During the 2017 peak of the #MeToo movement, the conversation about sexual harassment came down to two related but ultimately separate questions. On the one hand, there was the question of what men shouldn’t do; on the other, there was the question of what women could be expected to tolerate.
This was where some women, usually but not always older, rolled their eyes. Did an awkward joke, a bad date, or — as one memorable entry in the infamous Shitty Media Men list alleged — a “weird lunch” really constitute a form of harassment, let alone a cancellable offence? But other women, usually but not always younger, clucked their tongues: it was only because women kept putting up with such behaviour that men kept thinking they could get away with it.
At the time, the younger cohort appeared to the older like a bunch of hypersensitive harpies, retreating to the fainting couch at the slightest whiff of insult. The older, according to the younger, were cosying up to the patriarchy, in a desperate attempt to stave off their own irrelevance.
“We’re tough enough to take it,” said the Olds.
“It’s sad you think you have to,” said the Youths.
This early rift in the movement represented a deeper philosophical disagreement, about the nature and importance of resilience. The narrow question is, when does an annoying man becomes an evil harasser? The broader one is, when does a tolerable nuisance cross the line to become an intolerable transgression?
This question has been on my mind this week, for the most tragic of reasons. On 1st May, a 30-year-old man named Jordan Neely was choked to death on a crowded New York City subway train by a 24-year-old Marine named Daniel Penny. Neely, who was homeless and mentally ill, was reportedly screaming and confronting passengers; he was killed after Penny put him in a chokehold, while two other passengers held him down. Penny, in a statement released through his lawyers, said he did not intend to kill Neely.
This incident was preventable. Long before his death, Neely was known to New York City authorities as a person who could not manage independent living, and who had been spiralling in recent years, desperately in need of help. For him to die on the dirty floor of a subway car, screaming and defecating on himself while three strangers held him by the arms, legs, and neck, he had to be first failed at every turn by a system that was supposed to shelter and protect him — not just from doing harm, but from being harmed by others when his mental illness manifested in frightening ways.
That Neely slipped through the cracks is not the only sign of institutional failure here. As ridership on the NYC subway has increased in the wake of Covid, so too have instances of violence, including several high-profile incidents in which people have been attacked or killed. New York City mayor Eric Adams was elected in 2021 on a campaign that promised to flood the subway system with uniformed police officers, to combat both crime and the perception that the subway has become wildly more dangerous in recent years.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeExcellent essay underlining the hypocrisy of both movements. The hardcore me too activists and the mob looking to lynch the guy who intervened on the subway share something else in common – they don’t actually believe any of the garbage spewing from their mouths.
No serious, rationale human being actually thinks every single women should be believed, and no rationale human being believes someone is evil or malign for intervening when a dangerous schizophrenic is threatening people.
It’s all political theatre. They couldn’t care less about people suffering mental health issues, or women who have actually been assaulted. They are props. They don’t see the victims as human beings. They are chess pieces to be exploited for political or personal gain.
I remember having a debate with a criminal defence lawyer, of all people, during the height of the me too movement. I told him it would take two minutes to be exploited for political purposes. Then Brett Kavanaugh happened. Hmm.
The ability to simultaneously hold in your head two totally incompatible and contradictory beliefs and to switch between them instantly in response to daily events appears to be an essential skill for feminists and the left in general.
It seems you’ve failed to appreciate JV’s very sound and helpful point, roughly: this is b-s kabuki done for ‘political likes’, and both side do it. For all our sakes they should desist from this indulgence.
At the same time, you reminded me of a compliment I wanted to extend to JV for one of his recent quotes – Jim, you manifested Fitzgerald’s dictum :
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
I think you have just abused that quote
Care to say why?
Agreed.
Maybe too subtle.
Care to say why?
Agreed.
Maybe too subtle.
Good quote. Thanks for that. Agree with your point also.
It wasn’t something I thought needed commenting on.
Strange for being admonished for not writing down everything that’s in my head.
p.s. There’s a difference between holding two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time and using opposing ideas whenever it suits your cause… also something that shouldn’t need explaining, but apparently it does.
JV decried the dysfunctional political theatre involving both sides – it solves nothing, increases animosity and treats people as mere chess pieces in a political game . Your comment was essentially ‘yeah, feminists and leftists do that all the time’ – a small demonstration of what JV was calling out. Then, if you read my comment, the second part was addressed to JV not you. However, if we are to apply it to your comment – try holding in your head two things – there is crappy political kabuki going on; and ii) factions of both the left and right are at it – this is the thrust of the article and JV’s comment.
Thank you
Yep.
Thank you
Yep.
JV decried the dysfunctional political theatre involving both sides – it solves nothing, increases animosity and treats people as mere chess pieces in a political game . Your comment was essentially ‘yeah, feminists and leftists do that all the time’ – a small demonstration of what JV was calling out. Then, if you read my comment, the second part was addressed to JV not you. However, if we are to apply it to your comment – try holding in your head two things – there is crappy political kabuki going on; and ii) factions of both the left and right are at it – this is the thrust of the article and JV’s comment.
I think you have just abused that quote
Good quote. Thanks for that. Agree with your point also.
It wasn’t something I thought needed commenting on.
Strange for being admonished for not writing down everything that’s in my head.
p.s. There’s a difference between holding two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time and using opposing ideas whenever it suits your cause… also something that shouldn’t need explaining, but apparently it does.
It seems you’ve failed to appreciate JV’s very sound and helpful point, roughly: this is b-s kabuki done for ‘political likes’, and both side do it. For all our sakes they should desist from this indulgence.
At the same time, you reminded me of a compliment I wanted to extend to JV for one of his recent quotes – Jim, you manifested Fitzgerald’s dictum :
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
“They don’t see the victims as human beings.”
Nor do either the wooly-headed social engineers in academe and the ubiquitous tax-free “foundations” or their usual cheerleaders in Big Media. But the worst of ’em all are the politicians who support them and parrot what the late historian Paul Johnson would call “the higher humbug” so they can continue to feed from the public trough.
It’s called Care in the Community. The place that mostly doesn’t care,and often burns witches. Instead of a relatively comfortable and ordered life in an asylum(ie place of safety) you enjoy the freedom to sleep in a shop doorway,hand over your benefit payment to your drug dealer and have dirty Dossers you dont even know make free with your flat if you have one. That’s what Care in the Community is. It sounds like it’s the same in USA as UK.
It’s called Care in the Community. The place that mostly doesn’t care,and often burns witches. Instead of a relatively comfortable and ordered life in an asylum(ie place of safety) you enjoy the freedom to sleep in a shop doorway,hand over your benefit payment to your drug dealer and have dirty Dossers you dont even know make free with your flat if you have one. That’s what Care in the Community is. It sounds like it’s the same in USA as UK.
“no rational human being believes someone is evil or malign for intervening when a dangerous schizophrenic is threatening people”
They do indeed, Jim, when in the grip of an ideology that tells them…
Society is a swamp of injustice, hypocrisy & various “-isms.”
Psychiatric confinement is political oppression.
Psychology itself is corrupted by Euro-Centric, Cis-Het-Patriarchal biases.
The Neelys of the world are just misunderstood and neglected victims and anyway WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE?
I was surrounded by this mindset in college as far back as the late 80s. I promise you it hasn’t gotten any better among the NPR crowd.
The ability to simultaneously hold in your head two totally incompatible and contradictory beliefs and to switch between them instantly in response to daily events appears to be an essential skill for feminists and the left in general.
“They don’t see the victims as human beings.”
Nor do either the wooly-headed social engineers in academe and the ubiquitous tax-free “foundations” or their usual cheerleaders in Big Media. But the worst of ’em all are the politicians who support them and parrot what the late historian Paul Johnson would call “the higher humbug” so they can continue to feed from the public trough.
“no rational human being believes someone is evil or malign for intervening when a dangerous schizophrenic is threatening people”
They do indeed, Jim, when in the grip of an ideology that tells them…
Society is a swamp of injustice, hypocrisy & various “-isms.”
Psychiatric confinement is political oppression.
Psychology itself is corrupted by Euro-Centric, Cis-Het-Patriarchal biases.
The Neelys of the world are just misunderstood and neglected victims and anyway WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE?
I was surrounded by this mindset in college as far back as the late 80s. I promise you it hasn’t gotten any better among the NPR crowd.
Excellent essay underlining the hypocrisy of both movements. The hardcore me too activists and the mob looking to lynch the guy who intervened on the subway share something else in common – they don’t actually believe any of the garbage spewing from their mouths.
No serious, rationale human being actually thinks every single women should be believed, and no rationale human being believes someone is evil or malign for intervening when a dangerous schizophrenic is threatening people.
It’s all political theatre. They couldn’t care less about people suffering mental health issues, or women who have actually been assaulted. They are props. They don’t see the victims as human beings. They are chess pieces to be exploited for political or personal gain.
I remember having a debate with a criminal defence lawyer, of all people, during the height of the me too movement. I told him it would take two minutes to be exploited for political purposes. Then Brett Kavanaugh happened. Hmm.
