• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Daniel Penny acquitted in the death of Jordan Neely

What exactly do people think Mr. Neely's family should have done? I ask because once someone is an adult, it is pretty hard to get a mentally unstable person to agree or even adhere to treatment. Involuntary commitment is difficult to legally accomplish, let alone emotionally.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...ignore-americas-fatherhood-crisis/ar-AA1vBCqi

Okay, I know the guy quoted in the article is a minister and I know the interview was done on one of the Fox News stations, hopefully, just one of the local stations that is very different from the political one, but the guy makes a lot of good points. Neely's father was never there for him, not even when he was a kid, who witnessed his mother's murder.

Then I recently learned that Jordan’s father, Andre Zachary, filed a lawsuit against Daniel Penny that "demands judgment awarding damages in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction."



Now, I was incensed. Where the heck was Zachary all these years? What did he do for his son who had to witness an abusive relationship? Where was he when his son was shipped off to the foster care system? Where was he all those years his son was in the system — did he visit even once? Where was he when his son got out? Where the heck was he when his son was dealing with his demons all by himself and drifting in and out of homelessness?

And now he shows up when his son is cold and buried? To be clear, he didn’t show up for Jordan. He showed up for himself. Andre Zachary was never a father in any meaningful way and does not deserve that precious title.
Georgia Drivers Will Be Ticked Off About This Upcoming Policy Change






This angers me in ways that most people wouldn’t understand. I minister and work on the South Side of Chicago and I understand more than most how detrimental the absentee father has been to our community. I work with them every day. I counsel them on how God has blessed them with children and how it is their sacred responsibility to be there and raise the child. I provide these young men with pathways to opportunities. I’ve seen them leave paths of destruction to become forklift operators and construction workers. Some have even returned to college while working a full-time job.

These men are good men. They were lost but the possibility of redemption was within them and they simply needed a nudge in the right direction.

They are nothing like the lost soul that Andre Zachary still is. While I would never turn my back fully on any man, that man has never shown one ounce of fatherhood. I know there are those who will try to use race to excuse him because he is Black. But that is immoral. Almost every absentee father I deal with is Black. If I allowed that to be an excuse, then where would we be as a society?


That is why I stand here and hold Andre Zachary fully accountable for his actions. He played a role in his son’s death. That is what he needs to acknowledge if he wants to make it right with a far higher power than money: God. If he chooses this unholy pursuit of money, then we must make an example out of him.

I worked with a lot of young women who had children, but the children's father was absent in many cases. One, who I was very close to, had twin boys and by the time they were 18, one had committed a crime. The mom was a dear person who probably did a good job of raising her boys, but why wasn't the father helping out? I agree with the quote, regardless if I don't agree with the religious aspects of it. I agree that a father plays an important part in raising a child, especially a child who has experienced trauma. But, Neely's father did absolutely nothing for him, he let him struggle with drugs and homelessness, after living in foster care. Foster care, is often a horrible experience for a kid. Neely's father could have and should have done more to help his son. Now, he has the nerve to ask for financial compensation due to his son's death.
Neely’s father was the functional equivalent of a sperm donor who is now asking for compensation for stolen property. In no proper sense of the word is he “family”. He deserves nothing.

Mr Neely had no real family. He had kin. He was an adult. What realistically could his kin have done?
I think that is pretty much the point. HIs biological family failed him. His father never tried to help him, which is why the person who made the quote said that his father was responsible for his death. We certainly don't know if a better father could have kept him from all of the awful problems he faced, but a better father could have cared for him, instead of having him go to foster care and a better father could have at least offered him food, some emotional support etc. That is why some of us aren't convinced that Penny was the real problem, as he was simply trying to protect the riders on the subway and sure he should have released the chokehold sooner, but since none of us were in the courtroom for the trial, none of us really know how we would have perceived the evidence presented by the witnesses or the defense attorney, or what verdict we would have reached. All it takes is a reasonable doubt to declare someone innocent, right? I'm sure it was a hard decision for the jury to reach a verdict.
If Penny had tried to de-escalate the situation, I’d have some sympathy for his situation. I didn’t hear and see all the evidence, so I assume the jury did their diligence.

But Penny is no hero in my view.
I never said he was a hero, but I think he thought he was being protective of the passengers, but also didn't do the right thing by maintaining the choke hold for so long. All I'm saying is that a jury found him innocent of the crimes he was charged with and I can accept that.

