Rights Law Review

hrlr.law.columbia.edu

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws

Justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when

ypdcrime.com

There's no space in any of that to justify the former marine's actions causing death, we don't even know if the former marine had any reason at all to put his hands on him.
We do know that Jordan was not carrying a weapon.


Incidentally I've seen several conversations with actual marines on social media and none of them support his actions.

I Was in the Military. The Marine Who Killed Jordan Neely Sure Ignored His Training.

Service members are not taught that choking a civilian to death is OK.

slate.com

Nobody is saying Jordan Neely had anything but an absolutely awful life.
But he had that life, like George Floyd had his.
Now he does not because somebody who was trained to know and do better chose to take it from him.

There were primarily 2 sick men in this altercation, if that is what it was..

one had nothing and he was tiny
the other had pretty much everything he wanted.
And he was a lot bigger, trained to de-escalate, claims self defence yet took Jordan from behind and when he knew he had crossed that line, he chose not to stop but to persist until all the life was squeezed out of the sick man, Jordan.

One of those men owned a home, the other did not.
I prefer the one who was killed and unmortgaged because I took the time to learn about his humanity and it almost broke my heart.
They all do.
I don't see them as 'other'

MOO

 

[elevatorific]

I believe a reasonable person would have considered Neely’s words and actions to be threatening.

I think Penny’s actions were justified up to a point, he should have incapacitated Neely without killing him.

There are many instances of homeless people who have savagely attacked innocent people, even murdering people who were just going about their day.

We don’t know whether Neely would have actually harmed anyone or not. But he was threatening.

I firmly believe that people have the right to ride public transportation without being threatened, attacked, injured, or killed.

I also believe that people who have never been in a dangerous situation with a homeless person might not see this the same as those of us who have had scary experiences.

JMO

I believe many reasonable people would disagree, if based only on what we know currently. That could change pending accounts by other witnesses, but the most thorough description we have now, from the man who recorded the video, is this:

“He started screaming in an aggressive manner,” Vazquez told The Post. “He said he had no food, he had no drink, that he was tired and doesn’t care if he goes to jail. He started screaming all these things, took off his jacket, a black jacket that he had, and threw it on the ground.” (He also says “The disturbed man did not seem to want to attack anyone.”)

Scary experiences will happen - by homeless people and by housed people! - but based only on what we've heard this doesn't seem like one of them. The fact that someone is dirty and presumably homeless (or black for that matter, but this situation doesn't need to be looked at through that lens) shouldn't be an automatic 2 strikes against them in warranting deadly force. imo.

ETA: To your point about people who have never been in a dangerous situation with a homeless person - I live in a major city. I didn't think I had ever been in a dangerous situation with a homeless person. But I guess by your definition I have been in many. I consider myself neither brave nor naive, but reasonable fear is subjective.