I’m concerned that the author (like many people) confuses dissociation with resilience.
I’ve earned my claim to resilience by surviving father-daughter rapes throughout childhood, surviving homelessness in SF’s Tenderloin as a single mom, overcoming addiction, and parenting a disabled child.
Shrugging off being ejaculated on in the subway is not “resilience”; it’s dissociation, and it cripples our empathy and self awareness.
Subway riders who stare glassy eyed at their phones while women are being “dragged around the subway car by their hair” are NOT “resilient”. They are dissociated cowards.
When we dissociate we lose our humanity.
The author of this article seems to have lost some of her own humanity by becoming numb to the pain of herself & others.
This dissociation is what allowed the homeless crisis to get so bad in the first place. It is NOT a solution to any human problem.
Daniel Penny was not dissociated. He didn’t numb out and shrug off threatening behavior, which was almost certainly directed at women.
If there were more Daniel Penny’s riding the subways these “inevitable” assaults on women, children, & the elderly would miraculously decrease. Instead, the subway cars are filled with cowardly, dissociated people calling themselves “resilient” when they are just too numbed out and fearful to care.
Genuine resilience leads to courage, not the conveniently cold blooded indifference the author describes.
It’s an excellent point concerning cowardice and the resulting effects. Consider that more alpha males like Daniel Penny need to be riding the subway. Consider what might have happened if one such like-minded male had confronted Neely at some point in the past concerning his abusive, profane behavior and simply punched him in the face and physically ejected him out the door of a subway car. Perhaps Neely would still be alive, just much more subdued knowing his behavior had consequences. Perhaps such an incident might have sobered him enough to get the help he needed? Perhaps others like Neely would be treading with a lot more caution. Impossible to prove a negative, but I’d say it’s worth the speculation.
I agree, Penny. The author mentioned that the desired consequence of me too was to make men equally afraid. However, the response should’ve been to encourage men to come to aid of women and children when there is a perceived threat, which Daniel Penny and the other two did. Their response wasn’t because they’ve become overly sensitive to potentially “traumatic” circumstances (Marines cannot be sensitive on the battlefield). Just the fact that it took three men to subdue him indicates that the threat was indeed escalating. It is absolutely tragic that it led to Jordan Neely’s death, and I agree with the author that neither the right nor the left have handled it well. Instead of using Neely’s rap sheet as justification or making Penny and co out to be violent vigilantes, we should all be pointing its finger at the NYC govt’s failure to actually provide social services to the mentally ill for whom they claim care and compassion. Vigilantism doesn’t come from hyper vigilance; it’s the consequence of a government’s inability to protect the people from harm. This is why we have a right to self-defense.
Well said.What has made many men back from restraining violent people is the fear of being prosecuted for assault.
What needs to be undertaken is assessing what physical restraints/ self defence are acceptable, this will vary according to relative strengths of people and how does one determine age and health of agressors?
If one looks at videos of Royal Marine Commandos demonstrating self defence they laugh it off but could kill or cripple many people. The reality is that many people with alcohol, drug and mental problems have very poor health and may easily die during restraint.
Another aspect is that many white Liberals are more or less useless in a streetfight and will criticise other whites for fighting when they are unable to do so. When people of different races are involved in a fight Critical Race Theory becomes involved. What I suggest is that white Liberals try and use their skills to arrest an alcoholic, drug addict or mentally unbalanced person and see what happens.
Thats exactly it. As with Mr Penny, the main danger to any decent citizen intervening in these cases is not the perp himself: it’s the screaming scary loon’s poor health and tendency to expire unexpectedly under moderate physical stress; and the Rainbow Stasi and Criminal Protection Service, which loath and fearsdecent citizens ‘taking the law into their own hands’ (a threat to its monopoly of violence) and iare ever-eager to pander to the Woke BBC’s agenda by nailing public spirited folk to the wall.
Thats exactly it. As with Mr Penny, the main danger to any decent citizen intervening in these cases is not the perp himself: it’s the screaming scary loon’s poor health and tendency to expire unexpectedly under moderate physical stress; and the Rainbow Stasi and Criminal Protection Service, which loath and fearsdecent citizens ‘taking the law into their own hands’ (a threat to its monopoly of violence) and iare ever-eager to pander to the Woke BBC’s agenda by nailing public spirited folk to the wall.
Well said Penny. We need to ‘associate’ and stand up for others always when they are threatened. What else is a society for.
You should turn this into an article on your Substack
It’s an excellent point concerning cowardice and the resulting effects. Consider that more alpha males like Daniel Penny need to be riding the subway. Consider what might have happened if one such like-minded male had confronted Neely at some point in the past concerning his abusive, profane behavior and simply punched him in the face and physically ejected him out the door of a subway car. Perhaps Neely would still be alive, just much more subdued knowing his behavior had consequences. Perhaps such an incident might have sobered him enough to get the help he needed? Perhaps others like Neely would be treading with a lot more caution. Impossible to prove a negative, but I’d say it’s worth the speculation.
I agree, Penny. The author mentioned that the desired consequence of me too was to make men equally afraid. However, the response should’ve been to encourage men to come to aid of women and children when there is a perceived threat, which Daniel Penny and the other two did. Their response wasn’t because they’ve become overly sensitive to potentially “traumatic” circumstances (Marines cannot be sensitive on the battlefield). Just the fact that it took three men to subdue him indicates that the threat was indeed escalating. It is absolutely tragic that it led to Jordan Neely’s death, and I agree with the author that neither the right nor the left have handled it well. Instead of using Neely’s rap sheet as justification or making Penny and co out to be violent vigilantes, we should all be pointing its finger at the NYC govt’s failure to actually provide social services to the mentally ill for whom they claim care and compassion. Vigilantism doesn’t come from hyper vigilance; it’s the consequence of a government’s inability to protect the people from harm. This is why we have a right to self-defense.
Well said.What has made many men back from restraining violent people is the fear of being prosecuted for assault.
What needs to be undertaken is assessing what physical restraints/ self defence are acceptable, this will vary according to relative strengths of people and how does one determine age and health of agressors?
If one looks at videos of Royal Marine Commandos demonstrating self defence they laugh it off but could kill or cripple many people. The reality is that many people with alcohol, drug and mental problems have very poor health and may easily die during restraint.
Another aspect is that many white Liberals are more or less useless in a streetfight and will criticise other whites for fighting when they are unable to do so. When people of different races are involved in a fight Critical Race Theory becomes involved. What I suggest is that white Liberals try and use their skills to arrest an alcoholic, drug addict or mentally unbalanced person and see what happens.
Well said Penny. We need to ‘associate’ and stand up for others always when they are threatened. What else is a society for.
You should turn this into an article on your Substack
I’m concerned that the author (like many people) confuses dissociation with resilience.
I’ve earned my claim to resilience by surviving father-daughter rapes throughout childhood, surviving homelessness in SF’s Tenderloin as a single mom, overcoming addiction, and parenting a disabled child.
Shrugging off being ejaculated on in the subway is not “resilience”; it’s dissociation, and it cripples our empathy and self awareness.
Subway riders who stare glassy eyed at their phones while women are being “dragged around the subway car by their hair” are NOT “resilient”. They are dissociated cowards.
When we dissociate we lose our humanity.
The author of this article seems to have lost some of her own humanity by becoming numb to the pain of herself & others.
This dissociation is what allowed the homeless crisis to get so bad in the first place. It is NOT a solution to any human problem.
Daniel Penny was not dissociated. He didn’t numb out and shrug off threatening behavior, which was almost certainly directed at women.
If there were more Daniel Penny’s riding the subways these “inevitable” assaults on women, children, & the elderly would miraculously decrease. Instead, the subway cars are filled with cowardly, dissociated people calling themselves “resilient” when they are just too numbed out and fearful to care.
Genuine resilience leads to courage, not the conveniently cold blooded indifference the author describes.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Left NYC 50 years ago with no regrets. From the above I take it that an assault that isn’t a felony, one should just ignore. I suggest that is utter rubbish. The quality of ones life should be measured by quality of daily interactions — finding your coat stained with semen as you exit from the A train is proof positive of a demonic and degrading life. No amount of cultural attractions can balance out the daily garbage you have to endure.
Every election cycle New Yorkers have the opportunity to make a change. Regrettably they vote largely the same way and expect a different result. Insanity! But you can leave the asylum, and leave what’s left to the inmates. #JustMoveAway
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Left NYC 50 years ago with no regrets. From the above I take it that an assault that isn’t a felony, one should just ignore. I suggest that is utter rubbish. The quality of ones life should be measured by quality of daily interactions — finding your coat stained with semen as you exit from the A train is proof positive of a demonic and degrading life. No amount of cultural attractions can balance out the daily garbage you have to endure.
