Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

Remove the "white" before Marine, when you introduce Daniel Penny. Because it insinuates that it was a racial crime. 5.20.32.61 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the races of the two men is pretty obviously necessary context for other content in the article Cannolis (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There were other men who assisted Mr. Penny in restraining Mr. Neely, neither of who were white. TwoLastNeurons (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Threats in the lead.

The lead section says Neely, who was reportedly agitated and threatening passengers, was subdued by Penny, leading to his death. However, the only mentions of threats that I can find in the body are attributed to Penny and his defense attorneys. Do we have any sources that state it in the article voice or, at least, attribute it to anyone else? If only Penny's defense is saying that then we have to unambiguously attribute it to them rather than couching it behind WP:WEASEL attribution, and probably shouldn't put it in the first paragraph of the lead for WP:DUE reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Outside the lead we have multiple sources cited about threats made by Jordan Neely. I do think it is due because it's quite a heavily mentioned thing on whether or not Neely was threatening passengers and how threatening he was. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The only change that might be worth doing here is removing "reportedly". There is nobody in this case who remotely denies that Neely was threatening passengers; Bragg's office conceded this point over a year ago when they first charged Penny in Neely's death: Prosecutors said Mr. Neely was “making threats and scaring passengers” when Mr. Penny came up from behind and placed him in a chokehold. per NYT. The defense says this happened, the prosecution says this happened, witnesses say this happened, police say this happened. Neely threatening people is more universally agreed upon by all relevant parties in this case then even Penny's chokehold being the cause of death for Neely. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's still all witness testimonies we can't draw any reliable conclusions. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Witness testimonies" are all that's needed. Lots of events in history have been confirmed only by witness testimonies. Technically, a camera with a microphone is the best kind of witness, but that doesn't seem to be available in this situation. Dogman15 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We should still keep the reportedly because we don't have conclusive evidence. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple eyewitnesses testifying under oath in a court (as reported by RS) is beyond the burden of being conclusive evidence for a reasonable person that Neely was threatening people in the subway.

Especially considering Neely’s criminal background which included multiple arrests for assault and a conviction of felony assault for beating a 67 year old woman in a subway station.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jordan-neely-history-attacks-subway-riders-nyc-chokehold-death.amp

Threatening people fits Neely’s behavior pattern to the point that you’d need some pretty extraordinary evidence (as in multiple eye witnesses) to make the claim he WASN’T threatening people the day the incident occurred.

Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Wikipedia article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Wikipedia should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes. Jwa05002 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me sir but keep it Wikipedia:Civility and also I still think that unless we have footage of something we still should take it with a grain of salt. I personally think that Neely was threatening people but we should state that the evidence for that is eye witness testimony thus we keep the reportedly. Second of all don't cite Fox News per Wikipedia:FOXNEWS and we should make conclusions based on his behavioral patterns in wikivoice unless another reliable source points this out. I will not get into your Wikipedia:Personal attacks and would like to remind you have already been taken to an admin board on this topic. Thank you :) Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that have recently reported that Neely wasn’t threatening people? Or that’s it’s even possible that he wasn’t?

Again, it’s been widely reported by many sources that Neely was threatening people. The idea that it’s possible he wasn’t is an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence to back it up? Jwa05002 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok let me explain my reasoning, we can't state something in wikivoice unless we have conclusive evidence. This is a controversial topic and again these are witness testimonies, we can't know for sure whether they are true or not so I'd say it'd be best just to keep the "reportedly". Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at the move request comment you mentioned below, you appear to support the notion of not just a wikivoice statement, but a title that Neely was "killed". As I mentioned before, the notion that Neely was threatening passengers is not controversial or disputed by any relevant party in this case. By contrast, the notion that Neely was killed by Penny is heavily disputed between the opposing counsels, as well as the Med Examiner and a pathologist. Wouldn't a consistent application of your standard for conclusive evidence in a controversial topic push you towards supporting a clear cut statement that Neely was threatening other passengers? KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), I'm trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines and also we already came to established consensus on the article name. Also we kinda have autopsy evidence which I think is very conclusive evidence of how someone died. Also about the defence's med examiner and pathologist I believe they didn't do an autopsy. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating to see the call for civility here by @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos and then the brazen incivility on the user page. I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic most likely acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately However, competence is required, see Wikipedia:Competence is required. RowanElder (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. @Akechi The Agent of Chaos self admittedly (in these discussions) suffers from schizophrenia. I have the deepest sympathy for anybody with mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean severely mentally ill people should be editing Wikipedia articles. It’s exactly as you stated, competence is required. But….i guess this is what Wikipedia has devolved into. It’s sad really. Jwa05002 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I've rarely seen this when I'm on Wikipedia so far, but then I've stayed away from contentious topics. I've decided to dip my toe into the area after reading up on the latest ARBPIA case, where "patterns of incivility in contentious topics" were presented with some very interesting new evidence that made me interested in getting a firsthand look. I'm optimistic that the arbs there are recognizing a problem and intending to take real steps to address incivility rather than this just being "what Wikipedia has devolved into."

