Minnesota veteran killed by train weeks after family's move to live off the grid in Alaska
Just weeks after living out his dream of moving to Alaska to live in the wilderness with his wife and 4-year-old daughter, a U.S. Army veteran from Minnesota was killed when he was struck by a train while riding his ATV.
According to the Alaska State Patrol, the crash happened just after 10:30 p.m. on Parks Highway in south-central Alaska on June 23, with first responders pronouncing Brian Neudecker dead at the scene.
Loved ones who arranged a GoFundMe after his death said he and his wife, Rachael, who is also a veteran, were just settling in after living out their lifelong dream in Talkeetna, Alaska.
"After years of military service, Rachael and Brian, both proud veterans, made the courageous decision to sell their home in Minnesota and pursue a shared dream: to live off the grid in the stunning wilderness of Alaska," the fundraiser explains. "With their 4-year-old daughter by their side, they set out to build a simpler, more intentional life, one rooted in nature, freedom, and family."
Neudecker, 45, was born in Redwood Falls, Minnesota. He and Rachael lived south of Morristown until relocating in May to a small village located on the Susitna River about 100 miles north of Anchorage.
A man who befriended the Neudeckers in Alaska told KTUU that they were having fun in the mud on their ATVs when the accident happened.
'Their dream was to come live here in Alaska, and they moved up here and got a nice place,' the man told the Anchorage-based news outlet. 'They moved into a nice neighborhood; they were super nice people trying to live their dream."
The GoFundMe has raised approximately $20,000 to help Rachael cover "funeral expenses, emergency travel and relocation support."
This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 30, 2025, where it first appeared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
13 Things You Should Never Say—They Can Sound Like Gaslighting
Navigating conversations with grace and empathy is an art form that often takes a lifetime to master. Yet, in the heat of the moment, we can sometimes unwittingly utter phrases that come across as dismissive or manipulative, sometimes even resembling the toxic patterns of gaslighting. While intent and impact may not always align, it's crucial to be aware of words that could inadvertently undermine someone's reality. Here are 13 things you should never say if you wish to maintain a respectful and genuine dialogue. Labeling someone as paranoid is dismissive and can inflict emotional harm, especially if their fears are rooted in past experiences. This phrase casts doubt not on an isolated thought but on the entire cognitive framework of the person you're addressing. By questioning their mental state, you imply a lack of credibility in their ability to interpret situations. A more compassionate route is to explore their concerns with curiosity and validate any underlying feelings. Fear and concern often stem from legitimate past experiences or learned behaviors, making it necessary to approach with empathy. Dismissing these feelings as mere paranoia overlooks the complexity of human emotions and the factors that drive them. Opening a dialogue about what underpins their feelings can lead to a deeper understanding and mutual respect. It's about offering assurance that you're a partner in navigating these emotions, not an opponent. Blaming someone else for your actions is a classic deflection technique that denies personal accountability. This phrase shifts responsibility from your behavior to their influence, which is neither fair nor constructive. It undermines the person's sense of agency and can create an unhealthy dynamic in the relationship. Taking ownership of your actions demonstrates maturity and a willingness to address conflicts collaboratively. Personal accountability is a cornerstone of meaningful relationships, and shirking it in favor of blame can erode trust. By attributing your actions to someone else's influence, you create a dynamic where manipulation and control are subtly reinforced. Instead, own your choices and engage in a dialogue that explores the underlying issues together. This approach fosters mutual respect and a commitment to healthier interactions going forward. Dismissing someone's emotions by telling them they're overreacting can be incredibly invalidating. Psychotherapist Dr. Leslie Becker-Phelps emphasizes that emotions are complex and valid, even if they seem disproportionate to you. By dismissing them, you undermine the other person's experience and convey that their feelings are not worthy of attention. Instead, acknowledge their emotions and offer a safe space for them to express themselves without judgment. Emotions do not exist in a vacuum; they are intricately tied to personal experiences and perceptions. When you dismiss these emotions, you inadvertently dismiss the person's entire narrative, which can be deeply damaging to trust and open communication. Opt for a more empathetic approach by asking questions to understand rather than dictate how they should feel. Considering their perspective can deepen your empathy and strengthen the relationship. Telling someone to calm down when they're visibly upset is akin to throwing water on a grease fire. Rather than soothing the situation, it often exacerbates it, as it implies they should dampen their emotions to accommodate your comfort. This phrase assumes an air of authority over their emotional state, which can be both patronizing and controlling. A more constructive approach would be to ask how you can assist or support them through their emotional upheaval. Emotional expressions are not switches that can be turned off at will, and suggesting otherwise can make someone feel as if they're being unreasonable. The reality is that emotions require processing, and your role should be to offer a supportive environment for that process. By actively listening instead of instructing, you empower the other person to work through their feelings at their own pace. True support lies in your willingness to be present without imposing timelines or expectations. What might seem trivial to you could be monumental to someone else. Dr. Elizabeth Lombardo, a psychologist and author, points out that minimizing someone's concerns can make them feel belittled and unimportant. It turns the focus away from their feelings and projects your insensitivity to their experience. A more effective strategy is to acknowledge their feelings and validate their importance, which fosters a sense of understanding and connection. By downplaying their concerns, you risk eroding the trust that is the bedrock of any meaningful relationship. This phrase can make the other person feel isolated, as if their perspective is invalid or irrelevant. Instead, express genuine curiosity and empathy by asking open-ended questions to better grasp their viewpoint. This not only enriches your understanding but also demonstrates that you value their perspective, no matter how minor it may initially seem to you. Denying something you've said, particularly when there's evidence to the contrary, can be gaslighting in its purest form. According to Dr. Robin Stern, associate director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, this phrase erodes trust and distorts reality, leaving the other person confused and uncertain. It shifts the conversation from the issue at hand to a debate over memory and perception, which can be deeply unsettling. If you misspoke or changed your mind, own it and clarify your current stance instead of rewriting history. Mistakes happen, and owning up to them is far more constructive than deflecting responsibility. By denying your previous statements, you suggest that the other person's recollection is faulty, which can destabilize their confidence in future interactions. Acknowledge past statements and use them as a stepping stone for more transparent and honest communication. This not only builds trust but also shows a commitment to integrity in your dialogue. Telling someone that their feelings or perceptions are all in their head is a dismissive tactic that minimizes their lived experiences. It implies that their thoughts and emotions lack legitimacy and are merely figments of their imagination. This phrase can make them question their sanity and damage self-esteem, which often leads to further internal conflict. Opt for validating their experience and exploring the roots of their feelings together. The mind is complex, housing both conscious and subconscious elements that shape our perceptions and emotions. Invalidating someone's mental or emotional state dismisses this complexity and undermines their sense of self. Instead, engage with their perspective and encourage deeper exploration of their feelings. This not only promotes personal growth but also solidifies your relationship as one rooted in mutual respect and understanding. While perspective can be important, telling someone that their situation could be worse minimizes their current struggles. This phrase can come off as callous, suggesting that their emotions are unworthy of empathy or attention. It dismisses their feelings in favor of a hypothetical scenario, which is neither helpful nor compassionate. Instead, focus on providing support and validation by acknowledging their current dilemma and offering help. Everyone experiences hardship differently, and comparing struggles rarely brings comfort or clarity. Invalidating someone's feelings by suggesting worse scenarios can create distance and alienation in your relationship. Remember that empathy doesn't require comparison but rather an understanding and acknowledgment of someone's current reality. By showing up for them in the present moment, you strengthen the bond and facilitate an open, trusting dialogue. When your words hurt someone, explaining your intent doesn't negate the impact. By focusing on your intention, you shift the dialogue from their feelings to your defense, disregarding their emotional response. It's crucial to recognize that words carry weight, and their interpretation matters just as much as intention. Apologize for the harm caused and engage in a conversation about how to communicate more effectively in the future. Intentions are important, but they don't erase the emotional fallout from your words. Insisting that you didn't mean it "like that" can invalidate the other person's experience and make them feel unheard. Instead, acknowledge the impact of your words and commit to understanding why they may have been hurtful. Taking responsibility fosters an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, allowing for growth and improved communication. Labeling someone as too sensitive implies that their emotional responses are flawed or excessive, which can be incredibly invalidating. It suggests that they should alter their emotional baseline to suit your comfort, which is neither fair nor reasonable. Instead of judging their sensitivity, try to understand the depth of their emotions and what triggers them. This approach encourages a more empathetic understanding of each other's emotional landscapes. Emotional sensitivity is a natural part of the human experience, varying from person to person based on a multitude of factors. By dismissing someone's sensitivity, you overlook the richness of their emotional experience and the reasons behind it. Rather than focusing on changing their emotional responses, engage in a dialogue that explores and appreciates their unique perspective. This fosters a deeper connection and allows for a more nuanced understanding of each other. Telling someone they're being dramatic is a dismissive critique of their emotional expression. It implies that their feelings are exaggerated and unwarranted, which can be deeply invalidating. This phrase often stems from a lack of understanding or discomfort with the intensity of the other person's emotions. Rather than dismissing their expression, offer support and seek to understand the underlying causes of their emotional state. Drama in emotional expression often signals a need for attention and understanding, not ridicule. By labeling their emotions as drama, you discount the genuine feelings that fuel their expression. Instead, encourage open dialogue about what they're experiencing and how you can provide support. This reframing fosters empathy and allows for a more genuine connection, reducing the need for heightened emotional expression. Disputing someone's recollection of events can be deeply invalidating, especially if trust is already fragile. It implies that their memory is unreliable, which can lead to self-doubt and confusion. Instead of contesting their version of events, express your perspective and seek common ground. This approach opens a dialogue rather than closing off communication, fostering a more respectful and empathetic exchange. Memory is a complex and subjective phenomenon, often colored by emotions and perspectives unique to each individual. Dismissing someone's recollection can undermine their confidence and disrupt the mutual trust necessary for healthy communication. Instead, share your own perspective without negating theirs, creating a space where both sides feel validated. This promotes a more inclusive dialogue and strengthens the relationship by honoring both narratives. Using absolutes like "always" or "never" can corner someone into a defensive stance, detracting from productive conversation. In a study conducted by the Gottman Institute, it was revealed that criticism using absolutes is one of the predictors of relationship dissatisfaction. By generalizing their behavior, you obscure the nuances of the current issue and paint their character in an unfairly negative light. A more effective approach would be to focus on the specific behavior in question, avoiding sweeping generalizations. People are complex and capable of change, making it crucial to address actions, not inherent qualities. When you label someone with absolutes, you offer no room for growth or redemption, effectively trapping them in a perpetual cycle of blame. Instead, articulate how a particular action affects you, leaving room for constructive change and dialogue. This approach fosters an environment where both parties feel empowered to address concerns and grow together.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
A Friend Asked to Bring My Ex to My Party. Was It OK to Disinvite Her?
Last year, my best friend from college (early 30s) told me that she had maintained a friendship with my college ex in the 10 years since our breakup. I was taken aback by this, since she didn't know him before my relationship with him. Recently, she asked if she could bring him as a guest to a party of college friends that I'm hosting. I was shocked, considering the pain our breakup caused me — though I am now happily married to a wonderful man. What's more, my friend and my ex both have significant others, though she denies any romantic involvement with him. I disinvited her from my party after letting her know that continuing our friendship is forcing me to relive a painful chapter in my life. Was this the right move? FRIEND Happily married or not, it seems to me that you have not adequately processed your decade-old breakup with your college ex. And there is no shame in that: Most of us are carrying around unresolved issues from our pasts. But when ancient history has the power to damage current relationships, we should look for help. I can't imagine disinviting a good friend from a party simply because she asked to bring a guest I disliked. Why didn't you just say no? Your friend did nothing wrong in remaining close with your ex. I have many friends to whom I was introduced by mutual acquaintances, and the fate of these friendships has never depended on my relationship with the people who introduced us. I'm sorry that you had a rough breakup. (Many of us have!) But I wonder if your friend didn't tell you about her friendship with your ex because she anticipated an outsize response from you — which you certainly delivered. I would call your friend, apologize and ask her to consider coming to your party. You may hold firm, of course, on excluding your ex. But I would stop speculating about his love life. It's none of your business. And I encourage you to explore — with a therapist — the ways in which this old relationship may be negatively affecting your current ones. Funny, I Didn't See You in Jamaica … We employ a wonderful housekeeper who works for several tenants in our building. This morning, my husband ran into her in the lobby, and he noticed that she was wearing a distinctive T-shirt: one that I bought at a music festival in Jamaica. When he told me about it, I scoured my drawers hoping for a coincidence, but my T-shirt was missing. I don't want to accuse her of wrongdoing, and if she were going to take something, there are more valuable items than a T-shirt. What should I do? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NYC students beginning to show signs of reading progress, new data shows
New York City students are showing early signs of progress in reading after the Adams administration overhauled how the subject is taught in public schools, according to new data released Wednesday. The school system is still far from where it needs to be to ensure that all students who graduate know how to read proficiently. But elementary school reading scores on quick, periodic assessments known as 'screeners' increased by 2.5 points over a year — driven in part by considerable gains in the youngest grades, the data shows. 'It's really, really promising news, because what it's showing is progress,' First Deputy Chancellor Dan Weisberg told the Daily News. 'So the hard work that our educators and support staff are doing on the field, you can see here, is really paying off.' Some experts caution against drawing sweeping conclusions from screener data, which is captured three times each year and typically used as a diagnostic tool to help identify struggling readers so teachers can intervene in real-time. But Weisberg, the outgoing second-in-command of the public schools, said the data is 'highly correlated' with state test scores, and offers system leaders a glimpse of whether students are performing at or above the national median. Close to 42% of elementary school students crossed the threshold on the spring screener, the data showed. The literacy push, known as 'NYC Reads,' launched in less than half of school districts during the 2023-24 school year before expanding to all elementary schools citywide last fall. Each district selected one of three pre-approved literacy programs rooted in the 'science of reading' — referring to a wide body of research about how children learn to read. All place a greater emphasis on phonics, which teaches children about the relationships between letters and sounds. Screener scores from phase-one districts — which have had more time for implementation — posted slightly larger gains than those in the second cohort: 2.8 and 2.3 points, respectively. Students in kindergarten through second grade, who were exposed to the curriculum at a younger age, notched a 3.2-point boost, according to the data. While not unexpected in a school system as large as New York City's, test scores have been slow to catch up. Annual state exams showed reading scores dropped citywide last year — with students in the second phase outperforming their peers in the first cohort using the new literacy programs. Education leaders chalked up the discrepancy to an 'implementation dip,' predicting students would turn a corner as they adjusted to the new ways of learning and their teachers mastered new instructional methods. The results of this year's tests have yet to be released, but Weisberg likes his chances. 'That doesn't mean that just because screener scores increase, that state test scores are going to increase, but it's a promising sign,' the first deputy chancellor said. In April, Adams and the chancellor announced NYC Reads is expanding next school year to older students for the first time, starting with 102 middle schools in eight districts. 'As we close out this school year, we are proud to be able to share early results on our citywide investment in evidence-based reading and mathematics instruction for our students — delivering the education our children deserve,' Mayor Adams and Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos said in a joint statement. Math screener scores show the share of elementary school students scoring above national benchmarks increased by 3.2 points, though the grade levels are not formally included in 'NYC Solves,' the math equivalent of NYC Reads.