Every election cycle New Yorkers have the opportunity to make a change. Regrettably they vote largely the same way and expect a different result. Insanity! But you can leave the asylum, and leave what’s left to the inmates. #JustMoveAway
We get article after article, year upon year, about the George Floyds and Jordan Neelys, but hear almost nothing about innocent victims of violent crime if they don’t fall into the correct protected group. Does anyone know the names of the six people murdered in cold blood at the Covenant School? That horror was very quickly given a good leaving alone as soon as the murderer was discovered to be one of the sainted protected.
As for New York City, where I lived in the 80s and have as many stories of gross encounters as the author, it isn’t safe above ground – for either sex.
A quick injection of realism is always refreshing. Thank you!
Yes. Realism that the liberal mind can’t ever seem to fathom, which constantly confounds me. It must be very unsettling to continually argue from both sides of any subject. Fighting against climate change while flying in a private jet or driving a huge SUV. Advocating for killing unborn human children while fighting for animal rights. Wanting to be protected while defunding the police. Thinking that a massive increase in energy prices is good for ushering in new technology that most people can’t afford and then lamenting the revolution that ensues. Advocating for open borders, as long as the influx of homeless, uneducated people don’t set up the tent in your front yard or a park near your mansion.
Yes. Realism that the liberal mind can’t ever seem to fathom, which constantly confounds me. It must be very unsettling to continually argue from both sides of any subject. Fighting against climate change while flying in a private jet or driving a huge SUV. Advocating for killing unborn human children while fighting for animal rights. Wanting to be protected while defunding the police. Thinking that a massive increase in energy prices is good for ushering in new technology that most people can’t afford and then lamenting the revolution that ensues. Advocating for open borders, as long as the influx of homeless, uneducated people don’t set up the tent in your front yard or a park near your mansion.
Well said Allison. I have been groped, threatened, grabbed by the throat, robbed and followed home in NY and London, indeed below and above ground when I was a student/young professional and used public transport. At first I bothered reporting incidents but once it was clear that the perpetrators are of a certain background you are just advised to avoid the area and subsequently harassed with calls and texts from some ‘after care’ organisation which became hugely irritating; I was fine, I just wanted the incidents added to their records in case they ever got caught. They complained I had been hard to reach those two days. No wonder, as I had to replace the phone that had been stolen in the incident. I am sure it was all on cctv but nobody cares. Sad state; police effectively admitting ghetto status of your neighbourhood. But more upsetting, scary and unforgettable than that was the lack of help from other passengers. I will never forget that. I would have been very grateful for a ‘vigilante’ to board my train.
A quick injection of realism is always refreshing. Thank you!
Well said Allison. I have been groped, threatened, grabbed by the throat, robbed and followed home in NY and London, indeed below and above ground when I was a student/young professional and used public transport. At first I bothered reporting incidents but once it was clear that the perpetrators are of a certain background you are just advised to avoid the area and subsequently harassed with calls and texts from some ‘after care’ organisation which became hugely irritating; I was fine, I just wanted the incidents added to their records in case they ever got caught. They complained I had been hard to reach those two days. No wonder, as I had to replace the phone that had been stolen in the incident. I am sure it was all on cctv but nobody cares. Sad state; police effectively admitting ghetto status of your neighbourhood. But more upsetting, scary and unforgettable than that was the lack of help from other passengers. I will never forget that. I would have been very grateful for a ‘vigilante’ to board my train.
We get article after article, year upon year, about the George Floyds and Jordan Neelys, but hear almost nothing about innocent victims of violent crime if they don’t fall into the correct protected group. Does anyone know the names of the six people murdered in cold blood at the Covenant School? That horror was very quickly given a good leaving alone as soon as the murderer was discovered to be one of the sainted protected.
As for New York City, where I lived in the 80s and have as many stories of gross encounters as the author, it isn’t safe above ground – for either sex.
Excellent points, all! I would only add that a dangerously deranged homeless man on the subway merely threatens a woman’s life. A condescending boss or colleague threatens a woman’s *status*, and we can’t have that!
Excellent points, all! I would only add that a dangerously deranged homeless man on the subway merely threatens a woman’s life. A condescending boss or colleague threatens a woman’s *status*, and we can’t have that!
I think I absolutely do not understand women in print. Something about the media I guess, turns you all into some unrecognizable species.
”This question has been on my mind this week, for the most tragic of reasons. On 1st May, a 30-year-old man”
Tragic? I do not get it – Why? To me it seems his being gone does nothing but improve the place.
;”For him to die on the dirty floor of a subway car, screaming and defecating on himself while three strangers held him by the arms, legs, and neck, he had to be first failed at every turn by a system that was supposed to shelter and protect him — not just from doing harm, but from being harmed by others when his mental illness manifested in frightening ways.”
So? What’s the problem? If you have been around people dying it is not usually great. But what system was supposed to shelter and protect him?
I mean, Lock him up and keep him in an anti-psychotic drug stupor for the rest of his life? There is all kinds of things good and bad about this – but we do not do it. It is no one’s responsibility to keep the run-of-the-mill insane criminals from harming themselves – and no one takes the responsibility to stop them harming others. What? 40 Arrests? And it tales a Lot to get arrested – and I know this. NO – this horrible guy was issued a License by NYC to legally F*c k people up. He had a stack of ‘Get Out Of Jail For Free’ cards signed by the Mayor and so could physically damage and emotionally scar whom ever – where ever….. Best thing he ever did was to pass on……
I just do not have any problem him dieing wile being made to stop his endless crime spree. No problem at all. I wish the Marine the best and think him a hero. If the guy had lived to be arrested he would be out in 3 days just doing it again. Better what happened. I will not lose any sleep. Not ‘Tragic’ to me.
But then I have seen babies starving – and I fallow the wars in Sudan, Ukraine – and want a REALLY ugly one? Really ugly? Check out some Haiti…. These innocents I feel true sadness over – it is ‘Tragic’. You think I shed a tear for George Flo* d? No. Why would I? I have seen too much, Real bad things happening to real people who were not serial criminals, who were just trying to get by, and not harming anyone.
I do not care this guy failed the choke test; so what? And all the writer’s crocodile tears – does she believe this or is it just what must be said by her ilk, here in print?
I hope you have a breakdown one day, and are left to rot in the gutter if that’s you’re attitude towards the mentally ill.
No civilised country treats the mentally ill the same as healthy individuals, as we understand their actions aren’t due to rational thought.
If a person is acting aggressively or threatening then the first course if action is to arrest them and get them off the streets. You then determine whether their actions are due to them being bad in which case you punish them, or mad in which case you cart them off for treatment. The fact this man was allowed to roam the streets in the state he was in is a failure of the system, and you gloating over his demise is disgusting
Amen. It’s possible to contend that he was failed or indulged by society or “the system” (given a “get out of jail free card”) without advocating death for the indulged and unhinged. This man may have proven beyond real help but that attitude or hypothesis wasn’t tested in earnest. The idea that the available responses were either to “Lock him up and keep him in an anti-psychotic drug stupor for the rest of his life” or perform a summary, public strangulation on him (though I don’t think that was intended) is an absurd farce.
We are our brother’s and sister’s keepers. (“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”) As John McWhorter–a black professor and public intellectual–recently wrote: Neely likely deserved to be restrained, but not killed.
Why are so many people publicly unhinged in US cities these days? I don’t think our wider society–nor sub-groups of populists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, radicals, or non-joiners– is off the collective hook for the amount of madness and violence on our streets.
{Clarification: I don’t wish for anyone “to rot in the gutter” but temporary misfortune sometimes increases our compassion for those who are suffering, and even those who are causing suffering for others; I’d say that was true for me}
No ‘civilized country’ would leave the mentally ill out on the streets to fend for themselves and to hurt other people.
The thing is, when it happened in Blighty, at least part of the reason was that the asylums caused a great deal of suffering.
It’s difficult to deal with this problem.
No they didn’t. Over imaginative people,the sort who write books,could see how horrific this would be for them so they assumed that people needing safety and support would feel the same,so they wrote books and movies and such and influenced public minds,our minds,then certain politicians saw this idea could be utilized to further their political ends. So all the Asylums (ie places of safety) got sold off,and the deranged people got the freedom to beg and sleep in shop doorways. And I haven’t noticed any of those playwrights or authors or journalists or film makers,or rock stars or acting folk taking them in and caring for them,but they’re not Ukranian are they.
It was the neoliberal right that closed the asylums in the UK because it was cheaper to chuck these people out into the community. Unfortunately most of those then ended up either addicted to drugs or in jail, and sometimes both
It was the neoliberal right that closed the asylums in the UK because it was cheaper to chuck these people out into the community. Unfortunately most of those then ended up either addicted to drugs or in jail, and sometimes both
No they didn’t. Over imaginative people,the sort who write books,could see how horrific this would be for them so they assumed that people needing safety and support would feel the same,so they wrote books and movies and such and influenced public minds,our minds,then certain politicians saw this idea could be utilized to further their political ends. So all the Asylums (ie places of safety) got sold off,and the deranged people got the freedom to beg and sleep in shop doorways. And I haven’t noticed any of those playwrights or authors or journalists or film makers,or rock stars or acting folk taking them in and caring for them,but they’re not Ukranian are they.
