The ruling is out, Mr. Penny was found "not guilty of homicide" and the cause of death has been officially declared and reported extensively.

It is currently January the 11th and it has been over a month of the ruling that found Mr. Penny not guilty on all charges. This is by all legal definitions not classified as a murder or a homicide, according to Cornell Law[1].

Regarding Mr. Neely's death, on November 21st 2024, NBC clearly reported [2] the following:

Defense pathologist says Jordan Neely didn't die of chokehold on NYC subway. Jordan Neely died from the “combined effects” of a number of a factors, not a chokehold, a forensic pathologist hired by Daniel Penny’s attorneys testified Thursday. Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the chokehold death of Neely on a New York City subway train in May 2023.

The conclusion of the trial, as reported by abc7[3], was that:

Daniel Penny has been found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide in Jordan Neely's subway chokehold death. The jury deliberated for more than 24 hours across five days before reaching the verdict.

which was also reported by a number of other outlets such as NBC[4], CBS[5], CNN[6], and others.

The fact that this page reads "Killing" implies that this was a homicide, which is false as the sole suspect has been found "not guilty". This is (dis?)misinformation and shows that a false narrative is promoted.

In short, there was no "killing" by any legal terms (murder or homicide). The sole suspect was found "not guilty". There is plenty of conflicting evidence online, however, the sole fact that the jury has found Mr. Penny NOT GUILTY OF HOMICIDE is more than enough to warrant a change in the title. There are no other suspects. The death is not attributed to the chokehold, hence the verdict. Paramedics on scene reported that Mr. Neely had a pulse when they arrived which has been covered extensively on YouTube videos such as this[7]. TwoLastNeurons (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoLastNeurons you might want to see the RM above where this issue was discussed. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoLastNeurons As well as WP:DEATHS. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoLastNeurons: I noted this in the previous RM but it's so long that I doubt you'll see it and just in case you stick around for any future move request note that it is not true that the jury found Penny not guilty of homicide. They found Penny not guilty of "criminally negligent homicide". As per the article they were instructed to consider "whether his actions were reckless and unjustified" While Penny's defence did dispute the homicide point blank, it seems clearly they were also disputing whether his actions were reckless and unjustified. In the absence of further comment from the jury, we don't know whether they did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a homicide; or they did but simply did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny's actions were reckless and unjustified. I'm fairly sure plenty of people are found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide despite not disputing it was a homicide which they committed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I'm fairly sure some jury members could have found him not guilty because they disagreed homicide had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while some may have felt it was but that Penny's actions were not reckless and unjustified or otherwise there was some reason he wasn't guilty despite it being a homicide demonstrating the complexity of the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "killing" is kept, perhaps broaden the suspect list in the lead

If "killing" is retained here, the defense's dispute could be included by including more clearly the possibility that Neely killed himself. Adding accidental suicide as a possibility immediately in the lead would be one natural way to clarify that the article title and lead sentence language of "killing" is not implying homicide by Penny. The court's rulings and the medical examiners' findings that countered the finding of homicide remain consistent with killing in the case that Neely killed himself.

In that case, it may also be important to include in the lead that the killing of Neely may have begun before the chokehold (the current lead sentences' language does seem importantly unrepresentative of the reliable secondary sources), via a delayed self-poisoning suicide mechanism. A poisoner kills a victim in the full act of poisoning, not just the moment of death, though of course there is no effective killing act without a moment of death.

I do not advocate these directly myself, but I hope they can open up the range of possibilities under consideration to help with some of the apparent problems of people talking past one another in the RM. RowanElder (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I recognize WP:DEATHS would not support this outcome, since the flowchart would fairly clearly call for "Death of" in the case that cause of death is unknown, which is the case if homicide and accidental suicide are each possible causes of death.) RowanElder (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of death is not unknown, we have autopsies reports that say this was death but restriction of the throat's airflow. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not assert that the cause was unknown. I asserted that in the case that the killing could have been one of suicide or homicide, a matter for consensus formation rather than for my own opinion to decide, then the cause would be unknown.
I do not believe I know the cause of death, so it is unknown to me. That is because I do not think I am competent to judge the autopsy report's authority and that authority has been challenged in a way that I have not personally resolved for myself. Thus I am not making claims one way or another on the cause of death. Perhaps in some collective sense "the cause of death is known" but it's not to me and it doesn't appear that it is to the full range of reliable secondary sources, either. RowanElder (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't title an article "killing of" when someone kills themself. I don't think anyone would think 'killing of person A' means person A killed themselves either. So the proposal makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd detail to include as the last sentence of the "Legal Proceedings" section. I can see how it might be useful in advancing a narrative that Penny was callous or without remorse, and I personally think his attorney's posting of a celebratory Instagram photo was in poor taste. But beyond that, I don't see that the sentence has long-term encyclopedic value. I would imagine that anyone acquitted after months of high profile legal proceedings would experience a rush of relief and feel like celebrating. ~Awilley (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I'll remove the sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely
No tags for this post.