I think both sides have gotten carried away. One side screams that Penny is a racist killer and the other side praises what he did as if he was a hero. I just think he and the other passengers perceived Neely as a threat and Penny went into action, like a Marine might do in combat, but I agree that he used the wrong type of chokehold, based on some things I've read about the trial earlier today.

It's true that it's almost impossible these days to have a severely mentally ill person committed to a mental hospital. Sadly, a good percentage of them end up in prison. I think as a nation we really fucked. up by doing that. Neely might be alive, comfortable, fed, housed and cared for, if we still had institutionalized mental health care like we did many decades ago. Yes. There were some bad ones, but now we have bad nursing homes, were a lot of severely mentally ill people live. I know because I was the nurse for quite a few when I worked in assisted living. I only remember one being violent. She tried to strangle another resident, but luckily it was in front of the staff and she was easily subdued. And, btw, if Neely had escaped that choke hold, he would have ended up in prison for threatening the passengers. There was no way out for the poor man.

Slightly off topic. I read a book called, "Nobody cares about Crazy People" by Ron Powers. It included the history of how the mentally ill are treated. It was an excellent book with a heartbreaking story, written by a man who had a son who had schizophrenia.
 
Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Of course it would. Stopping any rape would involve extreme exposure to the legal system. You would have to be an idiot to even touch someone without risk of being blamed and prosecuted by the all the do gooder lawyers. And you are not going to stop a rape without touching that person.
Do you have any evidence of this, or is this just another one of your fantasies?
 
i think the right decision was made in this case i hate the man died, and being mentally ill it wasnt entirely his fault, but yo cant expect others to let him hurt them
Agreed. If the person is lunging to attack, someone stepping in to prevent harm to a bystander is hard to argue against.

But the only physical violence that occurred on the train that day was against him, not by him.
This is true. Deadly force was not necessary in this case.
 
Neely wasn’t attacking anyone. Penny thought Neely might attack someone.
Do you think things would have turned out better if Penny had waited until Neely had broken an old lady's face?
Again?
Tom
But he didn't break an old lady's face. And for that he is dead.
He had done so in the past.
Penny didn't know that so it's irrelevant to the situation at hand.
Yes and no. He didn't know what violence Neely had committed in the past but the fact that Neely had multiple priors for exactly what Penny was worried about says that Penny probably had a reasonable assessment of the situation.
 
Was his only ability of restraining the guy a chokehold?
What do you suggest when a violent subway rider starts causing trouble for the peaceful and civil riders? Why didn't the people who know Neely provide enough information for Penny to deal with the problem in a better way?

Have you ever had to deal with a crazy person who poses a threat to the folks around you, without knowing anything about the threat?
As noted, I rode many subways while in NYC. The mentally ill are not uncommon on the subway. No one needed to be restrained or killed in the process of being restrained any of the times I rode the subway. While with my daughter in Chicago, a guy yelled a few things which definitely got my attention, a bit more muttering, and then nothing else happened. In "the City", you always need to be on guard. Criminals, the mentally ill, religious nuts, NY Jets fans. Never needed to lift a finger though, as nothing ever happened. link
Nobody got hurt that time. Doesn't mean there wasn't a threat.
Doesn’t mean there was. Doesn’t mean de-escalation shouldn’t be tried.
It's not some magic spell that makes the impossible happen.
The use of psychology and being humane certainly can be impactful when it comes to de-escalation. The more you require a person to think, the less raging and irrational they can become. It isn't a magic eraser, but it sure the heck is something that should be used before lethal force. You can only justify lethal force when lethal force by others is imminent. Being a pussy and thinking you are going to die because someone else is being irrational doesn't count as "imminent threat of lethal force."
It's this sort of attitude that's why America is now screwed--people are tired of appeasement becoming the normal approach and drove us to jump from the frying pan to the fire.
Not killing a person isn't "appeasement". You should be ashamed to make such a void argument. The word you should be reaching for pragmatic and humane. Treating people that are of ill mind like human beings can actually go a lot farther than you appreciate (are capable of appreciating?). Remember the whole "whatever it takes" justification for "enhanced interrogation"? The pro's were protesting, indicating that there are much easier ways to get into a the mind of suspect using psychology. The goal in these situations isn't to appeasement anything, but to prevent violence. Killing someone isn't preventing violence. Of course, not everyone is trained in de-escalation techniques. In fact, it seems more people in the US are trained to kill than to de-escalate.
Appeasement as in expecting everyone to tiptoe around the mine called Neely.
 
