My thoughts on the Penny verdict, as someone who has been a resident of NYC for 43 years . . .

[markpkessinger]

I believe the jury erred greatly.

Look, I ride the subways every day. The experience of being in a subway car, from which there is no exit as the train travels between stations, while a clearly disturbed individual rants and raves and seems to be menacing, is indeed a scary one, and it's an experience that nearly every New Yorker has had at some point. But to green-light physical intervention absent an actual physical attack on anyone is to issue an open invitation to vigilantism.

I believe the judge erred in permitting evidence of Jordan Neely's criminal record to be aired at the trial. Why? Because neither Daniel Penny nor anyone in that subway car knew anything about his criminal past. So to allow it to be used as a justification for putting someone in a 6-minute chokehold is an absurd, ex post facto rationalization, not a justification, for Penny's actions.

I'm sorry, but I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to be making his or her own judgments as to whether someone who is ranting and raving -- irrespective of what they are saying -- constitutes a threat sufficient to warrant a physical intervention from that Tom, Dick or Harry! Neely was unarmed, and hadn't attacked anyone, despite whatever he might have been saying. And I believe that for the jury to say that such intervention is fine and good is extremely dangerous for the civic life of this city!

[Drum]

1. Agreed.

New York City resident since 1989.

[hlthe2b]

2. I don't believe for a moment that the he was performing the manuever as taught by the military...

Anyone who has been specifically trained on such potentially disabling and lethal techniques would know that they could not compress the neck that long, thereby eliminating blood flow to the brain. If he was not taught what constituted lethal force versus short-term incapacitation, then we have much bigger issues with the military--just as we do some police forces.

I just feel saddened... And I agree that that was outrageous to allow evidence of past behaviors to come in when that was not an issue for the current setting.

[chouchou]

3. Naturally, if some individual has a severe mental problem, we can be a hero to the "Sane People"

..My ass..

[maxsolomon]

4. That jury saw it differently. The civil suit jury will probably agree with you.

Thankfully, vigilantism is not a common occurrence in the NY Subway system, or anywhere, really. Unlikely that Penny's actions become a template.

[alarimer]

5. I don't know much about the trial.

But you may be right.

Although I am a little more sympathetic to the idea that he just erred in using too much force and didn't intend to actually kill the guy.

So it's probably not really equivalent to the CEO shooting.

I also think this case exposes the fact that far too many people fall through the cracks and that whatever help is available is entirely insufficient. And also that far too many people (even liberals) don't actually care much for those less fortunate than themselves.

[markpkessinger]

6. Several passengers warned him that he needed to let up on the chokehold . . .

Here's the account from Wikipedia (which is fully footnoted and referenced):

Vázquez said that Penny asked other riders to call the police while he had the chokehold.[15] Penny had learned the technique for restraint in basic training.[25][26] Another witness said that at some point during the chokehold, Penny relaxed his grip on Neely, and Neely coughed up a wad of blood and mucus.[27] The same witness noted that nobody on the train car was telling Penny to stop his chokehold, and that some passengers expressed hostile statements toward Neely and support for Penny's actions.[27]

At 2:29 p.m., a passenger on the train warned that Neely had defecated on himself, a sign that he may be dying, saying, "You don't want to catch a murder charge. You got a hell of a chokehold, man."[19][28] One of the other men restraining Neely responded, saying that the excrement on Neely's pants was old. He also responded to the warning by saying that Penny had stopped "squeezing" Neely's neck.[28][29]

About 50 seconds after Neely became motionless, Penny and one man who was still restraining Neely's arms released their hold on him.[24][30] Shortly thereafter, a man named Johnny Grima can be seen in the video saying, "Don't put him on his back though, man. He might choke on his own spit."[31] Penny placed Neely on his side, into a recovery position.[28] Grima said that he put water on Neely's forehead, but was told to stop by Penny.[32] Other passengers also checked on him, including an onlooker who warned Penny about killing Neely, who said, "He's all right. He ain't gonna die."[33][19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jordan_Neely

[choie]

7. NYC resident for 30 years

Agree with you wholeheartedly!