I have genuine sympathy for autistics and schizophrenics as well, and I hope Wikipedia can perhaps follow best practices from special education experts to deal with ways they may try to participate with disruptive incompetence. It's certainly not a personal attack to try to get people help, even when they take it as such and even react violently against the help as if it were an attack. RowanElder (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I dont' you're thinking of @laughingmanic, I have Autism thought, and gee thanks I'm unable to do anything right am I. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Should I let @laughingmanic know about your comments on "severely mentally ill people" as well because you've already been in trouble with them previously. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse I forgot they changed their name @NewBorders Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You have no right to judge what's on my user page and do you really think Autistic people are stupid bumbling fools, because we are not and don't about Autistic people like that unless you want admins to hear about it. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, please refrain from casting aspersions on my character here, as with "do you really think Autistic people are stupid bumbling fools." I don't have such prejudices. Autistic people are, however, diagnostically-typically impaired when it comes to parsing social cues: that's not a stereotype or prejudice but rather a matter of definition, and it's not an attack from me, since I don't think being a poor judge of social cues is an insult.

I have every right to judge what's on your user page as uncivil. You invite judgment on the page itself directly, as with "I really hope that upsets some of the weirder users of this site." It's unkind and frankly, those weirder users are probably also autistic, and so you're probably deliberately victimizing people who share your struggle. It's sad to see, but again, I'm assuming good faith and I'm sympathetic rather than insulting here, so please do not respond with egregious accusations like "do you really think Autistic people are stupid bumbling fools." That is a personal attack. RowanElder (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok yeah I sure am going after Autistic people with my comments and not people who don't like LGBT people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not what I meant to imply, but it's not great that in your attempt at self-defense you're openly stating there that you're trying to upset people who don't share your values. That's the incivility I was talking about. RowanElder (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of a joke, also I can still ask for civility on a talk page regardless of what my talk page says. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Also as you read my talk page you probably notices I'm part of the LGBT so I think they get upset about me existing that's their problem. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course I have heard of a joke. You are free to ask for civility wherever you please and I am free to see some irony in it, so long as I'm not assuming or asserting bad faith of you (and I don't assume or assert it). RowanElder (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

What my comment was saying was that Wikipedia's "weirder users" include a number of people on the autism spectrum (again, this is not an insult to me, it's wonderful to me that Wikipedia is a place where autistic people can contribute) and so, in trying to antagonize the "weirder users" deliberately, you would be also accidentally victimizing others with autism. RowanElder (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

When I refer to weirder users I mean people who don't like my existence regardless of whether they have autism, also Autistic people have a higher rate of being LGBT. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that was what you meant. RowanElder (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you go along with @Jwa05002 just saying that "severely mentally ill people" shouldn't be working on Wikipedia, referring to me as well as @NewBorders. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It is the case that "competence is required." In cases of severe mental illness that compromises competence, the severely mentally ill should not be working on Wikipedia in those domains where the severe mental illness compromises their competence. That is what I expressed. RowanElder (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

He was obviously referring to me and trying to discredit me, I'm not severely mentally ill. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If you genuinely think I'm biased I don't know what to say, the most I have done is be opposed to the move request and respond to comments from IP addresses and people who don't know Wikipedia policies. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The ruling is out, Mr. Penny was found "not guilty of homicide" and the cause of death has been officially declared and reported extensively.

It is currently January the 11th and it has been over a month of the ruling that found Mr. Penny not guilty on all charges. This is by all legal definitions not classified as a murder or a homicide, according to Cornell Law[1].