The fact that no one called in the police has absolutely nothing to do with Penny's situation. I understand that there are people who feel like that in your argument - they wouldn't get involved in any event.
Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
Mr Penny was charged with negligent criminal homicide for harming anyone. He was charged because his actions caused the death of Mr. Neely. Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
But here you are wrong. You seem to have some notion that people can magically be restrained without harming them. That's not how it works--in a one-on-one situation without a big force superiority you can't do it. Look at how the cops handle it--pile on. Because that's what works. They don't have ways to control a person without harming them in a one-on-one type situation, you're holding civilians to a higher standard.
 
The fact that no one called in the police has absolutely nothing to do with Penny's situation. I understand that there are people who feel like that in your argument - they wouldn't get involved in any event.
Fine so far. Anyone afraid of the fallout of calling the cops isn't going to get involved.
Mr Penny was charged with negligent criminal homicide for harming anyone. He was charged because his actions caused the death of Mr. Neely. Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
But here you are wrong. You seem to have some notion that people can magically be restrained without harming them. That's not how it works--in a one-on-one situation without a big force superiority you can't do it. Look at how the cops handle it--pile on. Because that's what works. They don't have ways to control a person without harming them in a one-on-one type situation, you're holding civilians to a higher standard.
Nonsense. Stopping a crime doesn’t necessarily require restraint or control. Maybe a shout or the possibility of identification works.
 
Most mentally deranged pose no threat. Some do.
It also depends on the circumstances.

Had Neely behaved the same way outside on the sidewalk Penny would have had no reason to get involved. People who felt scared and vulnerable could have walked away. That's probably why Neely chose to do it in a tightly constrained place.
Tom
I see no reason to attribute such motivations to him. He had a tendency towards hostility to those around him, there's no reason to think he chose the subway to corner victims. It's just the subway made it much more of a problem because it was impossible to get away.

Just wanted to point out that you can walk between cars on those trains anytime. Even while it is moving.

Edit: In most cases when I've done it or seen someone else do it, they aren't followed.
Walk while sitting??

And to stand and walk is to approach him. And put herself in more danger in the process.

I agree, however that's not the case while he was being held down nor was it the case when Neely became limp and unresponsive, in fact everyone could have left the car at that point (including Daniel Penny if he released the hold) and held the door if Neely regained consciousness and attempted to follow while someone else had law enforcement on the line. Just to be clear here, I'm not arguing that the acquittal was incorrect nor am I arguing against Daniel Penny in hindsight. I'm specifically address your argument (which seems to be that there were no other options) being made here.
They didn't leave. Nor would them leaving prevent him from following.

I don't like what happened but I think the primary blame lies with the system that permitted the situation to arise. And I feel that there is a lot of grasping at straws in claims of how he should have handled it.
 
Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Of course it would. Stopping any rape would involve extreme exposure to the legal system. You would have to be an idiot to even touch someone without risk of being blamed and prosecuted by the all the do gooder lawyers. And you are not going to stop a rape without touching that person.
What nonsense. Intervention can take all forms. Hell, just photographing the perp might stop it.
And might get your phone smashed and you hurt.
 
Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Of course it would. Stopping any rape would involve extreme exposure to the legal system. You would have to be an idiot to even touch someone without risk of being blamed and prosecuted by the all the do gooder lawyers. And you are not going to stop a rape without touching that person.
What nonsense. Intervention can take all forms. Hell, just photographing the perp might stop it.
And might get your phone smashed and you hurt.
Which is not relevant to the point of possible legal action from intervention.
 
I think that John Mcwhorter, a Black intellectual, who some of you may not like, made of good points about this case, so I'm sharing the piece he wrote this week, if anyone cares to be open to a different opinion, which I basically agree with, but didn't really want to get caught up in this thread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/...e_code=1.iE4.nAfE.pD1sFX53U46t&smid=url-share
Yup. This wasn't about race. But there are an awful lot of people who benefit from stirring the racism issue.

I think it was right to arrest and try Penny, but I also have no problem with the verdict. He was tried before a jury who decided there wasn't enough evidence to find Penny guilty. And, btw, the comment section of the NYTImes a few days ago was full of people who ride the subway saying they were pleased with the verdict because the subway is much scarier these days than it was in the past because there are so many poor, mentally disturbed people, sometimes threatening them.
Yup--Neely was a symptom of the problem.

We as a society have failed our mentally ill and we can at least partially blame the Reagan administration for supporting the closure of so many hospitals for the extremely mentally ill. I almost worked at one in the 80s. The care was very good and I was amazed by the courage of the nurses who chose to work on what was known as the ward for the criminally insane. These folks belong in a hospital where they can receive their meds, get adequate food and decent care, not in a prison or dead, as so many of them end up. Enough said...
To actually deal with it costs money. People don't want to spend the money and come up with all sorts of justification for not doing so.
 
