John was on a roll in this episode as I mostly agreed with his points of view. Whatever remains of DEI hopefully will see its final burial during the next administration. Good riddance.
Though I no longer live in my native NYC, I grew up riding the subway, where many unstable characters regularly walked through the cars, usually asking for money and moving on. However, as John indicated, the intense behavior of some these days would certainly frighten anyone. I respect Daniel Penny for his bravery, but once again, I was exhausted by the racial performance by Sharpton and the buffoonery of BLM's Hawk Newsome. Why must they become so aroused whenever there is a black-and-white encounter? This was not about race. It was about a mentally ill young man seriously threatening subway passengers and a brave soul attempting to prevent him from doing harm. Neely's death was unfortunate but not intentional.
Also, I happened to be in mid-town Manhattan on 911 and was never so emotionally devastated and angry as I was on that day. There was a huge swell of patriotic pride and fervor for America unlike I'd ever felt at the time. I wish those who thought we deserved it would have left the country.
Finally, the idea that Briahna Joy Gray (fired from The Hill) would smirk over Brian Thompson's death only confirms that an Ivy League education doesn't guarantee basic common sense of its graduates.
I loved this episode. It is disgusting how certain groups of people will cheer for the death of others as if they themselves are in some gang war looking for retaliation. They want their pound of flesh for past grievances. You would expect that from children who don't know any better. But then when culture barons do it, it sets a bad precedence.
I think Trump is doing an amazing job of promoting DEI hiring ... he's giving so many opportunities to the underrepresented minority of billionaires who have no experience qualifying them for their respective jobs! You GO!
Penny / Neely. Neely didn't "deserve" to die. OTOH, as John points out, his actions should not be tolerated on the subway (or in public in general). There's 3 options:
1) NYC failed him. He never should have been on the street in the condition he was in. If that means involuntary restraint, then that's what it takes.
2) NYC failed him. There should have been a police presence on that car at that time who intervened to restrain him. That seems even more unlikely.
3) If the state does not meet it's basic obligation to protect citizens from violence (or credible threats of violence), then it devolves to the citizens to protect themselves. Hence Daniel Penny. And if Neely dies as a result, that's just too bad. Penny is not a trained police officer; he has wide latitude in how he restrains Neely. (There's no "backup", he doesn't know if Neely is armed, etc.. It's a extremely volatile situation and he has to fight to win.) The whole point of the state is to eliminate the need for "vigilante justice".
If anyone is interested, this is an interesting podcast. "Rethinking with...Christy Ford Chapin" on YouTube. Interviewer is from Netherlands. Ms Chapin is an Associate Economics Professor at Univ. of Maryland. She discusses the history of medical insurance. She goes back to the late 1800's then forward. I found it informative. My only complaint is she doesn't discuss the involvement of the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services.
A black man helped in Neely's restraint and nothing was done to him. There was anther incident around the time of the Neely death, with a black man protecting himself against another black man who, I think died, and nothing was done to him. Absolutely this was racist prosecution.
John, you voted for this (Hochul, at least) and now people will be more reticent to intervene for fear of being arrested and tried. Your team just made NY even more dangerous.
If Ben Carson had been shot, the Left would be cheering even more, because he's a black conservative, which is anathema to them!
John–wondering what you think about Brown-Jackson's inane questioning on child mutilation? Still think she isn't a dolt?
To believe she is a dolt, you have to be so deep in your own biases that you can't see the sky. There is one justice whose intellectual horsepower is not up to that of his colleagues, but it isn't her.
Dear Profs. Re Ms Brianna Joy Gray (yes, Prof. Loury, John is correct about her anti Israeli hysteria, she's lost control of all faculties on the topic and I am not a fervent Zionist, mind you) Anyways, on the topic of Penny, Ms. Gray gets slapped around a bit here by a far superior interlocutor, Glenn Greenwald here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb0AsUXxoGc
In this episode John McWhorter didn't look happy, and I found myself wondering whether he was coming to terms with his TDS psychosis. I watched the entire episode and found myself agreeing with John's perpsectives. Policeman Derek Chauvin, doing his duty with 6'4" George Floyd and now serving life. Jordan Neely was probably no less of a threat than George Floyd, but fortunately Daniel Penny was acquitted. Common sense prevailed.