Regarding Mr. Neely's death, on November 21st 2024, NBC clearly reported [2] the following:

Defense pathologist says Jordan Neely didn't die of chokehold on NYC subway. Jordan Neely died from the “combined effects” of a number of a factors, not a chokehold, a forensic pathologist hired by Daniel Penny’s attorneys testified Thursday. Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the chokehold death of Neely on a New York City subway train in May 2023.

The conclusion of the trial, as reported by abc7[3], was that:

Daniel Penny has been found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide in Jordan Neely's subway chokehold death. The jury deliberated for more than 24 hours across five days before reaching the verdict.

which was also reported by a number of other outlets such as NBC[4], CBS[5], CNN[6], and others.

The fact that this page reads "Killing" implies that this was a homicide, which is false as the sole suspect has been found "not guilty". This is (dis?)misinformation and shows that a false narrative is promoted.

In short, there was no "killing" by any legal terms (murder or homicide). The sole suspect was found "not guilty". There is plenty of conflicting evidence online, however, the sole fact that the jury has found Mr. Penny NOT GUILTY OF HOMICIDE is more than enough to warrant a change in the title. There are no other suspects. The death is not attributed to the chokehold, hence the verdict. Paramedics on scene reported that Mr. Neely had a pulse when they arrived which has been covered extensively on YouTube videos such as this[7]. TwoLastNeurons (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@TwoLastNeurons you might want to see the RM above where this issue was discussed. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@TwoLastNeurons As well as WP:DEATHS. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@TwoLastNeurons: I noted this in the previous RM but it's so long that I doubt you'll see it and just in case you stick around for any future move request note that it is not true that the jury found Penny not guilty of homicide. They found Penny not guilty of "criminally negligent homicide". As per the article they were instructed to consider "whether his actions were reckless and unjustified" While Penny's defence did dispute the homicide point blank, it seems clearly they were also disputing whether his actions were reckless and unjustified. In the absence of further comment from the jury, we don't know whether they did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a homicide; or they did but simply did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny's actions were reckless and unjustified. I'm fairly sure plenty of people are found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide despite not disputing it was a homicide which they committed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would add that I'm fairly sure some jury members could have found him not guilty because they disagreed homicide had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while some may have felt it was but that Penny's actions were not reckless and unjustified or otherwise there was some reason he wasn't guilty despite it being a homicide demonstrating the complexity of the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If "killing" is kept, perhaps broaden the suspect list in the lead

If "killing" is retained here, the defense's dispute could be included by including more clearly the possibility that Neely killed himself. Adding accidental suicide as a possibility immediately in the lead would be one natural way to clarify that the article title and lead sentence language of "killing" is not implying homicide by Penny. The court's rulings and the medical examiners' findings that countered the finding of homicide remain consistent with killing in the case that Neely killed himself.

In that case, it may also be important to include in the lead that the killing of Neely may have begun before the chokehold (the current lead sentences' language does seem importantly unrepresentative of the reliable secondary sources), via a delayed self-poisoning suicide mechanism. A poisoner kills a victim in the full act of poisoning, not just the moment of death, though of course there is no effective killing act without a moment of death.

I do not advocate these directly myself, but I hope they can open up the range of possibilities under consideration to help with some of the apparent problems of people talking past one another in the RM. RowanElder (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(Note: I recognize WP:DEATHS would not support this outcome, since the flowchart would fairly clearly call for "Death of" in the case that cause of death is unknown, which is the case if homicide and accidental suicide are each possible causes of death.) RowanElder (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The cause of death is not unknown, we have autopsies reports that say this was death but restriction of the throat's airflow. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not assert that the cause was unknown. I asserted that in the case that the killing could have been one of suicide or homicide, a matter for consensus formation rather than for my own opinion to decide, then the cause would be unknown.

I do not believe I know the cause of death, so it is unknown to me. That is because I do not think I am competent to judge the autopsy report's authority and that authority has been challenged in a way that I have not personally resolved for myself. Thus I am not making claims one way or another on the cause of death. Perhaps in some collective sense "the cause of death is known" but it's not to me and it doesn't appear that it is to the full range of reliable secondary sources, either. RowanElder (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't title an article "killing of" when someone kills themself. I don't think anyone would think 'killing of person A' means person A killed themselves either. So the proposal makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)