We as a society have failed our mentally ill and we can at least partially blame the Reagan administration for supporting the closure of so many hospitals for the extremely mentally ill.
Reagan has been dead for 20 years and out of office for almost 35 years!!
Yup... that is called a "legacy".

So it can't be fixed?
The Democrats don't like locking people up, they're not going to fix it. The Republicans don't like spending money on anything but the rich and force (military and police), they aren't going to fix it. Besides, the Republicans like having problems to blame the Democrats for.
 
Nevertheless, closing the mental hospitals and dumping the patients was a police of his party and administration.
Tom
Placing the blame on one man is ridiculous. The legislation in question (repeal of MHSA?) was passed by Congress, and Democrats had a majority in the House.

Besides, that was over four decades ago. Many presidents and congresses came and went in that time.
Which is why I didn't. Even Sohy mentioned that this came about under Reagan, not because of him. But I am old enough to remember Reagan taking credit for "setting the patients free and saving the taxpayers billions of dollars".
I did point out that it's a systemic problem. Doesn't have enough usefulness to the people who run our government to do anything about it. Which is shameful.

Back in the 80s I knew a couple of people who worked at the regional mental health hospital. They were horrified because they knew what the outcome of closing the section for the violently deranged would be. The patients would commit more violence, then go to prison. Plus there'd be another innocent victim or ten.
Tom
 
We can blame those who never did anything else to improve things since then as well. It's also added to the homeless crisis.

You can blame the likes of Gavin Newsom and criminal reform DAs like George Gascon for making things worse.
Anything to pretend the Democrats are the problem.
 
Stopping a rape does not necessarily require killing or even harming the rapist. I find your argument to be ridiculous fear mongering.
Of course it would. Stopping any rape would involve extreme exposure to the legal system. You would have to be an idiot to even touch someone without risk of being blamed and prosecuted by the all the do gooder lawyers. And you are not going to stop a rape without touching that person.
What nonsense. Intervention can take all forms. Hell, just photographing the perp might stop it.
And might get your phone smashed and you hurt.
People can say all they want about "the system" failing to handle properly it, and/or someone should've done this or that in the moment, but those opinions fail to take into consideration the circumstances under which the incident occurs. Clearly, Neely represented a threat to those around him, and Penny took action that prevented that threat from being realized.

People are fed up with being harassed and threatened by addicts and the mentally ill. It doesn't mean that people aren't sympathetic, but they also shouldn't have to endure the fear, harassment, and oftentimes physical attacks that come along with it.

As for the phone issue, it's much more likely to provoke someone, particularly a person like Neely, than stop them. I have professional experience in this area, but I'll save the story. It kind of goes outside the scope of the conversation.
 
I worked with a lot of young women who had children, but the children's father was absent in many cases. One, who I was very close to, had twin boys and by the time they were 18, one had committed a crime. The mom was a dear person who probably did a good job of raising her boys, but why wasn't the father helping out? I agree with the quote, regardless if I don't agree with the religious aspects of it. I agree that a father plays an important part in raising a child, especially a child who has experienced trauma. But, Neely's father did absolutely nothing for him, he let him struggle with drugs and homelessness, after living in foster care. Foster care, is often a horrible experience for a kid. Neely's father could have and should have done more to help his son. Now, he has the nerve to ask for financial compensation due to his son's death.
Exactly. This makes a huge difference in outcomes. It's not specifically "father" but two parents--one gets stretched awfully thin trying to raise a kid properly. Few people want to look at it properly but what bits I've seen on it suggest it's the most important factor.
 
If Penny had tried to de-escalate the situation, I’d have some sympathy for his situation. I didn’t hear and see all the evidence, so I assume the jury did their diligence.

But Penny is no hero in my view.
Since the threat was not directed specifically at him, nor triggered by any actions by anybody what magic deescalation can be done? You can only deescalate that which has been escalated.
 
The trouble here is that the chokehold is not the only possible way to subdue someone. Once enough control can be established, subduing a person can be modified into a less dangerous way. When combined with the fact that there was no battery by the person who died, it sets us up for a conclusion that people are okay with the mentally ill being killed because they are afraid of them.

Again, I don't think the aggressor should serve time in prison. He doesn't appear to be a threat to society. But his actions may have been well intended, they were negligently applied.
And what's your non-lethal way to keep somebody subdued?
 
Back
Top Bottom