No New Yorker who rides the subway is unfamiliar with mentally ill, homeless people on platforms or inside subway cars screaming at people, behaving erratically, posing the possibility of violence. We mostly back away and don’t look. We sometimes change cars to avoid them.
When they put on a show or sit in their sad spot holding a sign that they’re hungry, some will throw them some change, but most walk by giving them a wide berth. They smell bad. There are too many of them. We can’t save them, or at least not them all. And we go on with our day.
Except for Jordan Neely, whose conduct on a subway train was erratic, was potentially threatening, but had yet to actually reflect any potential to harm anyone. His words, that he wasn’t afraid to be arrested, he wasn’t afraid to die, are the sort of words that can precede a violent act. They can also precede nothing more than more empty noise. For reasons that are unclear, one man on the train decided to take action by placing his arm tightly around Neely’s neck and keeping it there for about 15 minutes. He killed Neely.
Others on the train didn’t come to Neely’s rescue, Indeed, some rose to assist the man who choked Neely to death, suggesting that the choking man was not the only one on the train that day who thought Neely was the more dangerous of the two. Of course, people are inclined to act for their own preservation, and to the extent Neely posed a threat to anyone, it was more of a threat than the choking man. But that doesn’t mean Neely had taken the next step, beyond saying things that could be construed as threatening and actually causing physical harm.
Did the choking man go out that morning in search of a potentially threatening, mentally ill, erratically behaving man on the subway? It possible. Remember Bernie Goetz? But it’s more likely that the situation unfolded in front of him and he reacted. Perhaps he was being gallant, thinking Neely might harm someone weaker and more vulnerable, and he thought he was protecting them from the crazy man. There have been a few cases of mentally ill people pushing random riders onto the tracks to their deaths recently. Mentally ill people can be dangerous and strike without reason. It’s the nature of mental illness.
Some have seized upon Neely’s death as a condemnation of New York City’s failure to solve “houselessness,” cure mental illness, ignoring that these problems exist everywhere and there is neither a magic bullet nor sum of money that makes intransigent social problem disappear. In the meantime, there were a couple guys on a train, and one killed the other.
Politicians who would be remiss not to hope on the outrage train for their cause have called this death a “murder,” and a “lynching.” They have called the choking man a “vigilante.” They have trivialized the sense of what was happening on that subway train by characterizing Neely’s conduct as “discomfort.” This is all rhetorical manipulation, what some would call lying, to seize the opportunity to sow outrage. One aspect of that outrage is directed at the NYPD, who let released the choking man that night. Why wasn’t he arrested and held? Why isn’t he being prosecuted?
On the one hand, there is nothing to suggest that there was justification for the use of force, no less deadly force. Neely never touched anyone. Whether the fear that he would was reasonable or not, anticipation of possible harm isn’t good enough to justify use of force. Choking man jumped the gun. Choking man used unjustified force. Chocking man killed Neely rather than do any one of many things done daily when a homeless mentally ill guy got off in a subway car.
It’s possible the choking man could be charged with Second Degree Murder, Penal Law § 125.25, on a “depraved indifference” theory, though it’s a stretch to contend that he knew his chokehold was likely to result in death. The more likely charge is Manslaughter in the Second Degree, Penal Law § 125.15, as a death caused by reckless conduct. Even if one believes that the choking man meant to protect others from Neely rather than cause harm or his death, he’s still constrained to act with sufficient care not to kill someone. He killed Neely. He should not have killed Neely and there is no justification for his having done so, regardless of his salutary intentions.
What happened here is replete with tragedy, from the most obvious of Jordan Neely’s death down the line to opportunists seizing upon the death for their own purposes. Ironically, Roxane Gay, of all people, makes an astute observation.
Every single day there are news stories that are individually devastating and collectively an unequivocal condemnation of what we are becoming: a people without empathy, without any respect for the sanctity of life unless it’s our own.
It’s easy, on social media, to say, “I would have done something to help Mr. Neely.” It’s easy to imagine we would have called for help, offered him some food or money, extended him the grace and empathy we all deserve.
It’s so very easy to think we are good, empathetic people. But time and time again, people like us, who think so highly of themselves, have the opportunity to stand up and do the right thing, and they don’t. What on earth makes us think that, when the time comes, we will be any different?
Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.
No comments:
Post a Comment