Which is the point I was making. This man clearly shouldn’t have been wandering the streets and was a danger to himself and others, however that isn’t a reason to cheer his killing
Absolutely right it isn’t. But, what IS the answer? The problem of poor mental health resulting in danger for others is only growing; much of it fuelled by substance abuse. The fentanyl disaster in the US is a little behind but already started to unfold in the UK. Realistically, ‘help and support’ don’t work and addiction to these new (far more powerful than heroin) drugs appears insurmountable. Funds are not endless either. What should be done?
Absolutely right it isn’t. But, what IS the answer? The problem of poor mental health resulting in danger for others is only growing; much of it fuelled by substance abuse. The fentanyl disaster in the US is a little behind but already started to unfold in the UK. Realistically, ‘help and support’ don’t work and addiction to these new (far more powerful than heroin) drugs appears insurmountable. Funds are not endless either. What should be done?
What do you suggest then? These people often WILL not be helped, mess up every chance they get with help and housing. Should we lock them up in mental institutions? That is a viable option but does not fit with your so-called “civilised country” description. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, some of these people are on the streets because they are incapable of living like normal people – regardless of what help they may be offered.
The thing is, when it happened in Blighty, at least part of the reason was that the asylums caused a great deal of suffering.
It’s difficult to deal with this problem.
Which is the point I was making. This man clearly shouldn’t have been wandering the streets and was a danger to himself and others, however that isn’t a reason to cheer his killing
What do you suggest then? These people often WILL not be helped, mess up every chance they get with help and housing. Should we lock them up in mental institutions? That is a viable option but does not fit with your so-called “civilised country” description. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, some of these people are on the streets because they are incapable of living like normal people – regardless of what help they may be offered.
NY used to do exactly what you advocate for, decades ago, but it was determined by the liberal minded elite that it was inappropriate and undignified. so they closed all the mental hospitals. Now these unfortunate people wander the streets aimlessly.
It was under the govt of the ‘right wing elite’ in the UK that the closures of psych wards happened (it saved the taxpayers money, and they didn’t really care about the unproductive ill); and, generally, it was the bleeding heart liberals who resisted it. And I’m pretty certain that the situation was similar in the USA: the closing of the mental hospitals was not done solely or even chiefly by ‘the liberal elite’. Rather it was very much the result of more effective anti-psychotics part, within the Regan-era and it’s emphasis on shrinking govt where you can.
I think you’ll be happier, and on safer ground politically, philosophically if you tilt away from seeing liberals as The Font of all Evil in America Today. As the article is implying, and unHerd is always pushing – the problems are herd thought, underpinned by such things as psychological splitting, hyper-partisanship, and highly selective anti-intellectual/elitism. As if there is no such thing as a right wing elite, or a popular left….. It’s manipulative newspeak, don’t be sucked in.
Well stated. Let’s also not pretend that conditions in most mid-to-late 20th century mental institutions were less than horrible. We can’t simply return to throwing all our publicly stark raving mad neighbors into locked-ward warehouses on the old scheme.
Here’s a link to a famous and influential 1946 article in Life Magazine (the descriptions are quite graphic and grim, even by present-day standards):
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/lobotomist-bedlam-1946/
Exactly. There needs to be new, creative solutions not just either or.
Then you improve the facilities and methods used in the asylums, you don’t chuck all those poor mentally disturbed souls back out onto the streets into a life of homelessness and drug abuse
I agree. I’m just advocating a middle path. Not every released mental patient becomes a publicly unhinged threat. “Improve the facilities and methods”–totally concur, but that’s rather more easily said than done.
I agree. I’m just advocating a middle path. Not every released mental patient becomes a publicly unhinged threat. “Improve the facilities and methods”–totally concur, but that’s rather more easily said than done.
Exactly. There needs to be new, creative solutions not just either or.
Then you improve the facilities and methods used in the asylums, you don’t chuck all those poor mentally disturbed souls back out onto the streets into a life of homelessness and drug abuse
Well said and so true.
Well stated. Let’s also not pretend that conditions in most mid-to-late 20th century mental institutions were less than horrible. We can’t simply return to throwing all our publicly stark raving mad neighbors into locked-ward warehouses on the old scheme.
Here’s a link to a famous and influential 1946 article in Life Magazine (the descriptions are quite graphic and grim, even by present-day standards):
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/lobotomist-bedlam-1946/
Well said and so true.
It was under the govt of the ‘right wing elite’ in the UK that the closures of psych wards happened (it saved the taxpayers money, and they didn’t really care about the unproductive ill); and, generally, it was the bleeding heart liberals who resisted it. And I’m pretty certain that the situation was similar in the USA: the closing of the mental hospitals was not done solely or even chiefly by ‘the liberal elite’. Rather it was very much the result of more effective anti-psychotics part, within the Regan-era and it’s emphasis on shrinking govt where you can.
I think you’ll be happier, and on safer ground politically, philosophically if you tilt away from seeing liberals as The Font of all Evil in America Today. As the article is implying, and unHerd is always pushing – the problems are herd thought, underpinned by such things as psychological splitting, hyper-partisanship, and highly selective anti-intellectual/elitism. As if there is no such thing as a right wing elite, or a popular left….. It’s manipulative newspeak, don’t be sucked in.
What’s so wonderful about the “freedom” to sleep in shop doorways.
It’s a little more complicated than that.
You misunderstand the point I’m making. This man should have been in a secure facility getting treatment rather than roaming the streets, but to celebrate his death is a disgusting attitude
It’s a little more complicated than that.
You misunderstand the point I’m making. This man should have been in a secure facility getting treatment rather than roaming the streets, but to celebrate his death is a disgusting attitude
Well said.
I find it strange that a board with a number of posters who regularly bemoan the lack of Christian values in modern society will massively upvote a comment glorifying the killing of a mentally ill man while simultaneously downvoting my comment criticising the lack of empathy for their fellow man
Demagogues, no?
An unqualified amen to that!
How do you find out who up/downvoted a comment?
Anyway if it is in fact as you described, I wouldn’t find it so strange: in today’s Puritanical environment, full of scolds and moralizers, isn’t it so entertaining when someone says what you’re not supposed to say, indeed, think?
Well let’s be frank: society will not exactly be the poorer for his loss. He was hardly a consultant cardiologist, He was, in any objective sense, nothing but a nuisance, dangerous pest and burden to the collapsing and degenerate society at produced him, of less than nil practical value to man nor beast.
Indeed. The so-called Christian right is riddled with a ‘cognitive dissonance’ of its own. Jesus himself would be roundly rejected by this group if they had met him not knowing his name. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, was disgusted by wealth hoarding, and embraced society’s outcasts.
There is indeed much cognitive dissonance on the ‘left’ (if you could even unite the ‘woke blob’) but it generally arises from a desire to protect all of the vulnerable rather than just the existing hegemony that the ‘right’ protects.
Demagogues, no?
An unqualified amen to that!
How do you find out who up/downvoted a comment?
Anyway if it is in fact as you described, I wouldn’t find it so strange: in today’s Puritanical environment, full of scolds and moralizers, isn’t it so entertaining when someone says what you’re not supposed to say, indeed, think?
Well let’s be frank: society will not exactly be the poorer for his loss. He was hardly a consultant cardiologist, He was, in any objective sense, nothing but a nuisance, dangerous pest and burden to the collapsing and degenerate society at produced him, of less than nil practical value to man nor beast.
Indeed. The so-called Christian right is riddled with a ‘cognitive dissonance’ of its own. Jesus himself would be roundly rejected by this group if they had met him not knowing his name. He fed the hungry, healed the sick, was disgusted by wealth hoarding, and embraced society’s outcasts.
There is indeed much cognitive dissonance on the ‘left’ (if you could even unite the ‘woke blob’) but it generally arises from a desire to protect all of the vulnerable rather than just the existing hegemony that the ‘right’ protects.
What a nasty, disgusting attitude you have. What a vile ting to say.
Take a good hard look at yourself, BB.
If people cannot, or will not, control themselves, then control will be imposed upon them at some point. If deranged people are compromising the safety of others, they need to be controlled. If Neely had been incarcerated, he might be alive today. If the government is going to abdicate their responsibility by refusing to restrain criminals, the people will be forced to take matters into their own hands. If the government doesn’t like the form that this takes (the possible death of the criminals), then they need to step up and do their job.
It’s sad that Neely had to die, but I am less sad and more relieved: one less violent criminal on the streets. Fewer victims of that criminal in the future. I would rather have more marines on the subways.
Amen. It’s possible to contend that he was failed or indulged by society or “the system” (given a “get out of jail free card”) without advocating death for the indulged and unhinged. This man may have proven beyond real help but that attitude or hypothesis wasn’t tested in earnest. The idea that the available responses were either to “Lock him up and keep him in an anti-psychotic drug stupor for the rest of his life” or perform a summary, public strangulation on him (though I don’t think that was intended) is an absurd farce.
