Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen chose murder over the law in Dublin
By Daniel Okafor · Reporting from New York ·
Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen shot Jonathan McKinsey during a custody battle, but their claim of protecting children does not excuse a premeditated execution in a public park.
Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen are not protectors. They are first-degree murderers. They chose a parking lot over a courtroom. The facts show they planned the murder. They waited for a public space and fired multiple shots. Then they walked away.
The execution at the sports grounds
The killers fired around 3 p.m. on September 26. Jonathan McKinsey was in the parking lot of the Dublin Sports Grounds. Witnesses heard multiple gunshots. One man saw the body on the ground.
The killers did not flee in panic. Witnesses said the couple casually walked away from the shooting. They stayed in the area. Dublin police arrested them several minutes later. CNN said that Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen are the in-laws of the victim. Both are 77 years old. They now sit in the Santa Rita Jail.
Does abuse justify a killing?
Jonathan McKinsey was 40 years old. He joined The New York Times in January 2023. He served as the director of engineering for New York Times Games. His professional life stood in contrast to his home life. He was in a bitter divorce and custody battle with his wife, Candice Jang.
The legal record is grim. ABC7 San Francisco said that McKinsey faced two counts of misdemeanor abuse in 2025. Court documents allege he hit his 6-year-old son in the face. They also allege he left his 2-year-old son home alone for more than an hour. McKinsey pled not guilty. He was scheduled to appear in court for these charges in October 2026.
The conflict ran both ways. NBC News said that McKinsey filed for divorce in December. He requested a protection order against Candice Jang. He alleged that Shili Chen used slurs against him. He also accused Jang of abuse.
Vigilante logic fails the law
The defense will argue the grandparents acted to save their grandchildren. They will point to the abuse charges. They will claim the law could not move fast enough to protect the children. This act mirrors Cisneros v. United States in 1993, where a legal dispute over family rights led to a killing. In that case, a mother orchestrated a murder after a breakup.
This argument fails because the law was already working. McKinsey was out on bail. He was seeking entry into a diversion program. The court had already limited him to two hours of supervised visits per week. The state had the children in its sight.
This case follows the mechanism of the Menendez brothers murder trial in 1989. In both instances, family members murder as a response to domestic abuse. The killers convince themselves that lethal violence is the only way to stop a cycle of pain.
Here, grandparents orchestrated a killing during a custody battle. Both cases show the danger of family members who believe they are above the law. They replace the judge with a gun.
Family disputes usually follow a pattern. Most end in court. A few end in violence. This time differs only in the age of the killers. The presence of an abuse charge does not grant a license to kill. It grants a reason to call the police. Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen did not call the police. They brought a weapon to a public park where other children were playing.
Shouyong Zhang and Shili Chen committed a premeditated crime. They did not protect their grandchildren; they orphaned them. They bypassed a functioning system to settle a family score. No amount of domestic discord justifies a murder in a parking lot. They are murderers.
Sources
- ABC7 San Francisco: Jonathan McKinsey, New York Times: Documents reveal child abuse, domestic violence claims of Dublin man shot, killed by in-laws
- CNN: New York Times executive killed by his elderly in-laws, police say
- NBC News: New York Times executive fatally shot by his in-laws in Bay Area park, police say
- BBC: New York Times executive fatally shot by elderly in-laws, police say