Jordan Neely, the left’s martyr

The New Neo Posted on by

This is an important article about the campaign against Daniel Perry, a man who subdued Jordan Neely on a New York subway, an act that resulted in Neely’s death:

Penny’s fate will, as Peachy Keenan wrote in The Federalist, be a test of whether young American men should dare to act courageously when others are in peril. But there’s even more at stake in this case. With Neely being anointed as the new George Floyd, the questions of whether Penny was right to restrain Neely or if he used inappropriate force to do so are merely sidebars to a broader narrative about American racism.

Floyd’s death became a metaphor for a myth about systemic police racism. Floyd’s actions the night of his death, his criminal record, and the fact that his body was full of what might have been a lethal dose of fentanyl were dismissed as irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was that he was a black man and that the cop who had, in an act of undoubted callous brutality, snuffed out his life was white. In the name of a belief, however mistaken, that Floyd’s death was just one of countless incidents in which blacks were being slaughtered with impunity, millions took to the streets in “mostly peaceful” riots that shook the nation.

More than that, it set off a moral panic in virtually every sector of American life that elevated the woke catechism of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to a new secular religion…

The prosecution of the ex-Marine will not just establish a precedent that there is a “right” of a deranged, drug-addicted person to terrorize others with impunity. It will also, like Floyd’s death or that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, or a dozen other equally dubious cases, be routinely cited from now on as proof of American racism and a reason for doubling down on woke policies that will further divide and racialize the nation…

The freedom for the homeless that has been established in New York [and so many other cities]…means the rights of other citizens to a livable city are abrogated.

Now for a personal note. As many of you know, I grew up in NYC in the 50s and 60s, and I rode the subway frequently by myself even as a child of ten or eleven. As such, I witnessed quite a few people like Jordan Neely – that is, mentally ill people riding the subway and yelling at no one or at the other passengers, sometimes issuing threats. In those days, the line I rode was in fairly seedy areas (I was ordinarily going to and from ballet classes), and although sometimes it was heavily populated, most of the time the cars weren’t loaded. Therefore each passenger was highly spotlighted and visible.

Although I was ten or eleven I looked older; I was pretty much full grown and probably appeared to be in my mid or late teens. I was sometimes a target of the attention of one of these crazies. I remember in particular one day when the train was stopped between stations, as it often did, for an indeterminate time. It was early evening, perhaps seven or eight PM, and there were probably only ten or so people in my car. An agitated black man who was sitting somewhat across from me begin yelling that the train had stopped in order to punish us – in order for him to punish us – which he was going to proceed to do. I don’t remember the details of his rather lengthy speech, except that he was threatening our deaths although he didn’t do anything except yell loudly and look antsy and tense.

I remember doing what I usually did, which was to look away and at the floor and somehow hope I was utterly invisible. I recall that a few people got up and went into the next car, but that drew his attention and he threatened them as they went. Was it safer to stay or leave? What was he actually going to do? The train stayed in that tunnel for what seemed like a long long time, and then it finally moved again.

Did I get off at the next stop and wait for the next train, which on that line wouldn’t have come all that quickly? Which was the riskier move, staying or leaving? This was the sort of calculation everyone riding the subways had to make, even back in those relatively safe-seeming days.

In later decades things got even worse, and then they got a lot better for a while during the Giuliani years. At a certain point I felt safe riding the subways, something I had never felt as a child.

I haven’t been to New York City in a few years, so I haven’t had personal experience with the way it is now. But obviously, it’s not good. And I know quite well what passengers feel when a crazy person starts to threaten them, and the sort of decisions each one has to make. Most of the time, taking the approach I took – look away, keep a very low profile – gets a person through the experience unscathed. But there’s no way of knowing if this time the threatening person will back up threatening words with violent deeds.

Penny apparently thought Neely just might get violent – as he apparently had in the past, although Penny had no way of knowing that unless he had witnessed those previous incidents. The victim of one of them speaks out:

Anne Mitcheltree said she was randomly punched in the head in June 2021 by Jordan Neely inside S.K. Deli Market on 2nd Avenue in the East Village. The attack caused swelling and substantial pain but left no permanent damage.

After police arrested Neely, Mitcheltree, 65, assumed her aggressor would face charges and psychiatric lockup.

