On Friday, the defense rested in Daniel Penny’s trial, leaving many observers wondering what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was thinking as he pursued the case.

During the second-degree manslaughter trial, Bragg’s prosecutors tried to push the narrative that the Marine veteran overreacted and behaved “recklessly” when he held Jordan Neely on that F train in May 2023.

But a lot Law enforcement Witnesses, Penny’s fellow passengers, heavily undermined this story as one experienced subway rider after another described how horrified they felt while trapped in the train car with the angry, unstable and threatening Neely.

One woman said she was “scared to death” by Neely’s behavior and recalled him screaming, “I don’t give a fuck. I’m going to kill a mother.” I’m ready to die.”

She stuck around after the ordeal to thank Penny for defending her and everyone else in the car that day.

Another, a high school student, said she was “so nervous” that she feared she would “pass out” and said she did not hear other passengers’ warning to Penny to let go of Neely during the fight.

A third said Penny restrained Neely “so he wouldn’t attack anyone” – further evidence that Penny was selflessly acting on behalf of others and a direct strike against the left’s claims that his actions were racially motivated.

In short, the prosecution provided ample evidence that Penny acted rationally and rationally brave in a harrowing situation.

And the defense started with a bang.

On Thursday, forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru testified that Neely was killed not by Penny’s chokehold, but by “the combined effects of sickle cell anemia, schizophrenia, fighting and restraint, and synthetic marijuana.”

Evidence from the trial showed that Neely had K2, a debilitating street drug that can cause psychosis, in his system at the time of his death.

Chundru’s statement is supported by the fact that Neely was still alive when police responded to the scene.

Given the ample evidence that Penny was actually protecting herself and others, and that other factors likely contributed to Neely’s death, Bragg’s decision to pursue a prosecution seems like pure politics.

Closing arguments begin on December 2nd; It’s hard to imagine the jury having to think about it for long.

It is Bragg and his team who must invest time in figuring out why they brought such a weak case to trial.