Tag: Jordan Neely

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown

To Honorable Olivier De Schutter and the Esteemed Members of the Human Rights Committee,

I am writing to urge you to conduct a thorough investigation into the murder of Banko Brown, an American trans organizer, whose life was taken by a security guard on April 27, 2023. The tragic event has left not only his loved ones, but also the entire LGBTQ community he was fighting for, devastated and fearful for their safety.

The Walgreens security guard stopped Brown for shoplifting, and afterwards, a confrontation ensued. During the confrontation, the security guard fatally shot Brown. Several US security guards have gunned down shoplifters in the US, raising the question as to whether shoplifting is now punishable by death in the nation.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. It also provides for specific conditions for the imposition of the death penalty with respect to countries that have not yet abolished it. Although the US ratified the Covenant on June 08, 1992, individual citizens cannot bring a complaint under the protocol.

The Human Rights Committee has articulated that countries such as the US—that have not abolished the death penalty—only may impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes. This means the US must interpret the term “most serious crimes” restrictively and should appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Evidence indicates that Brown was unarmed. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as economic crimes, can never serve as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty under Article 6.

Calls for Accountability Grow as HRD Quianna Canada Condemns Shooting of Trans Organizer, Banko Brown and Strangulation of Jordan Neely

The murder of Brown is not just a crime against an individual, but an attack on the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. As with Jordan Neely, Brown could not fully enjoy his rights, such as the right to food, because he could not afford to buy adequate food. I would even go so far as to say that Brown was also unable to obtain food because of the persistent patterns of discrimination in political and social participation in the US.

How the U.S. Government Failed Brown:

Right to Adequate Housing: the US Government has not fulfilled its obligation to protect homeless persons nationwide. As per the UN, States should regulate the housing and rental markets in a way that promotes and protects the right to adequate housing.

Right to Adequate Food: Food was not available, accessible or adequate for Brown. While there is no right to be fed by the Government, Brown does have a right to feed himself in dignity (Right to Adequate Food, p. 3). Whenever individuals or groups are unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to food by the means at their disposal, the US has the obligation to provide. An example provided by the UN is providing food assistance or ensuring social safety nets for the most deprived.

Links between Brown’s Human Right to Food and Other human rights:

The right to life. When people are not able to feed themselves, they face the risk of death by starvation, malnutrition or resulting illnesses.

The murder of Brown and Neely sends a chilling message to other houseless individuals that their lives are at risk. Indeed, the murder of impoverished persons is a broader problem with vigilante justice in the US. It may indicate a lack of respect for human rights, embolden a culture of impunity for those who commit crimes against homeless persons, or may indicate state-sanctioned violence.

As the world’s leading intergovernmental organization promoting peace, justice, and human rights, the UN has a responsibility to investigate such cases and hold those responsible accountable. The UN must send a strong message that the murder of homeless persons will not be tolerated and that those responsible must face justice.

I therefore call on the UN to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the murder Brown and Neely, and to seek information as to why the perpetrators are not being brought to justice. It is critical that the UN take action to prevent further attacks on homeless persons in the US, and to uphold the values of democracy, freedom, and justice that are at the core of its mission.

Sincerely,

Journey to the Center

Flawed Reasoning: Sean Fitzgerald’s Arguments Fail to Stand Up to Scrutiny in the Jordan Neely Case

Flawed Reasoning: Sean Fitzgerald’s Arguments Fail to Stand Up to Scrutiny in the Jordan Neely Case

Flawed Reasoning: Sean Fitzgerald’s Arguments Fail to Stand Up to Scrutiny in the Jordan Neely Case

Sean Fitzgerald is a popular YouTube commentator who reacts to political controversies in the media. On May 08, 2023, Fitzgerald published Leftists Turn Jordan Neely Into Floyd 2.0 to his YouTube Channel Actual Justice Warrior, where he made several claims about the Jordan Neely case that fail to stand up to scrutiny.

While I will address most of Fitzgerald’s claims in this article, I will not address claims that Fitzgerald did not make himself. For instance, I will not evaluate the arguments made by Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. I will also not address Fitzgerald’s claim that New Yorkers did not protest the strangulation of Jordan Neely, as this claim is easily disproven in several YouTube videos, such as the protest on the subway train tracks. With this in mind, I will not address the argument on that, as I feel it does not go to the core of Fitzgerald’s better claims.

However, there are 4 claims Fitzgerald makes in his video that I will address, and they are:

(1) Whether Black Americans Are Punished for Crimes

(2) Whether Daniel Penny Did Not Intend to Kill Jordan Neely

(3) Whether No Bystanders Cautioned Daniel Penny About His Strangulation of Jordan Neely

(4) Whether Jordan Neely’s Predicament is the Direct Result of State’s Failure to Incarcerate

Whether Black Americans Are Punished for Crimes

First, Fitzgerald believes “If you see a Black person committing a crime and you’re White – let it go.” Fitzgerald also thinks that Black people have achieved a “God tier status,” and that, victims of alleged Black criminality go unpunished.

