Homeless Man Killed by Fellow Passenger on NYC Subway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. He’s a hero who should have never been arrested. I’ve been threatened by homeless people with my young children in tow and it’s scary. Mentally ill people are unpredictable. This situation very easily could have gone the other way resulting in the death of an innocent subway rider. A few weeks ago three people in NYC were stabbed by a homeless man and at least one of them died.

Yes one made lewd comments at my 7 yr old daughter and started following her so we had to get her in between us not knowing if he would do something to her.

[Anonymous]

I am fine with Penny being exonerated -- I do think he acted in self-defense and I think the testimony of other passengers should carry heavy weight as he was acting to protect them (and himself). But the whole incident is still tragic. I feel bad for Penny that he has to carry this death on his conscience even if it was justified. I feel bad for Neely's family to have lost him even if he had serious problems that should have been treated. And I feel bad for Neely, who obviously had serious mental health issues and a tragic history -- his mother was murdered and he had to testify against her killer, who he knew and had killed her in a particularly gruesome way.

This is a just outcome but also there is absolutely nothing to celebrate here.

[Anonymous]

why do they keep showing 10 year old videos of a cleaned up Neely vs the violent deshelved criminal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so sad. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned.

That is not what happened here. Self-defense or defense of others is not vigilantism. It is defense.

+1

Penny didn't target Neely. He acted to protect himself and others on an enclosed subway car when a man with serious mental health deficits demanded money and threatened violence. And I believe the killing was an accident -- I don't think Penny wanted to kill someone that day. He wanted to incapacitate someone who posed a threat, and I think in doing so accidentally killed him. He never should have been charged with the higher charge to begin with, and the situation does not really meet the requirements for manslaughter either.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone seen interview with the jurors? I'm very confused by how this unfolded because I don't understand how they were deadlocked on the higher charge (indicating that at least one person wanted to convict for manslaughter) but then unanimous in finding him not guilty of the lower charge of criminally negligent homicide. That doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so sad. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned.

That is not what happened here. Self-defense or defense of others is not vigilantism. It is defense.

+1

Penny didn't target Neely. He acted to protect himself and others on an enclosed subway car when a man with serious mental health deficits demanded money and threatened violence. And I believe the killing was an accident -- I don't think Penny wanted to kill someone that day. He wanted to incapacitate someone who posed a threat, and I think in doing so accidentally killed him. He never should have been charged with the higher charge to begin with, and the situation does not really meet the requirements for manslaughter either.

Holding a choke for a minute after someone is unconscious is an accident? Most people would probably say that it's reckless, and that's all they need for a conviction on the manslaughter charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so sad. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned.

That is not what happened here. Self-defense or defense of others is not vigilantism. It is defense.

+1

Penny didn't target Neely. He acted to protect himself and others on an enclosed subway car when a man with serious mental health deficits demanded money and threatened violence. And I believe the killing was an accident -- I don't think Penny wanted to kill someone that day. He wanted to incapacitate someone who posed a threat, and I think in doing so accidentally killed him. He never should have been charged with the higher charge to begin with, and the situation does not really meet the requirements for manslaughter either.

Holding a choke for a minute after someone is unconscious is an accident? Most people would probably say that it's reckless, and that's all they need for a conviction on the manslaughter charge.

Apparently most people don’t say it’s reckless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is so sad. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned.

Unless the victim is a CEO?

[Anonymous]

Mentally ill people need to be off the streets and receiving in-patient care (institutionalization) for their own benefit and the benefit of others. It’s shameful that we have people with severe mental health issues wandering the streets unable to care for themselves and threatening harm to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so sad. Vigilante justice cannot be condoned.

That is not what happened here. Self-defense or defense of others is not vigilantism. It is defense.

+1

Penny didn't target Neely. He acted to protect himself and others on an enclosed subway car when a man with serious mental health deficits demanded money and threatened violence. And I believe the killing was an accident -- I don't think Penny wanted to kill someone that day. He wanted to incapacitate someone who posed a threat, and I think in doing so accidentally killed him. He never should have been charged with the higher charge to begin with, and the situation does not really meet the requirements for manslaughter either.

Holding a choke for a minute after someone is unconscious is an accident? Most people would probably say that it's reckless, and that's all they need for a conviction on the manslaughter charge.

For someone who is not a police office, who is acting on instinct and out of fear, yes.

A minute is nothing. It's really not that long. Have you ever been in a situation where you feared for your life or that of a loved one, and had the adrenaline pumping and your heart pounding in your ears? Hyper vigilance in a situation like that frequently lasts past when the threat has been neutralized. It takes time for your body to respond to new information about your safety. That it only took Penny a minute to re-acclimate and let go is likely actually a testament to his training as a marine, making him more accustomed to processing intense fear and managing fight or flight.

I have worked in victim advocacy (specifically with rape victims) and this is a frequent problem with how people evaluate the behavior of victims after the fact. People want to impose impassioned logic on the behavior of someone who is experiencing an intense fear response, and it is very common to misread behavior. Your brain cannot process logic when it is flooded with adrenaline.

[Anonymous]

If you were on public transit, and 2 people got on your train car or bus, and one of them was Jordan Neely and the other was Daniel Penny, who would you rather sit next to? What about your 80 year old grandma, or your Asian immigrant neighbor, or your young cousin who has a 2 year old kid to take care of? What do you think they would pick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mentally ill people need to be off the streets and receiving in-patient care (institutionalization) for their own benefit and the benefit of others. It’s shameful that we have people with severe mental health issues wandering the streets unable to care for themselves and threatening harm to others.

This. It is especially shameful in a country where access to deadly weapons is so commonplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen interview with the jurors? I'm very confused by how this unfolded because I don't understand how they were deadlocked on the higher charge (indicating that at least one person wanted to convict for manslaughter) but then unanimous in finding him not guilty of the lower charge of criminally negligent homicide. That doesn't make sense.

They weren't instructed to deliberate the lesser charge until they were hung on the manslaughter charge. The likely scenario is that there was one juror who would not vote to acquit him on the manslaughter charge who, over the weekend, changed her or his mind about one of the elements for some reason (assuming that the jury instructions were clear and correct).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mentally ill people need to be off the streets and receiving in-patient care (institutionalization) for their own benefit and the benefit of others. It’s shameful that we have people with severe mental health issues wandering the streets unable to care for themselves and threatening harm to others.

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mentally ill people need to be off the streets and receiving in-patient care (institutionalization) for their own benefit and the benefit of others. It’s shameful that we have people with severe mental health issues wandering the streets unable to care for themselves and threatening harm to others.

Agreed. But then once they pose a threat to others, saying it's mental health doesn't actually make them any less dangerous in the moment.