“They told me we have him, he’s in custody, we’re going to press charges,” Mitcheltree, a creative arts therapist with New York City Health + Hospitals for over 40 years, told The Post.

“I thought the judge would have forced him to take psychiatric meds, but it seems like he bounced out.”

Law enforcement sources said that Neely had 42 prior arrests on his long rap sheet — most recently for punching a 67-year-old woman in the East Village in November 2021, which landed him in jail for over a year.

An arrest warrant for Neely had been issued on Feb. 23, although details of the ongoing case were not immediately available.

“I don’t know why he didn’t end up in Bronx Psychiatric Center,” Mitcheltree said, adding, “This is a common understanding in psychiatry, that agitated people who are aggressive get themselves killed.”

Or get someone else killed:

Neely’s aggression continued the day before his death, when he allegedly tried to push a straphanger into the subway tracks at the Broadway-Lafayette station in Lower Manhattan.

“This man jumped on me, grabbed my shoulders, and pushed me towards the tracks Sunday night at this very station,” a Reddit user posted Wednesday about the terrifying incident, which they declined to discuss further.

Is that true? Who knows?

Trump vs. Kavanaugh

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m going to highlight some comments made by “Bauxite” about the Carroll jury verdict. I’m not trying to pick on Bauxite, but the comments offer me an opportunity to clarify some points.

From Bauxite:

…[I]f you want to prove that juries are going to reach unjust verdicts because of political bias, this verdict against Trump with Trump’s history and behavior just isn’t going to move the needle to anyone who isn’t already a partisan of the right.

I never said it would, and I’m in complete agreement with Bauxite there.

A question from Bauxite:

Would a NYC jury have found against Kavanaugh on the Kavanaugh facts in your hypothetical? I don’t know. It would have been a very different case. Kavanaugh would likely have taken the stand and wouldn’t have insulted the defendant (and the defendant’s lawyer) with the “not my type” drivel.

The thought that Kavanaugh taking the stand would have helped Kavanaugh flies in the face of the – pardon the word – evidence. Many of you may recall how people not on the right reacted to Kavanaugh’s actual Congressional testimony, which was to feel (or feign) outrage about his spirited and sometimes emotional defense of himself and some of the righteous anger he displayed at being falsely accused. If you don’t remember, you can refresh your memory by looking at a few articles I found by searching for mere seconds, such as this, this, and this. I can also attest that, of quite a few Democrat friends I spoke to at the time, they all reviled Kavanaugh for his testimony and it left them even more convinced that he was guilty.

So no, I doubt Kavanaugh would have said that Carroll (or Ford, had she sued him civilly) was not his type. But whatever he did say would have engendered rage in Democrat listeners and would have increased their feeling that he was guilty. And probably every single person on a New York jury such as the Carroll case jury would be a Democrat.

Bauxite continues:

Kavanaugh had nothing like the Access Hollywood tape.

True, but as demonstrated above, it doesn’t matter. Or perhaps they would have come up with some witness who would testify to something offensive Kavanaugh once said about women or sex.

More:

Mark Judge and Leland Kaiser would have testified that they had no recollection of the party, with Leland Kaiser testifying that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh. Also, Kavanaugh’s representation would have been able to probe all of the other inconsistencies in Ford’s story, such as the purported fear of flying, the reasons for the second front door in her home, and the like…

…Carroll’s story just didn’t have the inconsistencies of Ford’s story.

The only reason there would have been other witnesses to testify was that Ford had come up with a scenario that had possible witnesses. But Ford or someone else could easily have come up with a scenario much like Carroll’s: no possible witnesses, no time, just a place and a story. Impossible to defend againt and no witnesses necessary. Is that really more believable than one in which witnesses – some of whom are friends of Kavanaugh – deny the allegations? I certainly don’t think that such a phantom accusation is believable at all. But the Carroll jury did. I would wager they would find Judge and Keyser’s testimony easy to cast off as well. And inconsistencies? Carroll had plenty of them (see this for some of them). They were ignored.

I want to reiterate that most people have trouble being objective about evidence, and they can find rationalizations to come to conclusions they already are leaning towards. Politics itself – not just Trump, but politics – often is one of those things about which people feel strongly and have strong biases. This is reflected in trials in which politicians are the defendants. Trump elicits very strong feelings, but so did Kavanaugh, a person of very different character and history. Same for Clarence Thomas, who is still considered by every Democrat I know to have been guilty of harassing Anita Hill way back when.