It is an incontrovertible fact that Black Americans are disproportionately punished for crimes. The arrests of Black Americans far outweigh that of White Americans in the United States (6,109 vs. 2,795 per 100,000).[1] Further, Prison Policy Initiative found there were more Black Americans imprisoned in the country (2,306 v. 450 per 100,000).[2] Thus, it would seem, that Black Americans are punished for crimes.

Another claim Fitzgerald makes is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and a Black marine killed someone, the public would not be hearing about it. Is this true? Absolutely not. In 2022, a Black army veteran named Andrew Johnson was arrested in San Jose for attempted murder.[3] However, Johnson refused to plead guilty, insisting that he was defending himself during a confrontation. Irrespective of this defense, Johnson was arrested and spent 16 months in solitary confinement.

Although Fitzgerald fallaciously argues Black Americans are not punished for crimes in the United States, and that they can harm homeless people and evade arrest, this is a baseless claim. In 2022, a Black man was arrested and found guilty of shooting a homeless man outside of his apartment.[4]

As can be seen, Black Americans are punished for crimes in the United States. Even when Black Americans claim self-defense, as with the case of Johnson or, when they do not actually commit the alleged crime, they are imprisoned. A conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is Black Americans certainly do not have the God tier status Fitzgerald believes they have in the United States.

Flawed Reasoning: Sean Fitzgerald’s Arguments Fail to Stand Up to Scrutiny in the Jordan Neely Case

Whether Daniel Penny Did Not Intend to Kill Jordan Neely

Second, Fitzgerald argues that Daniel Penny did not intend to Kill Neely. To support this claim, Fitzgerald argues that Neely was “violent” and threatening people on the subway. I concede, subway riders did report that Neely made threats and was erratic. However, Fitzgerald conveniently omits that subway riders reported that Neely was nonviolent.[5] According to Alberto Vasquez, Neely did not appear to want to attack anyone. This piece of evidence is fatal to Fitzgerald’s claim that the murder of Neely was justified.

Even if we found Penny was justified in approaching Neely,[6] as reported by subway riders, the same cannot be said for the 15-minute chokehold. As per the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention, it takes 10 seconds for someone to lose consciousness from strangulation.[7] Think about it: 10 seconds. Penny knew or should have known that the length of time he had Neely in a chokehold far exceeded what was reasonable to bring him under compliance.

To be sure, Gael Strack and Casey Gwinn in the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice assert that individuals do not strangle to kill; they strangle to show they can kill. If Penny placed Neely in a chokehold for 10 seconds and released him, this would demonstrate no intent to kill. However, Penny’s chokehold lasted for 15 minutes. In view of Penny’s training as a marine and knowledge of strangulation tatics, a reasonable person would conclude that Penny did intend to kill Neely.

Whether No Bystanders Cautioned Daniel Penny About His Strangulation of Jordan Neely

Third, Fitzgerald argues that no bystanders “behind the camera” cautioned Penny about his strangulation of Neely. However, this claim is inaccurate. In the original video, a man enters the train and warns Penny that the chokehold could be lethal.[8] For instance, the man said “If you suffocate him, that’s it.” The man also said, “You don’t want to catch a murder charge.” The man warned Penny two minutes into the chokehold.[9] Despite this warning, Penny continued to strangle Neely.

Whether Jordan Neely’s Predicament is the Direct Result of State’s Failure to Incarcerate

Fourth, Fitzgerald claims that Neely’s predicament is the direct result of the State’s failure to incarcerate him. However, the bucket which Fitzgerald attempts to place this watery claim inside cannot sustain it. The argument that the State should not have released Neely is undemocratic, as it suggest that criminality equals a life sentence of imprisonment. Humans are not infallible; they often make mistakes. Indeed, the media has consistently reminded us that Neely has made his share. However, if we take a glimpse at the government’s role in Neely’s predicament, we begin to understand that our own government, either advertently or inadvertently, hobbled this man by creating barriers that made it nearly impossible for him to reintegrate into society, such as persistent patterns of discrimination in political and social participation in the country.

Conclusion

I have shown that Black Americans are disproportionately punished for crimes. I have further shown Black Americans are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated in the US. Fitzgerald’s own evidence indicates that Penny most likely intended to kill Neely. The sources provided clearly illustrate bystanders cautioned Penny about his strangulation of Neely. My own case for Neely demonstrates his predicament is not the direct result of the State’s failure to incarcerate. Based on these reasons, it can be argued that Sean Fitzgerald’s arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny in the Jordan Neely case.


