Seriously, this feels like Deja vu, and I don't mean the killing/death of Jordan Neely. I mean the responses to his death. It follows a very predictable pattern from three parties—the left, the right, and the authorities. The left immediately invoke racism and begin a protest, lionizing the victim as a martyr killed in the fight for racial justice. The right demonizes the victim calling him a bum, a vagrant, and a threat to society, invoking any criminal history he may have had as a justification for his killing. The authorities do nothing, but wait to see if there is a protest; if a protest ensues, they charge the suspect, if it doesn't, they do nothing. This to me is justice by public opinion.
Any discerning person would immediately see a problem with the three approaches. To the left that invokes racism, there is absolutely nothing about the killing that has come out so far to suggest that it was driven by racial animus. The only thing racial about the interaction was that both parties involved were of different races; well that's not entirely accurate, because two other people joined in restraining Jordan: A Black man and an Asian man. I doubt if the Black man had any racial animus towards his kind to facilitate their murder by a racist White man. It seems pointless then to paint this as a racial crime. A narrative that muddies the water and distracts from what the real issues are.
Predictably, people like AOC and Marc Lamont Hill have described the killing as a lynching, framing it as a continuation of historical aggressions against black people by white people today. This is a problem for obvious reasons. it's simply going to fuel the ongoing racial conflict and serves no useful purpose.
The meat of the matter which is determining whether the ex-marine acted appropriately and within the bounds of the law and whether Jordan's actions justified the response he got from the strangers would all be lost in the murky sea of racial accusations and counter-accusations. In the end, the left will get their fix from protesting, democrat politicians will sabre rattle, and nothing substantial will be done until the next time when a similar tragedy occurs.
The right, unashamedly and almost in a retarded manner went straight to their canned talking points, demonizing Jordan while hailing the ex-marine as a hero. Somehow by their logic, Jordan deserved to die because of his prior convictions and outstanding warrants for arrest. He also deserved to die because he was threatening people, verbally. Hmm. To the right-wingers I ask, are words violence to be met by force or are they not? I mean, were the words uttered by Jordan—whether threatening or not—sufficient for the intervention of bystanders to the point of leading to his death?
Jake Shields, a conservative ex-MMA fighter posted a picture of the chokehold on Twitter with the comments, "he fucked around and found out."
In the same thread, he later admitted to not watching the video yet. I commented, "So you haven't watched the video, but you feel confident enough to post, he fucked around and found out, quick question, what is the color of your stupidity?"
See the problem is, he was already pushing a narrative that Jordan deserved what he got because he fucked around and found out even though he hadn't seen first-hand evidence of the interaction. He did not know the circumstances around the killing/death, but he felt confident enough to pass judgment that Jordan got what he was asking for. What an idiot.
Another Twitter user commented, "Why are people acting like death is the worst thing to ever happen". He argued that it's a good thing when bad people die. Well, death is absolutely the worst thing that happened to Jordan. It doesn't matter that he had prior convictions, it doesn't matter that he had pending warrants for his arrest because guess what, criminals have rights too. Only a court of law after reviewing the facts has the right to pass the sentence of death on a suspect. Besides whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty."
The ex-marine who put him in a chokehold was not seeking to mete out justice on Jordan for his crimes. He was not executing an arrest warrant; he had no way of knowing the criminal history of Jordan. He simply intervened probably with good intentions which unfortunately led to this disaster. Many would see my position as a defense of criminals, but far from it, my position is a defense of law and order, of due process, that vigilantism is and should never be encouraged.
Then there is the sad case of some Black conservatives like Barrington Martin II, who I like to call Barrington the un-cucked because of his incessant tweets claiming Western men have become cucked and need to regain their masculinity. Barrington the un-cucked tweeted "If a black man killed Neely, would it make news? Would people care?"