[Ann B]

8. The more things change

The more they stay the same.

1984 New York City Subway shooting
On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz[a] (/ˈɡɛts/[6]) shot four youths on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan after they allegedly tried to rob him.[7][8][9][10] All four victims survived, though one, Darrell Cabey, was paralyzed and suffered brain damage as a result of his injuries.[11] Goetz fled to Bennington, Vermont, before surrendering to police nine days after the shooting. He was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury subsequently found Goetz guilty of one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm and acquitted him of the remaining charges. For the firearm offense, he served eight months of a one-year sentence. In 1996, Cabey obtained a $43 million civil judgment against Goetz after a civil jury ruled Goetz as liable, equivalent to $84 million today.[11]

The incident sparked a nationwide debate on crime in major U.S. cities, the legal limits of self-defense, and the extent to which the citizenry could rely on the police to secure their safety.[9] Questions of what impact race—and racism—had on Goetz, the public reaction, and the criminal verdict were hotly contested. Goetz was dubbed the "Subway Vigilante" by the New York press; to his supporters, he came to symbolize frustrations with the high crime rates of the 1980s. The incident has been cited as leading to successful National Rifle Association campaigns to loosen restrictions for concealed carrying of firearms.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

[electric_blue68]

9. Steady Subway rider for 57 yrs/1967. I agree. B&b NYC'r...

It's definitely, even very uncomfortable being in a subway car with someone either not yet on, or off meds (though due to bad side effects mean; do better Pharmbros!) ranting away. Been there!

But Neely hadn't attacked anyone. Penny shouldn’t have done that, or broken his chokehold much sooner.

[Katnip.]

10. I agree wholeheartedly

I'm disgusted by the verdict. Had Mr. Neely been armed, done something more than ranting then there might have been justification.

So-and-so could be a threat isn't the same as an active threat. Mr. Neely didn't pose an imminent threat from the reports I read.

His killer acted prematurely and was not justified.

He may have been acquitted. Doesn't mean it ends with being exonerated. He's only been exonerated by this one jury.

[cadoman]

11. NYC resident for 10 years, male (cuz it does matter on the subway)

Have ridden the train in every borough at every time of day.

Have run into more troubled people than could be counted. As others have described, if you avoid eye contact and keep your distance you're generally fine. It doesn't hurt to be a large man with a poker face.

I was fortunate to never see a situation rise to the level that it did for Neely and Penny. But importantly, I never heard anyone explicitly threaten to kill or harm.

People rely on explicit threats being taken seriously to ensure their safety. This includes women who need protection from bad men in their life, public figures who are credibly threatened by the public, and individuals who are explicitly threatened by others. Our laws and courts have correctly realized that threats warrant policing, and are not even protected speech under the first amendment.

Penny and the riders on the train were directly threatened with bodily harm and death. Neely can't speak for what his intentions were in making those threats, but there's an inherent risk in threatening to kill people, and one of those people on that day decided the threat was credible.

You say you don't want the average citizen making threat assessments until things get physical, but that's a luxury only larger men can afford. If shit goes south we can run, divert, or fight. If we get assaulted we're more likely to recover physically.

Where does that leave weaker people? Are they supposed to play sacrificial sheep while every Tom, Dick, and Harry yells threats at them? Having to give up their cash or hope they can handle the first hit and that someone strong enough to stop their assailant will react? The generalizations and absolutes you describe cut both ways. The resolution process our legal system gives us is the jury trial.

And with respect to the danger to civil life: most believe that has already happened and that it originates with the permissiveness you exhort we broaden. You get more of what you encourage, and right now we're encouraging harassment, assault, drug use, and theft in our public spaces.

IMO it is a delusion that crime tolerance is beneficial to the economically disadvantaged. Much as a teacher who passes students who cannot read creates illiterate adults, a society that forgives criminality creates criminals.