We are our brother’s and sister’s keepers. (“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of these least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”) As John McWhorter–a black professor and public intellectual–recently wrote: Neely likely deserved to be restrained, but not killed.
Why are so many people publicly unhinged in US cities these days? I don’t think our wider society–nor sub-groups of populists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, radicals, or non-joiners– is off the collective hook for the amount of madness and violence on our streets.
{Clarification: I don’t wish for anyone “to rot in the gutter” but temporary misfortune sometimes increases our compassion for those who are suffering, and even those who are causing suffering for others; I’d say that was true for me}
No ‘civilized country’ would leave the mentally ill out on the streets to fend for themselves and to hurt other people.
NY used to do exactly what you advocate for, decades ago, but it was determined by the liberal minded elite that it was inappropriate and undignified. so they closed all the mental hospitals. Now these unfortunate people wander the streets aimlessly.
What’s so wonderful about the “freedom” to sleep in shop doorways.
Well said.
I find it strange that a board with a number of posters who regularly bemoan the lack of Christian values in modern society will massively upvote a comment glorifying the killing of a mentally ill man while simultaneously downvoting my comment criticising the lack of empathy for their fellow man
What a nasty, disgusting attitude you have. What a vile ting to say.
Take a good hard look at yourself, BB.
If people cannot, or will not, control themselves, then control will be imposed upon them at some point. If deranged people are compromising the safety of others, they need to be controlled. If Neely had been incarcerated, he might be alive today. If the government is going to abdicate their responsibility by refusing to restrain criminals, the people will be forced to take matters into their own hands. If the government doesn’t like the form that this takes (the possible death of the criminals), then they need to step up and do their job.
It’s sad that Neely had to die, but I am less sad and more relieved: one less violent criminal on the streets. Fewer victims of that criminal in the future. I would rather have more marines on the subways.
It’s my opinion that you’ve picked the wrong target with this author to express your frustration with the current progressive hypocrisy. I regard her insights as more valuable than yours. I too have little to no sympathy for either of those whose deaths sparked the BLM movement or this latest furore, but without the need to justify my opinions with the “look what i’ve witnessed” stance, which is actually unnecessary.
Well, Sanford Artzen, looks like you hit a tender spot with UnHerd’s sharing-and-caring virtue-signallers. They remind me of those open-borders advocates who, with lofty moral certitude, declare that “we” must show compassion and someone, somewhere must do something to solve the migrant crisis – just not at my expense.
Perhaps they have forgotten the liberal loathing of mental hospitals – given popular expression in the Oscar winning movie One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. Coupled with concern over taxpayer’s money this alleged interest in mental patient’s rights gave us the dubious policy of Care in the Community – a euphemism if ever there was one.
Well N Satori, it looks like you can’t follow a simple counterargument AND can’t recall those you denigrate having no such opinions on issues like open borders. I find it difficult to sympathise with such lack of insight, and your case is no exception.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
You failed the test.
Really, how so? Holding opposing ideas seems to me to be the epitome of wisdom and fairness. It’s the opposite of black/white, good/bad thinking to be able to see, and consider, both side of an issue. It’s what one hopes all judges would be capable of doing, but sadly they’re not.
Really, how so? Holding opposing ideas seems to me to be the epitome of wisdom and fairness. It’s the opposite of black/white, good/bad thinking to be able to see, and consider, both side of an issue. It’s what one hopes all judges would be capable of doing, but sadly they’re not.
Well N Satori, it looks like you can’t follow a simple counterargument AND can’t recall those you denigrate having no such opinions on issues like open borders. I find it difficult to sympathise with such lack of insight, and your case is no exception.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
You failed the test.
What an arsehole, I bet you are.
You must be a very tough guy
Reading this I’m reminded of the Romany gypsies and the mental defectives who went into the German gas chambers. No doubt for the Nazis it was an effective solution, but for me and countless others it was more akin to barbarism.
Yes. A proud heartlessness. And a disavowal of our social and ethical duty to care for and try to forgive one another. Of course not every outburst or public antisocial behavior should be indulged, but we should not de-humanize people or surrender our own better humanity by advocating death or other punishments of no possible return for the least and most lost among us.
Yes. A proud heartlessness. And a disavowal of our social and ethical duty to care for and try to forgive one another. Of course not every outburst or public antisocial behavior should be indulged, but we should not de-humanize people or surrender our own better humanity by advocating death or other punishments of no possible return for the least and most lost among us.
Your world is survival of the fittest.
Ayn Rands lovechild
Ayn Rands lovechild
Why are you using a pseudonym? You might note that almost all of us on here use our real names – I happen to agree with most of what you said but it would carry more weight if there was a real name attached to it.
How do you know who’s using their real name?
How do you know who’s using their real name?
Did you really expect me, a woman with a brain, to read past “I think I absolutely do not understand women in print. Something about the media I guess, turns you all into some unrecognizable species.”
I absolutely do not understand men who make the sort of insulting comments about women that would be appropriate for a 1950s sitcom.
I hope you have a breakdown one day, and are left to rot in the gutter if that’s you’re attitude towards the mentally ill.
No civilised country treats the mentally ill the same as healthy individuals, as we understand their actions aren’t due to rational thought.
If a person is acting aggressively or threatening then the first course if action is to arrest them and get them off the streets. You then determine whether their actions are due to them being bad in which case you punish them, or mad in which case you cart them off for treatment. The fact this man was allowed to roam the streets in the state he was in is a failure of the system, and you gloating over his demise is disgusting
It’s my opinion that you’ve picked the wrong target with this author to express your frustration with the current progressive hypocrisy. I regard her insights as more valuable than yours. I too have little to no sympathy for either of those whose deaths sparked the BLM movement or this latest furore, but without the need to justify my opinions with the “look what i’ve witnessed” stance, which is actually unnecessary.
Well, Sanford Artzen, looks like you hit a tender spot with UnHerd’s sharing-and-caring virtue-signallers. They remind me of those open-borders advocates who, with lofty moral certitude, declare that “we” must show compassion and someone, somewhere must do something to solve the migrant crisis – just not at my expense.
Perhaps they have forgotten the liberal loathing of mental hospitals – given popular expression in the Oscar winning movie One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. Coupled with concern over taxpayer’s money this alleged interest in mental patient’s rights gave us the dubious policy of Care in the Community – a euphemism if ever there was one.
What an arsehole, I bet you are.
You must be a very tough guy
Reading this I’m reminded of the Romany gypsies and the mental defectives who went into the German gas chambers. No doubt for the Nazis it was an effective solution, but for me and countless others it was more akin to barbarism.
Your world is survival of the fittest.
Why are you using a pseudonym? You might note that almost all of us on here use our real names – I happen to agree with most of what you said but it would carry more weight if there was a real name attached to it.
Did you really expect me, a woman with a brain, to read past “I think I absolutely do not understand women in print. Something about the media I guess, turns you all into some unrecognizable species.”
I absolutely do not understand men who make the sort of insulting comments about women that would be appropriate for a 1950s sitcom.
I think I absolutely do not understand women in print. Something about the media I guess, turns you all into some unrecognizable species.
”This question has been on my mind this week, for the most tragic of reasons. On 1st May, a 30-year-old man”
Tragic? I do not get it – Why? To me it seems his being gone does nothing but improve the place.
;”For him to die on the dirty floor of a subway car, screaming and defecating on himself while three strangers held him by the arms, legs, and neck, he had to be first failed at every turn by a system that was supposed to shelter and protect him — not just from doing harm, but from being harmed by others when his mental illness manifested in frightening ways.”
So? What’s the problem? If you have been around people dying it is not usually great. But what system was supposed to shelter and protect him?
I mean, Lock him up and keep him in an anti-psychotic drug stupor for the rest of his life? There is all kinds of things good and bad about this – but we do not do it. It is no one’s responsibility to keep the run-of-the-mill insane criminals from harming themselves – and no one takes the responsibility to stop them harming others. What? 40 Arrests? And it tales a Lot to get arrested – and I know this. NO – this horrible guy was issued a License by NYC to legally F*c k people up. He had a stack of ‘Get Out Of Jail For Free’ cards signed by the Mayor and so could physically damage and emotionally scar whom ever – where ever….. Best thing he ever did was to pass on……
I just do not have any problem him dieing wile being made to stop his endless crime spree. No problem at all. I wish the Marine the best and think him a hero. If the guy had lived to be arrested he would be out in 3 days just doing it again. Better what happened. I will not lose any sleep. Not ‘Tragic’ to me.
But then I have seen babies starving – and I fallow the wars in Sudan, Ukraine – and want a REALLY ugly one? Really ugly? Check out some Haiti…. These innocents I feel true sadness over – it is ‘Tragic’. You think I shed a tear for George Flo* d? No. Why would I? I have seen too much, Real bad things happening to real people who were not serial criminals, who were just trying to get by, and not harming anyone.
