A Recent and Difficult Example
There is an idea or sentiment going around, regarding the Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely NYC subway case, that Penny was not justified in exercising violence against Neely. There’s plenty of these videos floating around if you’re curious to see one…Google it as they say.
I am not particularly concerned with the legality of the matter, but I’m interested in exploring what sort of actions are violent, or threatening enough as to warrant use of “kinetic, physical force” to counter, mitigate or eliminate the threat, real or perceived.
Beyond the P/N incident, much of my interest in this subject stems from such incidents, as when I see people yelling in other people’s faces. In the childish version, this plays out as two siblings harassing each other, say in the backseat of mom’s car:
The older brother repeats and repeats “I’m not touching you!…” while the one his finger hovers mere millimeters from the younger brother’s face.
This childhood trope illustrates the idea that we can be “in the clear” because we’re not breaking any rules. After all, big bro isn’t even touching, much less hitting/harming little bro. But is that really true in any meaningful sense?
Now, imagine the much less innocent scenario of a severely agitated adult yelling threats at another adult. Picture the scene where the aggressor is mere centimeters or a few inches from the face of the person he’s yelling at, and the threats are directly at that person…”I’m going to harm/kill you!”….or “I don’t care if I go to jail or die!” Or, maybe the words are less direct, or less pointed…so may not be perceived as “direct threats” per se.
To some extent, this seems to be the case in the Penny/Neely NYC subway incident, where though Neeley’s actions were clearly threatening, they did not seem to be explicit attacks directed at someone specifically. To be clear, I am just exploring the topic and using the details I have seen of the Penny/Neeley case as a basis for that exploration…and I 100% believe that Daniel Penny did the right thing and should never even have been charged. And, I 100% agree that Neely’s actions were in fact “threatening” or even “threats” in a real sense. But that’s at least partially why this case is so interesting, as we’re forced to reckon with the ideas of “threats” or “threatening” and how and when to apply violence.
Another example that I often see
I do think cops have a special responsibility that comes with their assigned authority, but I have seen so many examples of protestors getting “right in the face” of a cop, yelling obscenities and what appear to be personal insults. Sometimes, it appears the only thing keeping the cop safe from the spittle and saliva flying out of the mouth of the aggressor is the shield on his riot helmet. The devil is in the details, to be sure, so what the “yeller” is actually saying is important, and so is the distance he keeps from the cop, as is his other body language, and similar contextual considerations (potential weapons, wearing a menacing type mask, part of a large “mob” type crowd, etc.) But I have seen videos where it seemed justified for the cop to defend himself (and serve the common good, BTW) by arresting the person.
Although I agree that an armed society is a polite society, I am not advocating for duels and regular pistol fights. But we must have some basis for recourse in these matters beyond our current level of “common understanding,” which is basically that you can do almost anything you want, as long as you don’t actually, physically touch the other person. Perhaps yelling direct threats in someone’s face is not a crime, and frankly, I don’t care if it ever is to become one. Whether it’s against the law or well within anyone’s “legal rights,” to do this, it’s clearly not right in a moral sense. And this sort of behavior directly assaults the social fabric.
Landing The Plane (on this draft)
We have heard several people defending the “rights” of Jordan Neely to threaten train passengers. There is no logical or moral scenario in which it is right or defensible to “attack” someone in every way possible, Except for physically touching, hitting, harming, etc. Getting in someone’s face and threatening them is not mere harassment, and while it May not qualify as violence, it seems to be something else altogether. Clearly it’s a threat of some sort, and yes, it may also be a cry for help. But we can’t see into someone’s heart, and it is a fool’s errand to believe we can, in any way, predict or understand someone’s potential for real violence. In any case, we have no obligation to wait for them to actually commit violence in the case of an imminent threat.
End of draft 1.
-Aaron
