One of the core advocacies of the Intramuralist is that most often, we have a limited view… meaning we see things — and we see them accurately — but we don’t see everything. Our angle is finite.
It’s one of the reasons I believe so many sociopolitical arguments ensue. We are convinced our perspective is valid — and it is. But we don’t realize multiple, different, valid perspectives exist. Why? Because we can’t see them.
Such may be the case in a significant legal event that has been happening concurrently with all the election activity/analysis as of late. A man named Daniel Penny is on trial in New York City, charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely. Allow us to lay out the facts…
On May 1, 2023 Neely boarded an NYC subway train and immediately began screaming, making a large commotion and drawing attention to himself. Reportedly, he stuck his hand through a closing door, violently threw his jacket on the ground and began to yell. He howled that he was hungry. Penny recounted Neely saying, “I’m gonna kill everybody. I could go to prison forever, I don’t care.”
Witnesses did not see Neely actually physically assault anyone, although they described his words as “insanely threatening.” Neely moved toward multiple people, ranting, throwing trash at them, menacing those on the train. One witness testified to the grand jury that Neely’s words included, “Someone is going to die today!” Another with her young son, who attempted to hide behind his stroller during the ordeal, told the grand jury that Neely said he wanted “to hurt people.” That same mother testified Neely came within “half a foot” of multiple passengers.
Daniel Penny was on the same subway car. He approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold. At least two other men helped hold Neely down. The chokehold would last somewhere between 4-6 minutes.
Neely went limp during the hold. Police arrived soon after, finding only a faint pulse. Neely was pronounced dead upon arrival at a nearby hospital.
What’s the right response in regard to who’s responsible for what? Is Penny guilty of homicide? Is he a killer? Is he a hero? Or somewhere in between? There are so many significant details, and depending on our angle, we may settle on a conclusive perspective and appropriate judgment. So let’s add a few more factual details…
Penny is 26. He served 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is an architecture student and was on his way to the gym that day after leaving class.
Neely was a homeless man. Only 30 years old. His mother was murdered by her boyfriend when Jordan was 14. He was placed in foster care. He also had over 42 prior arrests, and while several were for reported local law violations (such as open container), 4 were for alleged assault, with one active warrant for assault.
As said, multiple details are in play. Multiple perspectives could be valid.
If we only see the incident through the eyes of Neely, no doubt he had a tough, challenging life, one full of hardship and heartache, and he certainly did not deserve death as a result of his crying out in hunger, erratic as it was. Mental illness must also be seriously considered.
If we only see the incident through the eyes of Penny, no doubt he was trained to protect people in potential danger. His background and bravery prompted him to initiate contact in order to keep the passengers from harm. Unfortunate as it was, he did what needed to be done.
And if we only see the incident through the eyes of the woman and her son behind the stroller, we’re just glad the situation stopped. She was fearful. Penny’s actions subdued her fears.
Note: each of the above was actually, physically there.
Multiple others have chimed in, asserting they can discern just consequence, believing they can fully determine killer vs. hero status. But again, they weren’t there. Their perspective is even more limited.
So again we ask: what’s the right response in regard to who’s responsible for what? And… Can we maintain compassion for all even when assigning responsibility?
Indeed. But it starts with acknowledging that multiple, different, valid perspectives are in play. And also noting we weren’t there.
Respectfully…
AR