I do not care this guy failed the choke test; so what? And all the writer’s crocodile tears – does she believe this or is it just what must be said by her ilk, here in print?
“The thing about that: when you demand vigilance, you get vigilantes.”
Except… it’s not vigilantism when the bad guys come to you.
If Daniel Penny – as well as those who helped restrain Neely so Penny could hold onto him – wrongfully used force, he should answer to the law for it.
But if he reasonably believed Neely presented an imminent threat of serious harm to himself or others and had to be quickly stopped, then it’s BEYOND a stretch to call him a vigilante.
I’m a lifelong NYer with my share of subway encounters, but since I look like an escapee from Pilgrim Psych – 6’3″, 300lb, bald – I get left alone by all but the most mouth-foaming loons.
It’s a very different situation for kids, the elderly and, of course, women.
Daniel Perry might very well have genuinely felt he was keeping a bad situation from getting much worse. A situation that he didn’t seek out; it found him.
Reaching out to prevent a crime is one thing, but slowly killing someone because they might commit one is quite another. I’m still haunted by seeing the video of Neely being strangled to death by a man who, like the cop who killed George Floyd, seemed to be rather enjoying it.
George Floyd Esq killed himself. Lt Chauvin merely assisted.
Why is it that so few get this point?
Because it is a meanspirited misrepresentation, willful or not.
Because it is a meanspirited misrepresentation, willful or not.
Through what kind of smug and vicious lens is that true?
Putting my rhetoric aside: Please explain yourself.
Why is it that so few get this point?
Through what kind of smug and vicious lens is that true?
Putting my rhetoric aside: Please explain yourself.
I agree. He had his hands in his pockets and looked quite self-satisfied, in an intense contrast to his bewildered expression when handed a 20-year sentence.
Please explain what should have taken place. What locks should have been used? How does a person assess the health condition of the person being restrained ?
If the suffocating knee was ever warranted (which is hugely doubtful): You only need a sense of basic humanity to remove your knee from any person’s neck once they are restrained, and cuffed, and you are in the presence of several other officers. His brutal, torturously drawn-out overapplication of force is questionable as a tactic under any circumstances and blameworthy within the specific context as recorded on video and reported on by witnesses, including fellow officers.
To me, only a reflexive unwillingness to see wrongdoing on the part of a police officer, or some oversize animus toward drug addicts or black people (or some other prejudicial blindspot), could make Chauvin’s use of force appear proportionate or humane.
I don’t know why you seem to defend him, but I think the burden of proof for defending or explaining away manslaughter–if that is what you are doing–rests upon you now post conviction.
I am not defending him.I am saying there needs to be clear training based upon peoples physiological and pschological state. The law needs to be based on physiology, psychology and anatomy. This is particularly important where those with mental, drug and alcohol problems may be violent, strong and in poor health and be in a state of hysteria such that their oxygen demands increases due to rapid breathing.
This type of situation is far more difficult than military un- armed combat yet the police, medical and legal establishmenst do not appear to be undertaking research.
Ok I agree with that–in principle. We are asking way too much of our police officers.
I just don’t see how the Chauvin-Floyd case involves anything less than blameworthy, excessive force on the part of the officer. Floyd wasn’t giving major resistance but was decidedly overpowered within seconds, so I don’t think this instance fits well with your more-difficult-than-battlefield model. Nor did the officer appear worried in any way. His fellow officers, though not needed for physical assistance, did appear worried both about the crowd and about Floyd’s developing mortal peril.
20 years was a long and unusual sentence but I have a hard time directing a lot of pity Chauvin’s way. (Although I have a little: I doubt he wanted Floyd to die. Yet he was plenty willing to lie about what happened once the death occurred).
My accusatory response was directed at the provocateur, Mr. Stanhope, who implied either 1) that Floyd’s bad choices and criminal history meant his life was self-forfeited 2) “social cleansing” or herd-thinning via police should be used against undesirables.
It requires far more skill to restrain some one when they are larger and stronger than you without doing them harm when they are in a rage, mad, on drugs or drunk and have poor health. Military un armed combat is fairly simple, it is hitting someone and knocking them to the ground and those using it have high upper body strength.
When The Police recruited only large strong men above 5 ft 10 inches, then it made it easier for them to restrain people without doing damage. This is why we have weigth categories in fighting sports.
A person may be strong, large violent and under the drugs, alcohol or a psychotic attack but be subject to panic attacks, asthma, other breathing problems and a weak heart. Restraining a person in this condition without harming them requires far more skill, especially if the Police Officer is smaller and weaker than in military un-armed combat. In Japan, the Riot Police undergo a years full time training in Aikido
Angry White Pyjamas: An Oxford Poet Trains with the Tokyo Riot Police eBook : Twigger, Robert: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
I suggest The Police, Medics, and Lawyers follow W E Fairbairn, look at the various martial arts; analyse human physiology, anatomy and psychology and develop a self defence and restraint system for the Police who have a different purpose to Commandos who are being trained to kill enemy soldiers.
Ok. I won’t discount your take, which seems to come from some personal knowledge of the situations and challenges involved. But that in no way excuses Chauvin’s actions–and look at his whole record as a cop–nor makes Floyd’s death something that in was inevitable under the circumstances. And Chauvin was not a scrawny weakling, though of moderately slight build (6 feet, 170 lbs.)
Related to the focus of your comments: I agree the mentality of way too many cops is far too militaristic. And a lot of them are hired after tours of combat duty, when they are still suffering from major PTSD. A bad formula.
But even the current state of crime and police training we have right now should result in far fewer deaths (not only of black people) at the hands of cops, especially when the suspect has no gun. I realize that’s pretty easy for me to say from my armchair, but I think that a reduction in fatal interaction with law enforcement is not out of reach, or too much to ask for.
Agreed. There is a saying ” Training only cuts and polishes the stone”. Historically the British Police used to recruit ex sergeants from the military, especially the Guards and Royal Marine Commandos. W E Fairbairn was ex Royal Marines . Many Commandos /Special Forces sergeants if WW2 ended up as senior police officers in Britain. What is needed is emotional maturity with a high levels of relevant training leading to self control. The question is what are the standards of selection, training maintenance of standards?
The reality is the modern world is very bad at defining quality. One can measure quantity, as in quantity of police officers, money spent length of training but how does one discern quality ? What if one quality officer is better than two or three poor quality ones?
Indeed. Or if three bad officers in 20 can dang near ruin a precinct.
I’m not too sure that institutions have ever excelled at measuring quality, but quantification, which can be gamed to an institution’s on-paper advantage, is surely more of a preoccupation–often to the point of foolish numerical fixation–in recent decades. I sometimes fall for it or call for it in ways that don’t make sense too (“where’s your data?”; “”by what exact percentage?”, etc).
I’d guess, without much knowledge and with no data, that law enforcement has always attracted and even promoted some bad apples, from palace centurions and medieval sheriffs onward. But modern policing is said to date only to Sir Robert Peel’s London so-called bobbies beginning about 1829. I wonder how often police killed, or to what degree Londoners of various classes trusted these men in different decades from the 1830s onward. And how many were killed by American slave patrols, under what known circumstances.
You’ve sparked a pocket of interest in me and I wish I knew of a single, well-written book that would answer most of my proliferating questions.
I suggst looking at BBC programmes on training Royal Commando Arctic and Mountaineering Warfare Cadres . They are some of the mostly highly trained people in NATO.
Royal Marines: Behind the Lines: Episode 1 – Fain Would I Climb – YouTube
There are 7 programmes. The last one shows the final tests. The programme only shows those who training for selection to the unit, grade ML2. The instructors are ML1 grade and so have even higher standards.
What I suggest the programme shows is the very levels of self control and self discipline not just discipline where instructors shout at trainees.
Thanks. I took a look at one episode of the show and might watch more later. The approach does seem more balanced than what I think is typical of the US military, without having served. I’m not sure of the specific pertinence to present-day police departments but I think I get your point about a more complete discipline and maybe a warmer camaraderie.
Do you think British police seem less angry and troubled than their American counterparts? More precisely, if they were transplanted to US ghettoes, would they behave better and less violently than US cops on average, while carrying the same firepower as US cops and facing the same amount of crime and weaponry among the public?
Perhaps a bit too concocted or speculative, just seeking your informed opinion.
Nowadays, the standards of British Police appear to vary very widely.I have doubts about the physical fitness, restraint skills, sagacity and ability to react in a controlled manner of some officers. It is the worst people in an organisation who determine overall competence and I am concerned the quality of some people entering is not high enough. I think there needs to be a reassessment of what is needed.
Good thoughts and a sensible suggestion. Cheers.
And I respect that you tend to speak from your own first-hand or directly observed experience, Sometimes I think that can be limiting, but it has a certain integrity that a speculative opinionator like me lacks, and while I can’t and won’t copy you I could stand to take a page or two from your approach as I perceive it.
Good thoughts and a sensible suggestion. Cheers.
