Hi there. No, unless we get some completely new information, I don't think anybody is claiming that Neely physically attacked anyone. I just don't think you have to wait until somebody else has already been attacked before physical restraint can be justified.

And yes, you're right, surely nobody on the train knew about his criminal history. I mentioned it because there's a difference between somebody making idle threats and somebody who has the capacity and the will to carry out their threats. I think most people have a fairly good sense for that difference.

You ask whether the passengers couldn't have subdued or restrained Neely without choking him to death. But I think that's exactly what they intended to do. This was, by all accounts and available evidence, an accident. If Penny had held onto that choke for a little less time, I think most people would be saying that he did the right thing. Certainly the passengers on the train unanimously seem to think he did. Some even made sure to go back and thank him.

Acknowledging that Neely was dangerous and threatening is in no way an endorsement of or justification for his killing. Nor is it an attempt to claim that Penny shouldn't be held responsible for killing him. I state this explicitly in the article. But the fact that we can't have a sober conversation about the obvious factors that led to his tragic death without talking about race, when there is absolutely no indication that his race was a determining factor, only makes these kinds of problems harder to solve.

It's as if we can only have the really relevant conversations if the poor or homeless or mentally ill person is white. And given that black people, as you say, suffer the most from these afflictions, black people are hurt most by the collective failure to have this conversation.