Sexual accusations are among the most powerful tools against politicians, particularly male politicians. I wish juries were more wary of such accusations especially when made after a long passage of time. But I realize that is almost certainly a futile hope.

NOTE: Here’s Alan Dershowitz on the verdict.

A palate refresher

The New Neo Posted on by

Plisetskaya tears up the turf:

I don’t care how high today’s dancers can get their legs or how many turns they do. They play the character; Plisetskaya IS the character. She’s the second dancer in the series in this video (unfortunately, the music for the first one is damaged, but ignore that and keep watching):

Title 42 will be ending on Thursday

The New Neo Posted on by

Get ready. There’s already been a surge, but an even greater increase in border crossings by illegal immigrants is expected:

The number of crossings are expected to skyrocket after Thursday and leaders at the border are taking steps to deal with it.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has activated the state’s National Guard.

Here’s a press release from Governor Abbot’s office:

“With the ending of Title 42 on Thursday, President Biden is laying down the welcome mat to people across the entire world, but Texas is deploying our new Texas Tactical Border Force,” said Governor Abbott. “The Texas National Guard is loading Blackhawk helicopters and C-130s and deploying specially trained soldiers for the Texas Tactical Border Force, who will be deployed to hotspots all along the border to help intercept and repel large groups of migrants trying to enter Texas illegally. The Texas Tactical Border Force will bolster our Operation Lone Star efforts to secure the Texas border amid the chaos caused by President Biden’s elimination of Title 42.”

Also:

This is by purposeful design:

Jury finds Trump guilty in the Carroll civil suit – of course

The New Neo Posted on by

Dog bites man. And the inevitable occurs – the NY jury finds Trump guilty:

The jury decided that Trump was not guilty of rape, but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The jury awarded Carroll at least $2 million.

More details on the money award are here:

The jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in the lawsuit. Jury members found that Trump did not rape Carroll but sexually abused her, and awarded damages of $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for battery.

The jury awarded $1 million in damages, $1.7 million for reputation repair, and $280,000 in punitive damages.

Why sexual abuse but not rape? Who knows. Perhaps the jurors knew how thin the evidence was and therefore some of them couldn’t go the whole mile to rape, and so some sort of compromise verdict was reached.

John Hinderaker thinks the verdict will have some political repercussions but I’m not at all sure. Opinions about Trump are practically set in stone at this point. The only possible effect I can see is that a few more Republican voters might decide in the primaries that he’s just too toxic to vote for, but perhaps they’ll be balanced by those who might vote for him because they’re angry at what they see as unjust lawfare against him.

Carroll said that Trump had raped her some time back in the mid-90s. She had zero evidence of it other than her own word (and two witnesses who said she’d told them about it way back when) although she never wrote anything or claimed anything publicly at the time. She needed a special law to even be able to civilly sue him in court for battery on such an old charge, but New York obliged by passing a special law allowing it. It was that important to get Trump. And since the standard of proof for civil suits is much lower than for criminal prosecutions, and because this suit was in a venue very friendly to her, Carroll prevailed.

No defense is even possible against charges that have no time frame except a span of a couple of years. Unless Trump had literally not set foot in New York City for the years in question and could prove it, the only thing he could do is deny the charges.

The jury deliberated for three hours. I’m surprised it was that long; perhaps they were schmoozing for part of the time.

I would not be surprised if the floodgates opened in New York on more such suits against Trump and other prominent people on the right in New York. Trump was the best target because of the hatred against him and desire to harm him prior to the 2024 election, as well as the “grab them by the pussy” tape which was played in court (and should not have been, in my opinion, because it was mere bragging words and not action, not about Carroll herself, and occurred around a decade after the alleged rape). But a law like that combined with a civil standard of proof, eager pockets to finance such suits, and juries willing to convict merely on the women’s words, and you have a recipe for destroying people with lies.

This is true even if Carroll is telling the truth. I don’t think she is, but even if she is, a lawsuit beyond the usual statute of limitations should not be allowed, and such vague allegations in time – that cannot be defended against because of vagueness – should not support a guilty verdict. I would say that no matter who is charged, Democrat or Republican.

