Ethics and Morality
The Hero and the Homeless
A Personal Perspective: Can society identify with the homeless and mentally ill?
Posted December 15, 2024 Reviewed by Lybi Ma
We never know what we would do in a dangerous situation. I didn’t know until I saw an inebriated person hit a bystander on the subway. My reaction was instinctive, although I am certain that my confidence, in part, came from having been in the army (although never having seen combat). I learned some techniques that aren’t taught in civilian self-defense classes.
I grabbed the man from behind to pin his arms. When the woman he had assaulted moved to another car, I released him. He turned to hit me, and I restrained him again. When the train stopped, I let go of him and left him cursing me.
I thought about my encounter on the subway when I read about the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man with mental health problems. Former Marine Daniel Perry put Neely in a chokehold for six minutes when he saw the homeless man scaring other passengers. The jury acquitted Perry of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Everyone agrees that society has grossly failed to address homelessness and mental health needs. There is little agreement, however, about how to solve or at least ameliorate the problem.
There is a sharp division, however, over whether Perry is a hero. He stood up to protect others when so few do. In that regard, his actions were laudable, even heroic. But charges were brought against him because even heroic efforts need to conform to the limits of law. The prosecution charged that he had gone too far. The defense argued that the six-minute chokehold didn’t violate the law.
The jury acquitted Penny on both charges. I wasn’t in the courtroom; I didn’t review the evidence, and I wasn’t privy to the jurors’ deliberations or the judge’s instructions. I don’t know what decision I would have made if I were on the jury.
But I can relate to stepping into a dangerous situation with the intent to protect an innocent person. The situation develops quickly and the reaction is without deliberation. Letting up too soon can be dangerous, and letting up too late can be fatal. The margin for error is thin. In such a struggle, it is unclear what it means to err on the side of caution.
However you view Penny’s action, a person has died—a human being with serious mental health problems, someone without a home. It is a tragedy, not a cause for celebration. Neely wasn’t the enemy but a poor soul, like many, whose life goes unnoticed and neglected until it is too late.
Typically, when a person causes the death of another (or sometimes simply witnesses it), even when the death is accidental and unavoidable, they feel a sense of guilt. As pointed out by philosopher Michael Zao, “Guilt involves the sense that part of the self has been implicated in the occurrence of what is bad.”
Less than a week after having been found not guilty, Penny shares a suite with the president-elect and vice-president-elect at a football game with a stadium full of army and navy cadets chanting “USA! USA!” What does this mean? Has society become so hardened that rather than regretting an awful situation that left one person dead it becomes a political event?
A society without a sense of guilt is on a morally perilous path, heroes notwithstanding.
I can imagine myself in Daniel Penny’s place, but if we as a society can’t imagine Jordan Neely as our brother or son or uncle or cousin, then we are poorer for it.