There are huge differences between those two cases, starting with the fact that Penny was a bystander rendering assistance for which he was not formally trained, and Chauvin was trained and bound by his department's policies, which he did not follow.
The Minnesota Police Executive lied under oath. The Minnesota police manual vis-a-vis restraint was textbook followed by Chauvin. Even if we disagree, Chauvin is not guilty of murder, far from it. Floyd died from heart failure induced by an overdose of mixed drugs. Is this the hill that African-Americans want to die on?
Chauvin is innocent of 'murder' or any other crime, and only a jaundiced mindset would say otherwise.
Glenn and John: Wishing you a peaceful Christmas - and hopefully a less tumultuous new year. Looking forward to tuning in to new conversations in 2025.
Prof Loury, we all know that DEI programs of all sorts, of all kinds, will simply go underground, or hide themselves as long as necessary before they can resurface and do "the work" that these modern day Calvinists believe needs to be done. You cannot silence religious fanatics. They will never lose institutional support in academia, and in certain corporate settings. In government, they will simply await the next Democratic administration. You may remember that during the administration of I'll say it how you would say it :) "Barack Hussein Obama", while Obama was not involved in all such things, and might even push back against some of the techniques and ideas used, his underlings make a thousand flowers bloom under his nose.,
It’s a common mistake to excuse the ravings of drug addled people, because the system has failed to make them safe to roam freely umongst us. We are left with few options when confronted by people whose minds they have chosen to damage with potent street poisons. If we do defend ourselves, we’ll be prosecuted. Our lives, which, forgive my bluntness, I value more dearly than that of a criminal street thug, will be ruined by the very system that failed to protect us from the dangerous mental case, in the first place. If you cannot protect us, at least grant us the right to protect ourselves.
Here’s a compilation of 170 excerpts from articles published during the three years preceding the June 2023 Supreme Court decision against UNC and Harvard. Wasn’t that decision the defining moment of “peak woke”? Certainly it was for us country bumpkins in North Carolina that you city folks don’t pay much attention to. You could do a whole show on how UNC in particular has taken the lead for the country as a whole. Enough with the parochial subway stories!
See: North Carolinians and Allies Fight the Politicization and Racialization of Education
Glenn, I appreciate your sensitivity to people with mental health issues who are living on the streets. I believe in the dignity and value in EVERY life, so I am in agreement on that. But stating that these people be "dealt with sensitively, with resources" - is somewhat naive.
I agree, in this case, with John who points out that right now, on the train, is not the time for "sensitivity and mental support". Those are societal (and medical) issues that need to be dealt with in public health policies and public sentiment. The other thing to remember: living on the street is a dangerous condition! What do we think the "mortality rate" of street living is? Quite high! It is not a healthy or safe environment. Homeless people die of all sorts of things - illness, exposure, violence, drug overdose. The very fact Jordan Neely was allowed to live like he did, surviving on the street, is a life threatening condition.
Another thing to recognize - it is not easy to "treat" someone against their will! I'm sure Neely was placed in situations where some treatment might have been recommended. The chances that he will agree, embrace, and comply with those treatments is likely slim. So what to do then?
Neely's father suing Daniel Penny for killing his son - that seems way out of line. Now that we can hold parents responsible for things their children do, it seems Penny would have more standing to sue Neely's father! (I'm not encouraging either of these things, but facts remain).
It did not sound like that "neck hold" procedure or maneuver is meant to "kill" people; from what I recall it is the opposite. Used to subdue. From anything I've seen and heard from Penny, that was his intention. At his initial interview with police, he apparently did not even know that Neely had died.
I agree with John completely - if all other interventions have failed (whatever they may be per society, policy) and citizens are being threatened (particularly in an isolated, enclosed space), it is reasonable for them to defend themselves. The street life is a high risk condition with a significant risk of death in and of itself - this being an example of such. Society needs to come up with the solution that will limit these situations ever occurring. NYC policy at this time does not seem to have this figured out.
I have ONE reservation with the Penny situation. I don't blame him for intervening, I don't blame him for putting Neely in the hold. However, shouldn't have he, or couldn't have he "loosened up" when people there were heard to say "you're killing him". I'd like to think Penny should have had a pretty decent idea of how "strong" or how resistant Neely being. He could have SLIGHTLY loosened up, only to tighten the hold again if/when necessary. Clearly there was no intent there to kill Neely, and if I were on a jury, I would only vote to convict him on the lightest possible charge.
I don't think negligent homicide fits this! That suggests you doing something that is reckless - ie, driving drunk, distracted driving, leaving a young child by themselves, etc - things you plan for ahead of time and make the decision to do. and that you should realize could have very bad outcomes.
This situation was different. Penny did not "plan" or knowingly do anything! He was reacting to a sudden threat. He has training in doing that hold, but it's not as if he has a current job where he patrols the streets and should see this coming. This was self defense. It does not make sense to turn self defense into negligent homicide. Nobody can predict exactly how they will act if they suddenly fear for their safety (and those around them). I don't think you hold them to the "know or should have known" standard. They did not make the first move/first decision/planning as it would be in a negligent homicide and when you'd have every opportunity to just not do it.
He was charged with negligent homicide, meaning no intent to kill Neely, but that he should have known what he was doing might kill Neely and adjusted accordingly. The jury could have found him guilty of that but did not.
that's because of dumbass bad faith legal maneuvering by Alvin Bragg which pissed off the jurors. I believe the NY Post wrote a story on it. There is also an aspect to the law vis a vis "good samaritans", which Glenn Greenwald discusses in his argument with Brianna Joy Gray (I linked above in different comment) Also I'd never put Penny behind bars, perhaps some "community service" instead
John was on a roll in this episode as I mostly agreed with his points of view. Whatever remains of DEI hopefully will see its final burial during the next administration. Good riddance.
Though I no longer live in my native NYC, I grew up riding the subway, where many unstable characters regularly walked through the cars, usually asking for money and moving on. However, as John indicated, the intense behavior of some these days would certainly frighten anyone. I respect Daniel Penny for his bravery, but once again, I was exhausted by the racial performance by Sharpton and the buffoonery of BLM's Hawk Newsome. Why must they become so aroused whenever there is a black-and-white encounter? This was not about race. It was about a mentally ill young man seriously threatening subway passengers and a brave soul attempting to prevent him from doing harm. Neely's death was unfortunate but not intentional.
Also, I happened to be in mid-town Manhattan on 911 and was never so emotionally devastated and angry as I was on that day. There was a huge swell of patriotic pride and fervor for America unlike I'd ever felt at the time. I wish those who thought we deserved it would have left the country.
Finally, the idea that Briahna Joy Gray (fired from The Hill) would smirk over Brian Thompson's death only confirms that an Ivy League education doesn't guarantee basic common sense of its graduates.
I loved this episode. It is disgusting how certain groups of people will cheer for the death of others as if they themselves are in some gang war looking for retaliation. They want their pound of flesh for past grievances. You would expect that from children who don't know any better. But then when culture barons do it, it sets a bad precedence.
Please feel free to disagree.
I think Trump is doing an amazing job of promoting DEI hiring ... he's giving so many opportunities to the underrepresented minority of billionaires who have no experience qualifying them for their respective jobs! You GO!
Penny / Neely. Neely didn't "deserve" to die. OTOH, as John points out, his actions should not be tolerated on the subway (or in public in general). There's 3 options:
1) NYC failed him. He never should have been on the street in the condition he was in. If that means involuntary restraint, then that's what it takes.
2) NYC failed him. There should have been a police presence on that car at that time who intervened to restrain him. That seems even more unlikely.
3) If the state does not meet it's basic obligation to protect citizens from violence (or credible threats of violence), then it devolves to the citizens to protect themselves. Hence Daniel Penny. And if Neely dies as a result, that's just too bad. Penny is not a trained police officer; he has wide latitude in how he restrains Neely. (There's no "backup", he doesn't know if Neely is armed, etc.. It's a extremely volatile situation and he has to fight to win.) The whole point of the state is to eliminate the need for "vigilante justice".
If anyone is interested, this is an interesting podcast. "Rethinking with...Christy Ford Chapin" on YouTube. Interviewer is from Netherlands. Ms Chapin is an Associate Economics Professor at Univ. of Maryland. She discusses the history of medical insurance. She goes back to the late 1800's then forward. I found it informative. My only complaint is she doesn't discuss the involvement of the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jblRGsBk1IQ&ab_channel=RethinkingEconomicsNL
A black man helped in Neely's restraint and nothing was done to him. There was anther incident around the time of the Neely death, with a black man protecting himself against another black man who, I think died, and nothing was done to him. Absolutely this was racist prosecution.
John, you voted for this (Hochul, at least) and now people will be more reticent to intervene for fear of being arrested and tried. Your team just made NY even more dangerous.
If Ben Carson had been shot, the Left would be cheering even more, because he's a black conservative, which is anathema to them!
John–wondering what you think about Brown-Jackson's inane questioning on child mutilation? Still think she isn't a dolt?
To believe she is a dolt, you have to be so deep in your own biases that you can't see the sky. There is one justice whose intellectual horsepower is not up to that of his colleagues, but it isn't her.
Dear Profs. Re Ms Brianna Joy Gray (yes, Prof. Loury, John is correct about her anti Israeli hysteria, she's lost control of all faculties on the topic and I am not a fervent Zionist, mind you) Anyways, on the topic of Penny, Ms. Gray gets slapped around a bit here by a far superior interlocutor, Glenn Greenwald here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb0AsUXxoGc
Dear Profs. You may be interested in the following discussion on why there is speculation that Mr. Mangione may be schizophrenic. He's not your typical leftist antifa idiot. https://www.khanversationpod.com/p/khanversation-21-naming-names-the?r=eo3to&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
In this episode John McWhorter didn't look happy, and I found myself wondering whether he was coming to terms with his TDS psychosis. I watched the entire episode and found myself agreeing with John's perpsectives. Policeman Derek Chauvin, doing his duty with 6'4" George Floyd and now serving life. Jordan Neely was probably no less of a threat than George Floyd, but fortunately Daniel Penny was acquitted. Common sense prevailed.
There are huge differences between those two cases, starting with the fact that Penny was a bystander rendering assistance for which he was not formally trained, and Chauvin was trained and bound by his department's policies, which he did not follow.
The Minnesota Police Executive lied under oath. The Minnesota police manual vis-a-vis restraint was textbook followed by Chauvin. Even if we disagree, Chauvin is not guilty of murder, far from it. Floyd died from heart failure induced by an overdose of mixed drugs. Is this the hill that African-Americans want to die on?
Chauvin is innocent of 'murder' or any other crime, and only a jaundiced mindset would say otherwise.
This is nearly all propoganda, debunked point by point by Radley Blako on his blog.
Glenn and John: Wishing you a peaceful Christmas - and hopefully a less tumultuous new year. Looking forward to tuning in to new conversations in 2025.
Prof Loury, we all know that DEI programs of all sorts, of all kinds, will simply go underground, or hide themselves as long as necessary before they can resurface and do "the work" that these modern day Calvinists believe needs to be done. You cannot silence religious fanatics. They will never lose institutional support in academia, and in certain corporate settings. In government, they will simply await the next Democratic administration. You may remember that during the administration of I'll say it how you would say it :) "Barack Hussein Obama", while Obama was not involved in all such things, and might even push back against some of the techniques and ideas used, his underlings make a thousand flowers bloom under his nose.,
It’s a common mistake to excuse the ravings of drug addled people, because the system has failed to make them safe to roam freely umongst us. We are left with few options when confronted by people whose minds they have chosen to damage with potent street poisons. If we do defend ourselves, we’ll be prosecuted. Our lives, which, forgive my bluntness, I value more dearly than that of a criminal street thug, will be ruined by the very system that failed to protect us from the dangerous mental case, in the first place. If you cannot protect us, at least grant us the right to protect ourselves.