If you want to read some background about how this lawsuit came to be, please see this by Byron York. And note the influence of George Conway.

[NOTE: By the way, I am so consistent that I have long maintained that the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton should not have been allowed to go forward while Clinton was in office (a different legal principle is involved there, to be sure, than in the Carroll case), and that he should not have been questioned about similar conduct with Lewinsky in his deposition for the Jones trial. That latter point is similar to my stance on the Carroll suit; I don’t think similar behavior with other women should be relevant to whether a person was guilty of a particular type of behavior towards this woman, and the evidence about other women should be inadmissible. And yes, that makes the allegations more difficult to prove. Too bad. Justice isn’t always served, but protection against false allegations is very very very important. For everyone.]

Will this be anything?

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t know, but if past experience is any guide, I doubt it.

What am I talking about? This:

“My message to the Department of Justice is very loud and clear. Do not indict Hunter Biden before Wednesday,” Comer told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures.

“When you have the opportunity to see the evidence that the House Oversight Committee will produce with respect to the web of LLCs, with respect to the number of adversarial countries that this family influence peddled in, and this is not just about the president’s son. This is about the entire Biden family, including the President of the United States. So we believe there are a whole lot of tips that the IRS and the DOJ don’t know about because we don’t believe they’ve done a whole lot of digging in this, and we have,” he said.

“By all accounts from the media reports that we’re getting, what they’re looking at charging Hunter Biden on is a slap on the wrist. It’s a drop in the bucket,” he continued.

I think Hunter, if prosecuted, will be charged with something minor that could result in maybe a small fine or suspended sentence. And half the public (or more) will ignore whatever Comer announces on Wednesday.

I remember initially thinking the Hunter laptop evidence might sink Biden in the 2020 election. When that story was so uniformly suppressed and/or falsely discredited, I was reminded that I should have learned the lesson that the left will usually manage to engineer what it wants in terms of public opinion. If Hunter really goes down soon – or if Joe Biden does – it will be because the left wishes to replace Biden and has finally found a candidate it thinks will be a winner or at least within the margin of fraud or “rigging.”

Hollywood’s Oscar inclusion rules

The New Neo Posted on by

Actor Richard Dreyfuss has something to say on the new Oscar rules about – what else? – diversity and inclusion. He says they make him vomit.

Here are those rules, if you’re curious.

Personally, I haven’t been watching movies for quite some time. I’m sure there are still a couple of good ones being made, but I hadn’t had luck with movies for so long that I finally just stopped watching. So as far as I’m concerned, movies have already died anyway. But if they needed a final nail in the coffin this is would be it. The racial and ethnic bean-counters – and “women” are also considered an under-represented group in the movie business (which I suppose is true in certain categories like cameramen; oops, camerapeople) – have won the day.

Some from Column A some from Column B? Ah, but it seems that just about everyone wants to do this for the sake of virtue-signaling; they just realize it’s hard to accomplish (emphasis mine):

But some studio sources and independent producers, who spoke off the record because they didn’t want to appear anti-inclusion, say the standards can be byzantine to understand and difficult to gather data for. Multiple studio sources say when they got to the disability/health questions on this year’s submission forms, they largely skipped them.

“When I first looked at it, I’ll be honest, I really freaked out,” says one source. “I felt like I was looking at my taxes. Everybody at the studio looked at each other like, ‘What do we do with this?’ “

The introduction of the RAISE standards is part of Aperture 2025, a broad slate of inclusion policies the Academy passed in 2020, which also included adding mandatory annual unconscious bias training for Academy staff and setting a fixed number of 10 best picture nominees starting in 2021. Aperture 2025 follows on the membership goals the organization set — and met — following the #OscarsSoWhite controversy in 2016. Today, 34 percent of Academy members identify as women, up from 25 percent in 2015, and 19 percent are from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, up from 8 percent in 2015.

Self-identify as women, that is, because I doubt they’re giving them DNA tests (my emphasis):

The Academy says that in the second year of the rollout, it has added resources to help with the process, directing production companies to sites like Free the Work and Staff Me Up, which maintain databases of cast and crewmembers who self-identify as being from underrepresented groups.

The solution is simple for white men in the industry: just self-identify as women. Problem solved in one fell swoop, because now they will be considered twofers, both women and trans. No surgery or hormones necessary, just self-identifying.