And I respect that you tend to speak from your own first-hand or directly observed experience, Sometimes I think that can be limiting, but it has a certain integrity that a speculative opinionator like me lacks, and while I can’t and won’t copy you I could stand to take a page or two from your approach as I perceive it.
Nowadays, the standards of British Police appear to vary very widely.I have doubts about the physical fitness, restraint skills, sagacity and ability to react in a controlled manner of some officers. It is the worst people in an organisation who determine overall competence and I am concerned the quality of some people entering is not high enough. I think there needs to be a reassessment of what is needed.
Thanks. I took a look at one episode of the show and might watch more later. The approach does seem more balanced than what I think is typical of the US military, without having served. I’m not sure of the specific pertinence to present-day police departments but I think I get your point about a more complete discipline and maybe a warmer camaraderie.
Do you think British police seem less angry and troubled than their American counterparts? More precisely, if they were transplanted to US ghettoes, would they behave better and less violently than US cops on average, while carrying the same firepower as US cops and facing the same amount of crime and weaponry among the public?
Perhaps a bit too concocted or speculative, just seeking your informed opinion.
I suggst looking at BBC programmes on training Royal Commando Arctic and Mountaineering Warfare Cadres . They are some of the mostly highly trained people in NATO.
Royal Marines: Behind the Lines: Episode 1 – Fain Would I Climb – YouTube
There are 7 programmes. The last one shows the final tests. The programme only shows those who training for selection to the unit, grade ML2. The instructors are ML1 grade and so have even higher standards.
What I suggest the programme shows is the very levels of self control and self discipline not just discipline where instructors shout at trainees.
Indeed. Or if three bad officers in 20 can dang near ruin a precinct.
I’m not too sure that institutions have ever excelled at measuring quality, but quantification, which can be gamed to an institution’s on-paper advantage, is surely more of a preoccupation–often to the point of foolish numerical fixation–in recent decades. I sometimes fall for it or call for it in ways that don’t make sense too (“where’s your data?”; “”by what exact percentage?”, etc).
I’d guess, without much knowledge and with no data, that law enforcement has always attracted and even promoted some bad apples, from palace centurions and medieval sheriffs onward. But modern policing is said to date only to Sir Robert Peel’s London so-called bobbies beginning about 1829. I wonder how often police killed, or to what degree Londoners of various classes trusted these men in different decades from the 1830s onward. And how many were killed by American slave patrols, under what known circumstances.
You’ve sparked a pocket of interest in me and I wish I knew of a single, well-written book that would answer most of my proliferating questions.
Agreed. There is a saying ” Training only cuts and polishes the stone”. Historically the British Police used to recruit ex sergeants from the military, especially the Guards and Royal Marine Commandos. W E Fairbairn was ex Royal Marines . Many Commandos /Special Forces sergeants if WW2 ended up as senior police officers in Britain. What is needed is emotional maturity with a high levels of relevant training leading to self control. The question is what are the standards of selection, training maintenance of standards?
The reality is the modern world is very bad at defining quality. One can measure quantity, as in quantity of police officers, money spent length of training but how does one discern quality ? What if one quality officer is better than two or three poor quality ones?
Ok. I won’t discount your take, which seems to come from some personal knowledge of the situations and challenges involved. But that in no way excuses Chauvin’s actions–and look at his whole record as a cop–nor makes Floyd’s death something that in was inevitable under the circumstances. And Chauvin was not a scrawny weakling, though of moderately slight build (6 feet, 170 lbs.)
Related to the focus of your comments: I agree the mentality of way too many cops is far too militaristic. And a lot of them are hired after tours of combat duty, when they are still suffering from major PTSD. A bad formula.
But even the current state of crime and police training we have right now should result in far fewer deaths (not only of black people) at the hands of cops, especially when the suspect has no gun. I realize that’s pretty easy for me to say from my armchair, but I think that a reduction in fatal interaction with law enforcement is not out of reach, or too much to ask for.
It requires far more skill to restrain some one when they are larger and stronger than you without doing them harm when they are in a rage, mad, on drugs or drunk and have poor health. Military un armed combat is fairly simple, it is hitting someone and knocking them to the ground and those using it have high upper body strength.
When The Police recruited only large strong men above 5 ft 10 inches, then it made it easier for them to restrain people without doing damage. This is why we have weigth categories in fighting sports.
A person may be strong, large violent and under the drugs, alcohol or a psychotic attack but be subject to panic attacks, asthma, other breathing problems and a weak heart. Restraining a person in this condition without harming them requires far more skill, especially if the Police Officer is smaller and weaker than in military un-armed combat. In Japan, the Riot Police undergo a years full time training in Aikido
Angry White Pyjamas: An Oxford Poet Trains with the Tokyo Riot Police eBook : Twigger, Robert: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
I suggest The Police, Medics, and Lawyers follow W E Fairbairn, look at the various martial arts; analyse human physiology, anatomy and psychology and develop a self defence and restraint system for the Police who have a different purpose to Commandos who are being trained to kill enemy soldiers.
Ok I agree with that–in principle. We are asking way too much of our police officers.
I just don’t see how the Chauvin-Floyd case involves anything less than blameworthy, excessive force on the part of the officer. Floyd wasn’t giving major resistance but was decidedly overpowered within seconds, so I don’t think this instance fits well with your more-difficult-than-battlefield model. Nor did the officer appear worried in any way. His fellow officers, though not needed for physical assistance, did appear worried both about the crowd and about Floyd’s developing mortal peril.
20 years was a long and unusual sentence but I have a hard time directing a lot of pity Chauvin’s way. (Although I have a little: I doubt he wanted Floyd to die. Yet he was plenty willing to lie about what happened once the death occurred).
My accusatory response was directed at the provocateur, Mr. Stanhope, who implied either 1) that Floyd’s bad choices and criminal history meant his life was self-forfeited 2) “social cleansing” or herd-thinning via police should be used against undesirables.
I am not defending him.I am saying there needs to be clear training based upon peoples physiological and pschological state. The law needs to be based on physiology, psychology and anatomy. This is particularly important where those with mental, drug and alcohol problems may be violent, strong and in poor health and be in a state of hysteria such that their oxygen demands increases due to rapid breathing.
This type of situation is far more difficult than military un- armed combat yet the police, medical and legal establishmenst do not appear to be undertaking research.
If the suffocating knee was ever warranted (which is hugely doubtful): You only need a sense of basic humanity to remove your knee from any person’s neck once they are restrained, and cuffed, and you are in the presence of several other officers. His brutal, torturously drawn-out overapplication of force is questionable as a tactic under any circumstances and blameworthy within the specific context as recorded on video and reported on by witnesses, including fellow officers.
To me, only a reflexive unwillingness to see wrongdoing on the part of a police officer, or some oversize animus toward drug addicts or black people (or some other prejudicial blindspot), could make Chauvin’s use of force appear proportionate or humane.
I don’t know why you seem to defend him, but I think the burden of proof for defending or explaining away manslaughter–if that is what you are doing–rests upon you now post conviction.
Please explain what should have taken place. What locks should have been used? How does a person assess the health condition of the person being restrained ?
George Floyd Esq killed himself. Lt Chauvin merely assisted.
I agree. He had his hands in his pockets and looked quite self-satisfied, in an intense contrast to his bewildered expression when handed a 20-year sentence.
Reaching out to prevent a crime is one thing, but slowly killing someone because they might commit one is quite another. I’m still haunted by seeing the video of Neely being strangled to death by a man who, like the cop who killed George Floyd, seemed to be rather enjoying it.
“The thing about that: when you demand vigilance, you get vigilantes.”
Except… it’s not vigilantism when the bad guys come to you.
If Daniel Penny – as well as those who helped restrain Neely so Penny could hold onto him – wrongfully used force, he should answer to the law for it.
But if he reasonably believed Neely presented an imminent threat of serious harm to himself or others and had to be quickly stopped, then it’s BEYOND a stretch to call him a vigilante.
I’m a lifelong NYer with my share of subway encounters, but since I look like an escapee from Pilgrim Psych – 6’3″, 300lb, bald – I get left alone by all but the most mouth-foaming loons.
It’s a very different situation for kids, the elderly and, of course, women.
Daniel Perry might very well have genuinely felt he was keeping a bad situation from getting much worse. A situation that he didn’t seek out; it found him.
One small point — whatever else is true about John Neely, he did not ‘fall through the cracks’ — he was on the extremely short list of people deemed most notably at risk, at need of care, what ever you call it.
People who make such lists need to be locked up for their own and everybody else’s good. If you just ignore them, they will eventually end up in a situation that gets themselves or somebody else badly harmed or killed. Which is precisely what happened. And this is the edge case to use against those who are personal liberty absolutists — of course locking up people for no real crime but being mentally ill is a terrible thing to do, but the alternative is worse.
We used to lock them up for their own good, but sentiment changed and it became better for them to live in the street and create chaos for the public. San Francisco is the poster child for such insanity.
