The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine charged with the chokehold death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway, has garnered significant media attention and public interest. The case has raised important questions about racial justice and the safety of the city's subway system.
Daniel Penny, who is white, is accused of using excessive force against Jordan Neely, a Black man who was a well-known Michael Jackson impersonator. The incident, which occurred in May 2023, began with Neely reportedly acting aggressively on an F train in Manhattan. Penny's attorneys argue that he did not apply enough pressure for the hold to be deadly, while prosecutors maintain that the force used was excessive and resulted in Neely's death.
The trial of Daniel Penny, charged with the death of Jordan Neely, has been a focal point of national attention, raising significant discussions on law enforcement and race relations. As the trial progresses, various pieces of evidence have been presented to the court.
One of the key pieces of evidence is the bystander videos that captured the incident on the subway. These videos are crucial as they provide a visual account of the events leading up to Neely's death. The defense has argued that these videos show Penny acting in self-defense and protecting other passengers from Neely, who was reportedly acting aggressively.
Another significant piece of evidence is the statements made by Penny to the police following the incident. In these statements, Penny claimed that Neely was threatening people on the train, which prompted him to intervene. The prosecution is using these statements to argue that Penny acted recklessly, leading to Neely's death.
The medical examiner's report is also a critical piece of evidence, as it ruled Neely's cause of death as "compression of the neck." This finding is central to the prosecution's case, which argues that Penny's actions were excessive and directly resulted in Neely's death.
Furthermore, the defense plans to call a Marine with a black belt in karate as an expert witness. This individual is expected to testify that the hold applied by Penny was not fatal and did not constitute a chokehold.
The trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine accused of the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, has presented a complex set of arguments from both the prosecution and the defense. The case has captured the public's attention, not only for the tragic loss of life but also for the broader implications it has on issues of race, law enforcement, and public safety.
From the prosecution's perspective, the argument hinges on the assertion that Penny used excessive force in a situation that did not warrant such a response. They point to the medical examiner's report, which classified Neely's death as a homicide by compression of the neck, as a key piece of evidence supporting their claim. The prosecution is likely to argue that Penny's actions were not in line with reasonable force and that his intervention led directly to Neely's death.
The defense, on the other hand, is expected to present a narrative that frames Penny's actions as a response to a perceived threat. They argue that Neely was acting aggressively and that Penny, with his background as a Marine, reacted to protect himself and other passengers. The defense is also likely to highlight the chaotic environment of the subway, suggesting that Penny's decision-making was influenced by the need to quickly address a volatile situation.
A key element of the defense's strategy is to introduce evidence that may contextualize Neely's behavior at the time of the incident. This includes the potential introduction of Neely's medical records and testimony regarding his alleged use of the drug K2, which the defense suggests could have contributed to a psychotic episode. The defense argues that this information is relevant to understanding the circumstances that led to the confrontation.
Both sides have faced challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence. The judge has denied motions to exclude certain pieces of evidence, indicating that the jury will be presented with a wide array of information to consider. This includes bystander videos of the incident, Penny's statements to the police, and expert testimony on the nature of the hold used by Penny.
As the trial progresses, the jury will be tasked with weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the community and contribute to the ongoing dialogue about the role of law enforcement in society. For those interested in following the trial, updates and detailed coverage are available from major news outlets.
As the trial continues, more evidence will likely be presented, and the jury will be tasked with determining the facts of the case. The outcome of this trial will have profound implications for the community and the ongoing conversation about justice and accountability in law enforcement. For ongoing updates and detailed coverage, the public can follow the reports from major news outlets.
The trial is expected to last six weeks, with jury selection having begun recently. The case has become a flashpoint in the nation's ongoing debate over racial justice, with protesters gathering outside the courthouse to express their views. The outcome of this trial will likely have a significant impact on public discourse regarding law enforcement and race relations in the United States.
The legal consequences for Daniel Penny, if convicted, could be severe. As the trial unfolds, the charges against Penny include manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The former charge carries a more significant weight, as it suggests a level of recklessness or intentional action leading to death. If found guilty of manslaughter, Penny could face up to 15 years in prison. On the other hand, the charge of criminally negligent homicide implies that Penny's alleged negligence led to Jordan Neely's death, which carries a potential sentence of up to four years.
The trial's outcome will hinge on the jury's interpretation of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution's task is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny's actions were not only negligent but also criminally so, resulting in Neely's death. The defense, conversely, aims to establish that Penny's actions were justified under the circumstances and that he did not intend to cause harm.
It's important to note that the legal system aims to balance the scales of justice, taking into account the severity of the crime, the defendant's intent, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The jury's verdict will ultimately determine the legal consequences for Penny, and the judge will impose a sentence based on that verdict, the law, and the guidelines provided for such cases.
The case has attracted public attention and sparked discussions about broader societal issues, including race relations and law enforcement practices. Regardless of the trial's outcome, the implications of this case will likely resonate beyond the courtroom, influencing public discourse and potentially affecting future legal proceedings in similar cases.
