Someone's Dead; The Rest Is Not So Clear-Cut

NYPD detectives and Manhattan prosecutors conferred Thursday over possible criminal charges against a Marine veteran as new details emerged in the caught-on-camera chokehold death of Jordan Neely, a Michael Jackson impersonator with a history of mental illness, police sources said.

I do not ride subways much these days, I occasionally do (just did so Tuesday), but used to do so nearly every day.  

People do not grab hold of mentally troubled people who act out.  They definitely do not hold them so tightly that they kill them.  It would be folly to do so -- even a "Marine veteran" can get harmed in a variety of ways.  

The killing of someone under these conditions naturally has caused a lot of controversy.  It doesn't help that people are just saying a variety of things with only a fraction of the information involved.  This includes the mayor and governor who at first in some fashion implied the dead person had some responsibility, which let's say didn't go over well.  

But, I'm not a big fan of more than such comments.  First, there is the ready tossing around of "murder."  If you want to call what happened "murder" as some sort of moral ground, fine.  But, legally?  Well ...

Catherine Christian, a private lawyer who spent 30 years in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, said the video evidence at this point would not support a murder charge, which under New York law requires the offender to show an intent to kill.

People are mad the Marine (white while the Neely is black) has not been immediately arrested.  This might have been the case in various situations (saw one public defender say this, and I have no reason to doubt her) but it makes sense to be careful before charging; not doing so has led to overturning charges that seemed (might still seem) pretty clear.  

The Facebook video (about three minutes long) taken by a freelance journalist in the subway car is of limited help since it doesn't show events before he was seized but is telling the subway car looks mostly empty.  It does not show the hold time he was restrained either. He is held in a reckless manner even after he is clearly no longer dangerous (even if he was beforehand).  This video only tells part of the story.  

People say he did nothing wrong.  Accounts are mixed there.  Is it merely fear?

"On the train, witnesses saw him pacing back and forth and acting erratic, as if he was about to turn violent, a police source said."

Or, a bit more  ... 

Neely yelled and threw garbage at commuters, prompting an argument with the 24-year-old veteran Marine, cops said. The quarrel turned into a brawl as the train entered the station.

The Marine (who did not act alone) is labeled a "vigilante" by some accounts as if he is Charles Bronson in Death Wish.  No.  He's not Bernard Goetz, who shot four black men who allegedly were trying to rob him.  The tossing around of epithets by all sides bothered me.  This is one of those cases where in the heat of the news cycle there will be a lot of dust and a limited amount of clarity of what exactly happened.  

The person who took the video is not white and his Facebook entry is in Spanish.  Race likely did factor into the situation though let us be clear that mentally ill people as a whole have been mistreated and deemed dangerous even when they were not.  Was Neely dangerous?

The evidence I have seen suggests he was not dangerous though might have seemed threatening. The person who took the video (not white) in one account (NYT) said he thinks the Marine (so far unnamed though we have various details and a picture) was trying to help. This is of limited value since it all turns on whatever objective/subjective test is legally in place.

For instance, Neely screamed things like he felt things were hopeless, he didn't care what happened, including his being arrested ... would a reasonable person think he was liable to hurt someone?  In a moving subway car, how does that factor in? They could simply leave the subway car to move to another car though some might find that dangerous. Why did they not do so?  Prosecutors would have to weigh such things even if many people are very very clear it is "murder."  

Still, the whole situation does not seem as so damn obvious as some make it out to be. There are repeatedly pictures of a benign-looking Michael Jackson impersonator.  Let us tell the whole story.  One New York Daily News account (Twitter is all on this and I saw more than one person liking how that paper framed it vs. the NY Post though not many actual details are cited):

Neely was arrested 42 times across the last decade, with his most recent bust in November 2021 for slugging a 67-year-old female stranger in the face as she exited a subway station in the East Village, cops said.

This doesn't make Neeley dangerous at the moment.  It very well is part of the story, including the danger to the public involved by failure to get the help he needs.  Nonetheless, even if we had a great public health system, people will fall between the tracks.  People will not take medication and so on.  This sort of thing very well might happen at some point.  

The events continue to develop though there is a basic bottom line: someone is dead and they shouldn't be.  

ETA: We know the Marine's name now and last I check it seems the grand jury is likely to hear the case.  Otherwise, though I didn't try to deep dive it, not seeing any new info yet.  The raw public reaction seems to be tempered a bit.  There was a protest with arrests.  If he is not charged, you can imagine some will compare the two situations.