As the trial of Marine veteran Daniel Penny progresses, jurors were urged to empathize with subway riders who felt threatened during an altercation with Jordan Neely, a homeless man who died after being choked by Penny. This request came during closing arguments on Monday, encapsulating the intense emotional climate surrounding the case.
Penny is facing charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after he held Neely in a chokehold for approximately six minutes. While Penny contends that his actions were a necessary response to protect fellow passengers, prosecutors assert that his methods were overly forceful and dangerous. They acknowledge that Neely’s erratic behavior may have appeared threatening but argue that it did not warrant lethal force.
Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran emphasized to the jurors that one cannot resort to deadly force simply because someone appears disturbed, regardless of their words or actions. Penny’s defense attorney, Steven Raiser, countered by asking jurors to visualize themselves in the confined space of the subway, with a purportedly dangerous individual nearby. He posited that Penny acted heroically in a moment of crisis, putting himself at risk to protect others.
A medical examiner testified that the chokehold was the direct cause of Neely’s death, sparking broader discussions about race, mental health, and public safety. The divided public perception of Penny reflects ongoing societal debates; while some view him as a defender, others see him as a perpetrator of violence against a marginalized individual in distress.
During the monthlong trial, testimonies arose from various witnesses, including passengers, police officials, and medical experts. Notably, multiple accounts differed on the nature of Neely’s behavior during the incident, with some passengers expressing fear and others relief when Penny intervened.
Prosecutors highlighted that after the train stopped, Penny maintained his grip on Neely’s neck despite warnings from bystanders to let go, questioning the necessity of his actions at that point. The defense argued that Penny’s intent was to restrain Neely until law enforcement arrived, not to kill him. The trial has prompted significant public dialogue, illustrating the complexities of urban life and the challenges posed by mental health crises in public spaces.
As closing arguments continue, the jury’s forthcoming decision will likely resonate deeply in a community grappling with the intersections of safety, mental health, and justice.
This trial has underscored the importance of understanding mental health issues and their impacts on both individuals and the community. Additionally, it invites a broader conversation about how society can respond to individuals in crisis in a compassionate and effective manner, fostering hope for more proactive solutions to mental health concerns moving forward.