Here’s a compilation of 170 excerpts from articles published during the three years preceding the June 2023 Supreme Court decision against UNC and Harvard. Wasn’t that decision the defining moment of “peak woke”? Certainly it was for us country bumpkins in North Carolina that you city folks don’t pay much attention to. You could do a whole show on how UNC in particular has taken the lead for the country as a whole. Enough with the parochial subway stories!
See: North Carolinians and Allies Fight the Politicization and Racialization of Education
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/12/13/north-carolinians-and-allies-fight-the-politicization-and-racialization-of-education/
Glenn, I appreciate your sensitivity to people with mental health issues who are living on the streets. I believe in the dignity and value in EVERY life, so I am in agreement on that. But stating that these people be "dealt with sensitively, with resources" - is somewhat naive.
I agree, in this case, with John who points out that right now, on the train, is not the time for "sensitivity and mental support". Those are societal (and medical) issues that need to be dealt with in public health policies and public sentiment. The other thing to remember: living on the street is a dangerous condition! What do we think the "mortality rate" of street living is? Quite high! It is not a healthy or safe environment. Homeless people die of all sorts of things - illness, exposure, violence, drug overdose. The very fact Jordan Neely was allowed to live like he did, surviving on the street, is a life threatening condition.
Another thing to recognize - it is not easy to "treat" someone against their will! I'm sure Neely was placed in situations where some treatment might have been recommended. The chances that he will agree, embrace, and comply with those treatments is likely slim. So what to do then?
Neely's father suing Daniel Penny for killing his son - that seems way out of line. Now that we can hold parents responsible for things their children do, it seems Penny would have more standing to sue Neely's father! (I'm not encouraging either of these things, but facts remain).
It did not sound like that "neck hold" procedure or maneuver is meant to "kill" people; from what I recall it is the opposite. Used to subdue. From anything I've seen and heard from Penny, that was his intention. At his initial interview with police, he apparently did not even know that Neely had died.
I agree with John completely - if all other interventions have failed (whatever they may be per society, policy) and citizens are being threatened (particularly in an isolated, enclosed space), it is reasonable for them to defend themselves. The street life is a high risk condition with a significant risk of death in and of itself - this being an example of such. Society needs to come up with the solution that will limit these situations ever occurring. NYC policy at this time does not seem to have this figured out.
I have ONE reservation with the Penny situation. I don't blame him for intervening, I don't blame him for putting Neely in the hold. However, shouldn't have he, or couldn't have he "loosened up" when people there were heard to say "you're killing him". I'd like to think Penny should have had a pretty decent idea of how "strong" or how resistant Neely being. He could have SLIGHTLY loosened up, only to tighten the hold again if/when necessary. Clearly there was no intent there to kill Neely, and if I were on a jury, I would only vote to convict him on the lightest possible charge.
I don't think negligent homicide fits this! That suggests you doing something that is reckless - ie, driving drunk, distracted driving, leaving a young child by themselves, etc - things you plan for ahead of time and make the decision to do. and that you should realize could have very bad outcomes.
This situation was different. Penny did not "plan" or knowingly do anything! He was reacting to a sudden threat. He has training in doing that hold, but it's not as if he has a current job where he patrols the streets and should see this coming. This was self defense. It does not make sense to turn self defense into negligent homicide. Nobody can predict exactly how they will act if they suddenly fear for their safety (and those around them). I don't think you hold them to the "know or should have known" standard. They did not make the first move/first decision/planning as it would be in a negligent homicide and when you'd have every opportunity to just not do it.
He was charged with negligent homicide, meaning no intent to kill Neely, but that he should have known what he was doing might kill Neely and adjusted accordingly. The jury could have found him guilty of that but did not.
that's because of dumbass bad faith legal maneuvering by Alvin Bragg which pissed off the jurors. I believe the NY Post wrote a story on it. There is also an aspect to the law vis a vis "good samaritans", which Glenn Greenwald discusses in his argument with Brianna Joy Gray (I linked above in different comment) Also I'd never put Penny behind bars, perhaps some "community service" instead
I agree Bragg made some questionable decisions, but at the end of the day the jury ehard the evidence, had a chance to deliberate, and chose to aquit.