This tweet is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. This is the game that he plays whenever a tragedy like this occurs. Instead of sympathy for the victim, he starts with a whataboutism. What about black-on-black crime, what about black-on-white crime? These things are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to care about black-on-black crime, black-on-white crime, and the unjust killing of a black man at the same time. Using one of these as a counter to the other makes no sense.
Seriously, if Barrington cares so much about black-on-black crime or black-on-white crime, anytime such crimes happen nobody is stopping him from organizing a protest on that account. He is free to do so. Different people have what matters to them, some only care when a black person is killed by a white person. That's their prerogative, if that's all they care about, who am I to judge, it’s a free world, they don’t have to care about every instance of injustice even if they should. Barrington is trying to spin an unnecessary racial narrative, which is ironic as it’s exactly what he’s accusing the other side of doing i.e., making the tragedy about race.
How about people recognize the tragedy for what it is and empathize? This conversation can happen without race being invoked. One could ask, was Jordan posing any significant threat for such an action to be taken against him? One could also ask, was the level of force necessary? One could ask, what are the legal implications of this tragedy for the ex-marine? One could ask what can be done to prevent a similar tragedy. Instead, people on all sides are busy with pointless racial wars that should have no impact on the judicial process in this case.
Speaking of judicial processes. The third party involved is the government. I find it strange that the authorities only make moves once a protest has begun, is that how the judicial system is supposed to function? Reacting to social pressure? If the laws have determined that the ex-marine bears no liability, then no amount of social pressure should make them charge him. On the other hand, if the law determines that he needs to be charged why are the authorities waiting for protests to begin before acting?
According to freelance journalist Juan Alberto Vasquez—who pulled into the second avenue stop in Manhattan, where Neely boarded around 2 pm on Monday—Jordan started lamenting that he didn't have food, that he didn't have water, he was yelling that he was tired, that he didn't care about going to jail. Vasquez reported, "he did not ask for anything and was acting in a very violent way, a very dramatic way, at one point throwing his jacket to the floor that I could hear the zippers impact."
It is interesting to point out that Vasquez noted Neely was acting violently, but the only example of a violent act he could recall Neely ever doing was aggressively throwing his jacket on the floor. There were no reports of him attacking anyone on the train, he wasn't fixated on the ex-marine who choked him, he wasn't charging at anyone, and there has been no proof that he made verbal threats to anyone on the train. Yet the fact that he made people on the train uncomfortable with his words and behaviour was enough for him to be killed.
I'll just go out and say this was murder. I can't speculate on whether the intent was to kill him, but to be charitable let me say the intent was not to kill Jordan. However, how do you put someone in a chokehold for several minutes—with some estimates being as high as fifteen minutes depriving him of oxygen, knowing that the brain dies or is severely damaged if deprived of oxygen for a few minutes—and not expect them to die?
The video showed Jordan thrashing about, I guess in response to being choked since there was no verbal way for him to communicate that he couldn't breathe, the thrashing, in turn, would have been interpreted by the ex-marine as resisting, who may have increased the pressure of the choke in a bid to subdue him. This is an unfortunate situation, one which I do not know could have been avoided, but that is secondary to the point that the direct actions of the ex-marine led to the death of Jordan.
I can accept grudgingly that Neely had to be retrained. What I cannot accept was for him to be placed in a chokehold for that long. It would be a miscarriage of justice if the ex-marine is not charged with the death of Jordan, which seems unlikely as prosecutors have ruled the death as a homicide.
I would like people to take a step back and put things in proper perspective. I wish the left would recognize the tragedy for what it is and rightly call for justice without framing it as a racial lynching. I wish the right would see the tragedy for what it is, empathize with the victim and call for justice without framing the victim as a criminal who deserved to die because of his criminal history. I wish the authorities would do their jobs without being influenced by social pressure and act swiftly to bring justice so that the people's confidence is restored in the judicial process.
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. A very fun read! Grab a copy now!
Follow Charles Ekokotu on
Nice piece, Charles. The "muckrakers" don't care about the situation or the real victims (the threatened people). They only care about their agendas and themselves.