In New York and 14 other states there is a duty to retreat clause. This means that citizens have a duty to escape or get away from a violent situation if the opportunity is there. If there is no option to retreat, then citizens can use force, even kill the assailant. The duty to retreat does not apply to citizens when they are at home in New York and at home, place of work and car in other states. The law varies from state to state. This is why it is important for people to educate themselves. Many times people, particularly conservatives, think that it is okay to kill someone who attacks you. They claim it is a "right" to self-defense. This is not true. One cannot just kill an attacker and claim self-defense. Since this case between Neely and Penny happened in New York City, we will focus on the law in New York State. You can read more about laws in other states here (https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/21/duty-to-retreat-35-states-vs-stand-your-ground-15-states/).
In New York state, Artcile 35 of the penal code states:
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
- https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.php
So, as you read, there is a duty to retreat. Daniel and the others had to retreat and not engage Neely unless there was no option to retreat. In light of this, Daniel Penny and the riders involved need to be charged for killing Jordan Neely. He broke the law (duty to retreat clause) of NY state. Screaming out for food, and water, or even throwing garbage does not warrant being choked to death. Nor does having a criminal record. Citizens cannot take the law into their own hands. This is not self-defense. Daniel and others had a duty to retreat.
Subway cars have end doors where people can move between cars. They have emergency brakes that stop a moving train, allowing for exiting. Attached are photos. Moreover, cars have emergency windows that can be removed to exit. There is no excuse. The MTA offers guidelines here mentioning the emergency windows and how to exit a subway car, see: http://new.mta.info/document/76901. If not charged, this will empower people to kill others for any outburst, whether mental illness-related or not. Even autistic people will be in danger depending on where on the spectrum they are on and if this causes them to behave violently. People will kill others just for being bumped on a train, bus, or sidewalk. We cannot have this in a civilized society where the rule of law supersedes. Jordan Neely had a mental illness and was not helped. He could not help how he behaved due to it. He did not deserve to be killed. Attacking his character does nothing but turn the attacker into a despicable human being lacking morals and compassion. Justice must be served. The rule of law must matter.
In 2017, I served on a trial where a young man killed an elderly man with a metal pipe in the South Bronx. In the video, we saw both men arguing. The young man walks out of the store and the elderly man goes to the back of the bodega and grabs a pipe going after the young man. We see another cell video of both arguing outside and the young man hitting the elderly man with a pipe. Many of the jurors thought the younger guy was defending himself. However, I brought up the duty to retreat clause and before deliberation, the judge told us the law.
I remember this when studying paralegal in high school. We did internships at the Bronx Court House on the Grand Concourse and 161st. Like conservatives on social media, the jury I was with assumed the young guy was legitimately defending himself. However, this was not the case. He had a duty to retreat. The elderly man was really no threat. He easily took the pipe away from him. Therefore, the young man could have left with the pipe, tossed it aside and left, or simply just called 911 while holding the pipe and not engaging the elderly man. Instead, he took the pipe away and began to beat the elderly man with him fracturing his cheekbone and skull overall. A few of the jurors got upset with me because I took the case seriously. They just wanted to issue a verdict and go back to their jobs. They were worried about not getting a paycheck. I was more concerned about justice.
Two young Dominican guys were even making snarky remarks causing the older jurors to shake their heads in disbelief and call them out for their immaturity. Anyhow, me delay of the deliberation worked and the right decision was made that even the judge, district attorney, and court officers applauded us.
The other jurors pointed me out as the reason for delaying deliberations. We ended up deciding a guilty verdict for manslaughter against the young man. He may have thought he was defending himself because the elderly man went after him with a pipe, but that was not self-defense. He had a duty to retreat. Similarly, Neely was not truly a threat. Screaming and crying out for food is not a threat. It is a disturbance of the peace.
So as it stands, the defense of Daniel Penny will have a difficult time defending their client. If Penny served in combat, perhaps a defense of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder may be used with doctors and psychologists vouching for Penny. They can say the events on the subway that day triggered Penny's trauma. This may not exonerate him, but may lessen the charges and/or sentence later on. There is a very high probability that Penny will be found guilty for the reasons stated above. We cannot have vigilantism, especially in a city like New York City. We cannot have mentally ill people or anyone acting erratically be choked to death or killed in any other manner just for their behavior. We cannot have people believing that anything and everything warrants self-defense and that one can kill at will even if threatened.
Nevertheless, some are politicizing this case. We now have Black Lives Matter and others turning this case into a racial one with some calling Penny a White Supremacist. We also have others attacking Neely and his reputation based on his past as if what happened in the past is relevant in the present case. They are also referencing his skin color as part of the problem or insinuating that Black people are a violent and criminally inclined group.
Regardless of the outcome, this trial will bring about many protests and problems. If found guilty, people will claim injustice against Penny and will say there is a persecution of white men in liberal cities. If found innocent, people will come out claiming white privilege in favor of Penny and that Neely got no justice because he was Black, homeless, and mentally ill. This may even lead to riots again as in the case of George Floyd's death.
Source:
Daniel Penny trial: Jury selection begins in case on NYC subway death
Trial to start for Daniel Penny after chokehold death of Jordan Neely on NYC subway
Daniel Penny trial begins: Jurors to be asked 'what would you do?'
Daniel Penny to Go on Trial for Fatally Choking Jordan Neely on Subway - The New York Times
Daniel Penny to Go on Trial for Fatally Choking Jordan Neely on Subway - The New York Times
https://www.foxnews.com/us/protesters-accuse-marine-vet-white-supremacy-jury-selection-begins-subway-vigilante-case