Not to mention Elizabeth Warren, who if she ever has a notion to do so can have a stellar new career in film.

Rachel Dolezal, anyone?

Closing arguments in Jean Carroll’s civil case against Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s no surprise that newspapers almost uniformly refer to this in their headlines as a rape case. And while it’s true that Carroll alleges that Trump raped her, that’s not the charge. The actual charges are battery and defamation. There’s almost no evidence other than “she said he said” – and date, time, and even the year in which the act is supposed to have occurred are not pinpointed.

Take a look [my emphasis]:

[Judge] Kaplan instructed the nine jurors at the trial’s start that the central claim pertains to “battery.”

He said that in a civil case, battery can result from even the slightest unlawful touching of another person.

“The law does not draw a line between different degrees of violence. It totally prohibits all unconsented-to touching from the least to the most violent that a reasonable person would find offensive. In other words, anything from a gentle but unwanted peck on the cheek to stabbing somebody with a knife could be battery for purposes of a civil case like this one,” Kaplan said.

By that standard, most politicians might be at risk of such suits, and certainly Joe Biden would be guilty of said unwanted touchings. Does lumping all those things together legally really seem like a good idea?

More:

The jurors will be asked to decide whether Carroll has proven that Trump committed battery. If they decide that Trump committed battery, they are expected to be asked to what degree. After that, Carroll’s attorney has proposed that jurors be asked separately whether Carroll has proven that Trump engaged in forcible touching, sexual abuse and rape. The judge has yet to make a decision on that proposal.

The trial also involves a claim by Carroll that Trump made defamatory comments while denying her allegations.

For defamation, jurors will be asked if Carroll had proven that Trump’s statement was defamatory and whether clear and convincing evidence had proven that Trump made the statement maliciously.

He said she was lying and also that she wasn’t his type. Should either of those things be classified as defamation, when the first is a person’s attempt to defend himself or herself, and the second is merely a personal opinion? I don’t think in either case it ever should be considered defamation, and I don’t care who is being sued, Trump or Biden or Joe Shmo. If a person is accused of something, that person’s protestations that the accuser is lying – that person’s defense of himself or herself – should be protected speech. And opinions about whether one is attracted to another person also cannot be defamatory, in my opinion. But of course, I don’t make the law.

Also:

Earlier on Monday, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said a 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which Trump says women let him “grab ’em by the pussy” bolstered the accounts of Carroll and other women who accuse Trump of sexual assault.

“He admitted on video to doing exactly the kinds of things that have brought us here to this courtroom,” Kaplan said in her closing argument.

Now, maybe the following has changed since I was in law school – quite a few things have. But back then, it was considered a hallmark of our legal system that a court case should only involve the facts of that case. After the verdict, in the sentencing phase, other things could be allowed into the record. But I don’t believe that a statement made by the defendant that was not about the plaintiff – and Trump’s “grab them” statements were not about Carroll, nor are they alleged to be – would have been allowed into evidence back then (I could be wrong; I’m doing this from memory). What’s more, the “grab them” tape was made in 2005, approximately ten years after the battery against Carroll is alleged to have occurred.

In addition, Carroll’s suit against Trump was only allowed all these years after the statute of limitations on such suits had expired, because New York passed a special law, conveniently allowing such things for a year:

The trial [which began] Tuesday stems from a second lawsuit filed in November 2022, alleging defamation and battery under New York State’s new Adult Survivors Act. The legislation opened a one-year window in which people who say they were the survivors of sexual abuse as adults could sue even if the state’s statute of limitations would otherwise bar their claims.

I don’t think there’s any question that one of the motives for this law was to get Trump. But there’s a reason for statutes of limitation, and those reasons are apparent in the current trial. Memories fade, the allegations are not tied to a particular date, and how can Trump ever defend himself against something so vague in time, or find witnesses or schedules that could exonerate him? It’s a travesty, and I would say that no matter who the defendant in such a case might be. The only possibly justifiable exception might be if someone was a child when the alleged battery happened, and even then I come down more on the side of protecting the defendant from false claims – and false claims do occur, and not just against politicians.

Nevertheless, I believe this jury will find Trump guilty, although I don’t think the evidence justifies it. I would be quite flabbergasted if they didn’t find him guilty.