“…on the grounds that he was trying to protect others.”
I think that’s a pretty fucking important line right there.
The whole thing seems to have been about if the guy went too far in subduing the homeless dude who was by all accounts acting crazy and aggressive towards other passengers, including a woman with a child with her.
It’s so crazy reading different characterizations of the situation. Some are saying how the guy heroically saved other passengers by strangling an aggressive homeless dude for six minutes, even after other passengers had apparently left, others are saying how a vicious white attacker decided to murder a desperate BLACK victim of the system without any reason.
Wild shit.
Well, a judge decided to drop the charges. I don’t know all of the details of the case but I’ll hunt for them later today.
I do know that if passengers felt threatened and this dude stepped up and helped, it’s unfortunate that it ended badly, but good for him doing something.
I’m not the type to fight in a crazy situation unless I’m backed into a corner and I would be thankful to any person with the balls to step in.
I don’t know why we have to go around comparing unrelated situations or looking for anything to justify our feelings.
It’s like when George Floyd was killed and a bunch of assholes went digging for why that was ok. “He used drugs, he had a counterfeit 20, blah blah blah. What about so and so who got shot, HE WAS WHITE U NO!!!”
This dude wasn’t a police officer and if he was protecting passengers we should be holding him up as a hero too. We can feel sorry for the dude who died, but we don’t need to vilify anyone except maybe the system that failed to help a man in a mental health crisis. That is, if helping fellow passengers was his motivation and that appears to be the case.
Even the prosecution seemed to say that the initial reaction was justified because the other guy was aggressive and hostile in a crowded train, but that the measures taken to subdue him went too far
From the New Yorker article linked in the posted article:
“His initial intent was even laudable, to protect fellow subway riders from a man he perceived to be a threat.” But the law does not permit “laudable behavior” when it is also “unnecessarily reckless,” Yoran went on. Her opening statement—in which she described how Penny held Neely in a choke hold for almost six minutes, even after the train doors had opened and the other straphangers had fled to safety—concluded, “The defendant was not justified in these deadly actions. He used far too much force for far too long. He went way too far.” Later, the jury—twelve jurors and four alternates, all hailing from Manhattan—would need to decide for themselves whether the Assistant District Attorney was correct.
I think the point is, the system pushed one man to his breaking point simply for being poor, black, and mentally ill; resulting in his eventual strangulation on a subway. Not saying the the situation didn’t require intervention but acting as if the whole thing was “unavoidable” or even “justified” gladiator giving all the context is Pretty Fucking Important
It wasn’t unavoidable but also it was his aggressive behaviour towards others that directly lead to him being subdued. I’m not sure the situation would’ve been different with a white guy acting aggressive towards fellow passengers, especially a mother and her child.
The point is neither situation should ever happen in a system that puts humanity over profits. A mentally ill, homeless, and starving person should exist in our society because we have the means to house, feed, and provide Healthcare for everyone. (we just don’t have the morality)
Also, the strangle hold was applied for 5 min. I’m no expert but when someone goes limp from blood flow being blocked, you usually don’t need to continue choking them for an additional 4 min.
