LAST MONTH, I wrote very briefly about Kevin Neary, a 29-year-old graduate of the University of Pennsylvania whose life changed irrevocably in November. His story, as familiar as it seems, is haunting. Neary was walking home in the Northern Liberties neighborhood on Nov. 15 when he was approached by a black thug. The man asked Neary for money. He then fired a bullet into Neary’s neck, shattering his spine, and ran away. 

Neary is now paralysed from the neck down for life. Two months ago, he ran his own business. Now he is on a ventilator and feeding tube and may never breathe on his own again. All the wonders of modern science cannot make him walk or move his hands. He will never be able to touch his own cheek or bend his knees or feed himself or take care of his private needs. 

Christopher Easter, 20, was arrested on Nov. 22 and charged with the attempted murder of Neary. Easter was in violation of his parole at the time of the shooting. He had previous arrests for aggravated assault, burglary, theft and receiving stolen property. Not a single news outlet has investigated the issue of why Easter was on the streets given his criminal record. Neary might as well have been struck by a bolt of lightening, so indifferent is the public to the human context of this heinous crime.

Not a single statement has been issued by the powerful and influential University of Pennsylvania community demanding explanation for why a violent criminal was on the streets or calling for swift and harsh punishment or expressing despair and anger that an alumnus has been injured so brutally and will never walk or lift his arms again. Brief articles and television stations reported the facts of the crime, but Neary’s story has already faded from public view. He has devoted friends and family who have vowed to hold fundraisers, who love him and will care for him. He has excellent nurses and doctors. But, beyond a criminal justice system that will probably sentence Easter, if he is convicted, to a period of comfortable confinement, he does not have defenders.

Defenders would express an almost bottomless anguish on his behalf and insist that the time for treating black savagery with indulgence has long since passed. Since the victims of black savagery are overwhelmingly blacks themselves, it would not be selfish or anti-black to do so.

Please follow and like us: