The trial of Daniel Penny is not merely about one man’s actions on a New York City subway train; it is a referendum on the moral cowardice of our society. Let us not mince words—Daniel Penny is being scapegoated for the failures of a system that allows chaos, mental illness, and violence to run rampant in our public spaces.
Penny, a former Marine with a history of service to his country, now finds himself on trial for manslaughter, accused of recklessly causing the death of Jordan Neely, a man whose mental health and violent tendencies were as much a threat to himself as they were to those around him. Penny’s crime? Acting decisively when no one else would, in a moment fraught with peril and uncertainty.
The facts, as presented, paint a picture of a man caught in an impossible situation. Neely, by witness accounts, stormed onto the subway screaming that he was hungry, homeless, and ready to die—behavior that was both erratic and menacing. Passengers, including a young woman, described the palpable fear in the train car. Neely’s “tone” and demeanor, unlike other outbursts New Yorkers are sadly accustomed to, were chilling enough to make people avert their eyes and pray for the next stop.
This was not an isolated event. Neely’s history as a troubled, violent individual was well-documented. In a saner world, his repeated arrests and clear need for institutional help would have placed him in a facility where he could receive care, rather than roaming the subways unchecked. But this is not a sane world. This is New York City, where the vulnerable are abandoned, the dangerous are excused, and citizens are left to fend for themselves.
Alvin Bragg’s Case: An Absurd Narrative
The prosecution argues that Penny’s use of a choke hold was “unnecessarily reckless” because he held it for too long. This claim hinges on an idealized vision of how a Marine should act under stress—a split-second calculus expected to differentiate between subduing a threat and inadvertently harming him. But here’s the reality: Daniel Penny is not a robot, and the subway car was not a controlled environment.
Witnesses describe Penny’s actions as measured and deliberate. He restrained Neely while two others helped pin his limbs, ensuring that the threat was neutralized. Crucially, Neely was still alive when Penny released him, a fact corroborated by the medical examiner’s timeline.
Let us consider the alternative scenario. Had Penny done nothing, would we now be mourning another senseless act of subway violence, lamenting the bystander apathy that allowed innocent lives to be taken? History offers grim examples: stabbings, shovings onto tracks, and assaults that have made public transit a theater of terror. Penny chose action over inaction, courage over cowardice, and he did so in defense of others.
The Hypocrisy of the New York City Justice System
The grandstanding from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is galling. He argues that Penny’s actions were reckless, yet he offers no plan for how ordinary citizens should respond to imminent danger. That subway car was a pressure cooker of fear and unpredictability, and the government’s abdication of responsibility left people like Daniel Penny to pick up the pieces.
This trial is not about justice; it is a political spectacle. Penny is being dragged through the mud to appease an ideology that demands “equity” at the expense of accountability. Neely’s death is being weaponized to obscure the failures of the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the very city government that should have intervened long before May 1, 2023.
The Heart of the Matter: Intent
To convict Penny of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove he acted recklessly—knowing that his actions could lead to death and disregarding that risk. But the evidence tells a different story. Penny repeatedly stated his intent was to de-escalate a volatile situation. His decision to use a choke hold was a last resort, not an act of malice or negligence. Video footage shows him releasing Neely as soon as additional passengers stepped in to assist.
Self-defense and the defense of others are not crimes; they are rights. The law allows for the use of reasonable force to neutralize a threat, and Penny’s actions align with this standard. He did not seek confrontation but responded to a direct and immediate danger. The assertion that he should have known the precise moment Neely’s body gave out—amid chaos and confusion—is absurdly unrealistic.
A Broader Failure of Leadership
The real question this trial raises is not about Daniel Penny’s actions but about the government’s failure to address the root causes of this tragedy. Why was Jordan Neely, a man with a known history of mental illness and violent behavior, allowed to spiral out of control? Why is the onus placed on ordinary citizens to manage situations created by systemic neglect?
Daniel Penny is not a criminal. He is a man thrust into an untenable situation, forced to act because those entrusted with maintaining order have abdicated their duties. To convict him would be to declare open season on anyone who dares to defend themselves or others in the face of danger.
Conclusion: Acquit Daniel Penny
The jury must see through the political theater and focus on the facts. Daniel Penny acted not out of recklessness but out of necessity. He deserves not condemnation, but the Key to the City. To convict him would be to send a chilling message: that courage in the face of chaos is punishable, and that the weak and vulnerable must accept whatever is done to them.
Let us not sacrifice Daniel Penny on the altar of political expediency. Justice demands his acquittal.
New York City owes him far more than that.