And so the solution is what? Some creative, outside- the- box thinking is needed instead of the same old judgemental thinking.
I think that as a part of growing up, it should be mandatory for young people to spend a year working up close and personally with some of the people who are part-and-parcel of the social problems that plague us. Work with prisoners, and the mentally ill, and the victims of violent crime and … I am sure we can come up with a list. There are people who sincerely do not know how it was that people could feel threatened by Jordan Neely. Their model of ‘mentally ill’ does not admit the concept of ‘dangerous’. You try to string together the thought ‘This person is dangerous because he is mentally ill’ and it does not hold together in their heads.
Mentally ill people are victims, and victims are, in their minds, cuddly or something. The notion that you can be a victim, but also dangerous, or a victim but also evil is something that I think they are going to have to see for themselves before they will believe.
An insightful and balanced reply. First-hand engagement is indispensable and I agree that more personal involvement and service should be urged, if not mandated. (Forced service tends to become perfunctory).
Almost no one falls entirely onto one side of the victim/perpetrator or evil/good divide. And people that are homeless, addicted, imprisoned, insane, violent, etc., are not only or hopelessly so, in most cases.
If we look at where people lived up to mid 20th , whether in towns or villages affluent people would have been close to poor and rough areas so would have met violent people. The collapse of small industries and flight to the suburbs post late 1960s meant most people who influence public opinion, especially within the areas of education, welfare, academia, etc come from an upper middle class background and have been brought up in comfortable and secure suburbs.
If one had been an engineer working in mining, construction oil exploration or an officer in merchant navy, one would have worked and lived in rough areas and with rough people. Any docks in in any country contain some of the most deprived and depraved people in the World and one has to pass through them to travel from the ship to the affluent part of town. One will not last long as junior engineer or officer if one is weak, naive and gullible. Historically most of the men studying and working in heavy engineering or as an officer in the Merchant Navy( trained in establishments such as HMS Conway) boxed, played rugby and rowed. The percentage of the middle and upper class of The Western World who are tough and worldy is far smaller than in the 1930s because we have lost these forms of employment. The most academics will not believe a labourer who can box and has drunk say four to five pints, can take a blow to the head which would knock out or even kill the vast majority of office workers because it is beyond their experience.
Various tragedies have taken place because those in authority flatly refuse to assess what techniques are suitable for restraining violent people who may be mad, drunk and under the influence of drugs, exhibit great strength ( roid rage ) but have very poor health and may die in a struggle. W E Fairbairn, a Police Officer in Shanghai developed unarmed combat in the 1930s and we know less now, than then.
William E. Fairbairn – Wikipedia
An insightful and balanced reply. First-hand engagement is indispensable and I agree that more personal involvement and service should be urged, if not mandated. (Forced service tends to become perfunctory).
Almost no one falls entirely onto one side of the victim/perpetrator or evil/good divide. And people that are homeless, addicted, imprisoned, insane, violent, etc., are not only or hopelessly so, in most cases.
If we look at where people lived up to mid 20th , whether in towns or villages affluent people would have been close to poor and rough areas so would have met violent people. The collapse of small industries and flight to the suburbs post late 1960s meant most people who influence public opinion, especially within the areas of education, welfare, academia, etc come from an upper middle class background and have been brought up in comfortable and secure suburbs.
If one had been an engineer working in mining, construction oil exploration or an officer in merchant navy, one would have worked and lived in rough areas and with rough people. Any docks in in any country contain some of the most deprived and depraved people in the World and one has to pass through them to travel from the ship to the affluent part of town. One will not last long as junior engineer or officer if one is weak, naive and gullible. Historically most of the men studying and working in heavy engineering or as an officer in the Merchant Navy( trained in establishments such as HMS Conway) boxed, played rugby and rowed. The percentage of the middle and upper class of The Western World who are tough and worldy is far smaller than in the 1930s because we have lost these forms of employment. The most academics will not believe a labourer who can box and has drunk say four to five pints, can take a blow to the head which would knock out or even kill the vast majority of office workers because it is beyond their experience.
Various tragedies have taken place because those in authority flatly refuse to assess what techniques are suitable for restraining violent people who may be mad, drunk and under the influence of drugs, exhibit great strength ( roid rage ) but have very poor health and may die in a struggle. W E Fairbairn, a Police Officer in Shanghai developed unarmed combat in the 1930s and we know less now, than then.
William E. Fairbairn – Wikipedia
I think that as a part of growing up, it should be mandatory for young people to spend a year working up close and personally with some of the people who are part-and-parcel of the social problems that plague us. Work with prisoners, and the mentally ill, and the victims of violent crime and … I am sure we can come up with a list. There are people who sincerely do not know how it was that people could feel threatened by Jordan Neely. Their model of ‘mentally ill’ does not admit the concept of ‘dangerous’. You try to string together the thought ‘This person is dangerous because he is mentally ill’ and it does not hold together in their heads.
Mentally ill people are victims, and victims are, in their minds, cuddly or something. The notion that you can be a victim, but also dangerous, or a victim but also evil is something that I think they are going to have to see for themselves before they will believe.
Sadly, I have had conversations with such absolutists, including one who was a social worker and didn’t believe in prisons or secure units. Amazingly, he described the most appalling example of ‘care in the community’ gone wrong with devastating consequences for a victim of some who should have been in a secure unit, before declaring that this was an error of how the miscreant was managed and needed review. Apparently I was morally abhorrent for holding the view that locking him up would have prevented said victim from suffering life changing injuries. They’re nutters and cannot be reasoned with. This Muppet actually believed that locking them up IS WORSE.
We used to lock them up for their own good, but sentiment changed and it became better for them to live in the street and create chaos for the public. San Francisco is the poster child for such insanity.
And so the solution is what? Some creative, outside- the- box thinking is needed instead of the same old judgemental thinking.
Sadly, I have had conversations with such absolutists, including one who was a social worker and didn’t believe in prisons or secure units. Amazingly, he described the most appalling example of ‘care in the community’ gone wrong with devastating consequences for a victim of some who should have been in a secure unit, before declaring that this was an error of how the miscreant was managed and needed review. Apparently I was morally abhorrent for holding the view that locking him up would have prevented said victim from suffering life changing injuries. They’re nutters and cannot be reasoned with. This Muppet actually believed that locking them up IS WORSE.
One small point — whatever else is true about John Neely, he did not ‘fall through the cracks’ — he was on the extremely short list of people deemed most notably at risk, at need of care, what ever you call it.
People who make such lists need to be locked up for their own and everybody else’s good. If you just ignore them, they will eventually end up in a situation that gets themselves or somebody else badly harmed or killed. Which is precisely what happened. And this is the edge case to use against those who are personal liberty absolutists — of course locking up people for no real crime but being mentally ill is a terrible thing to do, but the alternative is worse.
Here’s the Sen. Iselin “real simple” answer to this.
Our liberal friends believe that everything should be resolved by politics. But politics, according to Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, is about the enemy.
Therefore, our liberal friends experience every opinion or action opposed to theirs as enemy action, and experience every opinion and action committed by them and their oppressed people supporters as understandable and OK.
So of course feminists believe themselves the sole judge of male behavior. And progressives believe themselves the sole judge of white male oppressor behavior.
Somehow I think that this is Not Good.
And you know for a fact what all liberals believe?!
According to the Articles of Oppositional Faith, chapter 1, verse 1: “Anything from Their Side is Not Good; Anything good is in no way of Their Side. They imagine Themselves the sole judges of behavior and conscience whereas, in fact, WE–I and those who agree with me– are”.
One simply picks the best side and never has to think or doubt oneself again.
By their works ye shall know them.
By their fruits.
By their fruits.
According to the Articles of Oppositional Faith, chapter 1, verse 1: “Anything from Their Side is Not Good; Anything good is in no way of Their Side. They imagine Themselves the sole judges of behavior and conscience whereas, in fact, WE–I and those who agree with me– are”.
One simply picks the best side and never has to think or doubt oneself again.
By their works ye shall know them.
And you know for a fact what all liberals believe?!
Here’s the Sen. Iselin “real simple” answer to this.
Our liberal friends believe that everything should be resolved by politics. But politics, according to Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, is about the enemy.
Therefore, our liberal friends experience every opinion or action opposed to theirs as enemy action, and experience every opinion and action committed by them and their oppressed people supporters as understandable and OK.
So of course feminists believe themselves the sole judge of male behavior. And progressives believe themselves the sole judge of white male oppressor behavior.
Somehow I think that this is Not Good.
Lack of proportion is the American disorder. I wonder when it will make its appearance here.
It already has.
Well, yes.
And you should know being a perpetrator of such.
Gosh Ms Knight you are the most irredeemable old scold.
How very sad for Mr Knight.
Gosh Ms Knight you are the most irredeemable old scold.
How very sad for Mr Knight.
Well, yes.
And you should know being a perpetrator of such.
Look at the way the police overreacted at the weekend.
Overreacted to what?