[1] OJJDP. (2018). Arrest rates by offense and race, 2018. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2018&rdoGroups=1&rdoData=r

[2] Prison Policy Initiative. (n.d.). U.S. incarceration rates by race. U.S. incarceration rates by race | Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html

[3] Trent, S. (2022, June 15). A Black Army vet spent 16 months in solitary. then a jury heard the evidence against him. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/13/solitary-confinement-andrew-johnson-san-jose-jail/

[4] Clement, I. (2022, December 2). Buffalo man found guilty for shooting homeless man outside of his apartment. WKBW 7 News Buffalo. https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/buffalo-man-found-guilty-for-shooting-homeless-man-outside-of-his-apartment

[5] Gulino, E. (2023). Jordan Neely wasn’t just killed – he was failed by bystanders around him. Jordan Neely & The Dangers Of The Bystander Effect. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2023/05/11383287/jordan-neely-bystander-effect-dangers

[6] Id.

[7] DomesticShelters.org. (2016, April 4). Strangulation Can Leave Long Lasting Injuries. Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention. https://www.strangulationtraininginstitute.com/strangulation-can-leave-long-lasting-injuries/

[8] Aceves, P., & Stieb, M. (2023, May 7). The outrage over Jordan Neely’s killing isn’t going away. Intelligencer. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/jordan-neelys-death-what-we-know-about-subway-choke-hold.html#:~:text=After%20two%20minutes%2C%20a%20man,to%20catch%20a%20murder%20charge.%E2%80%9D

[9] Id.

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

Psychiatry is a powerful tool that can be used for good. Yet today, political figures and powerful institutions are using this medical specialty to undermine victims of abuse, oppression and injustice.

The Long Overdue Conversation: Revisiting the Theme of Political Abuse of Psychiatry and the Black American

Political figures and powerful institutions have used psychiatry to discredit people living on the fringe, such as previously incarcerated individuals and homeless persons. A prime example is the media’s framing of Jordan Neely, who died on May 01, 2023 by asphyxia. While I do not condone violence or the allegations made against Neely, disenfranchised persons like him sometimes lack the skills, such as tact, to assertively communicate their needs, as we seen in several videos circulating on the internet. Even when they have the capacity to communicate their needs effectively, individuals in positions of power will stereotype them or, interpret their plight as an act of violence. Indeed, Tristan McGeorge and Dinesh Bhugra found psychiatrists were more likely to misdiagnose Black patients as more dangerous and violent. They also found that psychiatrists were more likely to diagnose Schizophrenia and overly suspicious personality disorders in those they believed were Black Americans.[1]

Why Powerful Institutions Use Schizophrenia to Diagnose Black Americans

Political figures and powerful institutions use Schizophrenia to diagnose Black Americans because it can discredit their claims. It also makes it easier for those in power to isolate to facilitate abuse. For example, if a homeless Black person protests their conditions, political figures and powerful institutions can use Schizophrenia to suggest that the victim is simply mentally ill, and therefore, their complaints should not be taken seriously. While some people may show signs of disease, mental health professionals should make sure that the diagnosis is correct and not influence by politics.

Another way political figures and powerful institutions use psychiatry to undermine victims is through the use of involuntary commitment, detention or imprisonment. Involuntary commitment is when an individual is forcibly hospitalized or detained in a psychiatric facility, detention center or jail against their will. This can be used as a tool of oppression, especially when it is used to silence homeless persons, political dissidents or others who are speaking out against their inhumane conditions. By labeling someone as mentally ill and forcibly detaining them, political figures and powerful institutions can effectively silence their voices and undermine their credibility.

In 1991, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 46/119: The UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement for Mental Health Care (“MI Principles“). Of the 25 Principles, number 4 is potentially relevant to institutional racism in mental health care:

4 (2) A determination of mental illness shall never be made on the basis of political, economic or social status, or membership of a cultural, racial or religious group, or any other reason not directly relevant to mental health status.

It has been further suggested that the ideology of racism has been incorporated into psychiatry resulting in an emphasis on individualized pathology, with insufficient attention paid to social pressures such as race and culture.[2] According to Principle 4:

4 (3) Family or professional conflict, or non-conformity with moral, social, cultural or political values or religious beliefs prevailing in a person’s community, shall never be a determining factor in diagnosing mental illness.

The misuse of psychiatry is not just a historical problem, it is also a contemporary one. As we seen with the Neely case, political figures and powerful institutions will use psychiatry to undermine victims and maintain control over political messages. By raising awareness of this issue and holding those in power to account, together, we can put an end to this insidious practice.

References

[1] McGeorge, Tristan, and Dinesh Bhugra, ‘Race Equality in Mental Health’, in Michael Dudley, Derrick Silove, and Fran Gale (eds), Mental Health and Human Rights: Vision, praxis, and courage (Oxford, 2012; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Feb. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199213962.003.0008, accessed 8 May 2023.

[2] Id. p. 140.

Skip to content