The trial against Daniel Penny ends with the correct verdict: not guilty

How thin is the line between hero and vigilante? It is razor thin, as the trial of Daniel Penny showed.

Penny is a white, former Marine who held Jordan Neely, a Black man, in a chokehold for six minutes on the New York City subway in May 2023. Neely died after the incident and prosecutors accused Penny of killing him.

On Monday, a jury acquitted Penny of involuntary manslaughter. A second-degree manslaughter charge against Penny was dismissed Friday after the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

Reports of the deadly incident appeared to divide Americans over racial issues: privileged white man versus homeless black man.

But the Penny case was also about questions that have nothing to do with skin color: What level of threat do we want to live with? Is it morally right for a bystander to use violence to ward off a threat?

To me, Penny is a hero who stepped in to protect people who couldn’t protect themselves. The jury was right to acquit him, and the fact that he even stood trial is a scandal.

Subway passengers said they were “scared.”

Penny may never have imagined that he would use the combat skills he learned in the Marines in a dangerous, chaotic confrontation on the F train in Manhattan. But he did it – and he faced up to 15 years in prison because of it.

After Neely screamed that he was going to kill someone, Penny held him in a chokehold on the subway floor. Other passengers called the police, who began CPR upon arrival. Neely was later pronounced dead at a hospital.

Penny, who was interviewed at a police station, said his intention was to subdue Neely, not to hurt him. But shortly after Neely’s death, Penny was charged.

Cell phone videos and bodycam footage provide clear insight into what happened that day. During the chokehold, Penny is neither malevolent nor evil. He is focused and steadfast, clearly trying to suppress a threat. Two men help him calm Neely down. Passengers later testified that they were relieved that Penny had taken the initiative to protect them.

The prosecution did not argue that Penny intentionally committed murder. They argued that the chokehold had “gone far too far” and violated “the law and human decency.”

The medical examiner concluded that Neely’s cause of death was a direct result of the chokehold (the defense disputed that finding), and the prosecution attempted to make the case that good intentions that turn out to be bad have legal consequences.

Opinion:Biden’s dismal, failed presidency is even worse than Trump’s first term

But the prosecutor’s arguments looked weak throughout the trial. Despite extensive evidence, including video footage and eyewitness accounts, showing that Penny acted heroically, prosecutors still filed charges against him.

Other passengers on the F train that day said they felt real fear because of Neely’s erratic behavior. One witness said she remembered Neely screaming, “I don’t care. I will kill a mother. I’m ready to die.” She also said under oath that she was “not afraid” of Neely’s actions and said she even thanked Penny afterward for protecting her and other passengers.

Another witness testified that he was “terrified” by Neely’s behavior, and a mother told jurors she was trying to protect her child while Neely – previously arrested 42 times, including three arrests on charges of sexually assaulting women of being attacked on the subway – shouting threats.

The forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru, a defense witness, testified that Penny’s chokehold did not kill Neely, but that the cause of death was instead due to “the combined effects of sickle cell anemia, schizophrenia, fighting and restraint.” and synthetic marijuana.”

Fellow Marines testified that Penny was awarded the Humanitarian Service Medal. was a man of honor and duty.

The case against Penny never really seemed to be about maintaining law and order. The New York Post editorial board complained that “(District Attorney Alvin) Bragg’s decision to file charges looks like pure politics.”

Would you rather face a man or a bear?

As a single woman, I think about my safety every day. The Penny case raises some difficult questions: What if the threat to my safety is vague but appears serious? What am I willing to do to protect myself or others from this threat?

In recent months, there has been a recurring debate on social media about whether a woman alone in the forest would rather face a bear or a man. To the men’s dismay, women firmly stated that they would choose the bear. These women argue that men, not bears, are known for everything from unwanted verbal abuse to rape and murder.

However, the man vs. bear debate is based on a logical fallacy that demonizes men and lumps them all together as predators. The subway incident between Neely and Penny shows that sometimes it takes a good man to protect women (and men and children) from danger.

Still, women need to assess their risk-to-safety ratio every day when they travel, walk around the neighborhood, or go to a store or school alone. The threat of domestic violence is also a gender-specific crime that puts women at risk significantly more often than men.

Opinion:America’s future could look a lot like Texas. This is a great thing.

Penny stepped forward to protect other passengers

When I first saw footage from the subway car, I felt pity for Neely, but also relief that men like Penny existed. I have experienced dozens of situations where I felt unsafe, and although I am responsible for my safety, there have also been times when I have searched for the nearest Daniel Penny.

Women would choose men over the bear every time if we knew for certain that more good men were willing and able to stop bad men. I want a man like Penny on my train, bus, plane, or at a rest stop on a road trip every day.

Psychologist and author Jordan Peterson said, “A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very, very dangerous man who voluntarily controls this.” Sounds like Penny to me.

Breaking News

Dellupodisabato

Leave a Reply Cancel reply