Examining the Case: Arguments for Daniel Penny's Guilt in the Death of Jordan NeelyThe trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, has been a focal point of public attention and legal scrutiny. While Penny was ultimately found not guilty on December 9, 2024, it's important to examine the arguments and evidence that were presented by the prosecution to understand the complexities of the case and the reasons why some believe Penny should have been held accountable.
Background of the Case
On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, was killed after being placed in a chokehold by Daniel Penny on a New York City subway. Neely, known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, had a history of mental illness and erratic behavior. On the day of the incident, witnesses described Neely as acting aggressively and making threatening statements. Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, intervened and restrained Neely in a chokehold for nearly six minutes, leading to Neely's death.
Prosecution's Arguments
The prosecution argued that Penny's actions were reckless and excessive, leading to Neely's death. Here are the key points presented by the prosecution:
1. Excessive Force: The prosecution contended that Penny used excessive force by maintaining the chokehold for an extended period, even after Neely had ceased to be a threat. They argued that Penny could have restrained Neely without causing his death. The city's medical examiner declared the chokehold to be the cause of Neely's death.
2. Lack of Immediate Threat: Prosecutors highlighted that Neely was not armed and did not pose an immediate threat to Penny or other passengers once he was subdued. They argued that Penny's continued use of the chokehold was unnecessary and demonstrated a disregard for Neely's life.
3. Medical Evidence: The prosecution presented medical evidence showing that Neely died from compression of the neck, which was consistent with the chokehold applied by Penny. This evidence was crucial in establishing the cause of death and linking it directly to Penny's actions.
4. Witness Testimonies: Several witnesses testified that Neely was subdued and no longer resisting when Penny continued to hold him in the chokehold. These testimonies supported the prosecution's argument that Penny's actions were excessive and unjustified.
Legal Standards and Charges
To convict Penny of criminally negligent homicide, the prosecution needed to prove that Penny caused Neely's death with criminal negligence and that his actions were not justified. Criminal negligence involves a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
Broader Implications
The case of Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely has raised significant questions about public safety, mental health, and the use of force. The trial highlighted the challenges faced by individuals with mental illness and the need for better support systems. It also underscored the importance of appropriate responses to perceived threats and the potential consequences of excessive force.
The case has divided Americans with some believing Daniel Penny is a hero and others saying Jordan Neely did not deserve to be killed. Those who argue that Penny is a hero are mostly from the right-wing conservative faction in American politics. They view Penny's action as self-defense and claim Neely was violent and a threat to people in New York City and deserved what he got. Those who support Neely say that he was homeless and simply asking for food and water. He had mental illness and often had outbursts due to a lack of medication and overall treatment. The city failed to help him. They claim he is also a victim.
We are now in a situation where people are bringing in politics and race. On social media, we are already seeing people (mostly non-Hispanic white right-wingers) attack blacks claiming they are the cause of violence, and focus on Neely's criminal record assassinating his character to deflect from his mental illness, homelessness situation, and lack of help from the city of New York. They even go to the irrational extreme of claiming drugs killed Neely or Floyd when they were walking about without issue until they met their deaths at the arms and knees of white men. We also see people attack Daniel Penny because he is Caucasian calling his chokehold move on Neely a "lynching." Threats are being made to do to him what he did to Neely. Sadly, it has come to this. The racism is in fact clear as day. We are seeing a white vs back narrative subliminally presented in the arguments on both sides. People are forgetting the facts of the story.
- Did Neely deserve to be chokehold to death?
- Did Daniel Penny and others do the right thing and did they act in self-defense?
Based on what we know, the answer to these are not so easy, but the law can help. 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 at home, place of work, and at the car in other states. The law varies from state to state. This is why people need 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, Article 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 in New York State. 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 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 (see: https://bronx.news12.com/jason-rivera-charged-in-death-of-80-year-old-manuel-rosario-at--york-grill-deli-34829640). 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 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, my delay in 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.
Conclusion
While Daniel Penny was ultimately found not guilty, the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution provide a compelling case for why some believe he should have been held accountable for Jordan Neely's death. In my opinion, based on my juror experience, my legal studies and other cases, Daniel Penny is guilty. Some are making the argument that Neely was threatening and that threats can result in the loss of your life under self-defense, but let us examine the law in NY.
In New York, the law surrounding self-defense is quite specific. Under New York Penal Law, you are allowed to use physical force to defend yourself or others if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent harm. However, the use of deadly physical force is only justified under certain conditions.
Key Points of New York Self-Defense Law:
1. Reasonable Belief: You must have a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. This means that the threat must be immediate and not just a verbal threat without any accompanying physical aggression.
2. Imminent Threat: The threat must be imminent, meaning it is about to happen. If someone makes a threat but does not take any immediate action to carry it out, using deadly force may not be justified.
3. Proportional Force: The force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat faced. Deadly force can only be used if there is a serious threat of death or serious physical injury.
4. Duty to Retreat: New York follows the "duty to retreat" principle, which means that if you can safely avoid the threat by retreating, you are required to do so before using deadly force. However, this duty does not apply if you are in your own home.
In summary, while you can use physical force to defend yourself if you believe you are in immediate danger, using deadly force is only justified if the threat is imminent and serious, and if you cannot safely retreat. It's always best to consult with a legal professional to understand the specifics of your situation. So as you can read, it is not black and white. One cannot say every threat is "imminent and serious" and one cannot immediately react physically. The situation must analyzed carefully.
This is why this trial was not decided properly under the law. There was no justification for Daniel Penny killing Jordan Neely. The jury simply did not take the case seriously or was coerced by social media to other parties. The verdict simply does not make sense and invalidates NY State law. Because of this decision, it is open season now against the homeless, people with mental illness, or other disabilities which makes them prone to outbursts and emotional and mental episodes.
I feel like going to the Bronx Criminal Court to talk to the judge in the case where I served as a juror in 2017. We decided on a guilty verdict for a young Hispanic man in his mid-20s who killed an older man after the older man confronted him with a metal pipe. After the
Daniel Penny verdict, this young man should be freed. It is only fair. Unless there is one set of rules for non-Hispanic whites and another for African Americans and Hispanic Americans.
The
Abel Cedeno case needs a relook as well. He was 18 years old when he fought off two younger African American classmates who had bullied him for years or months. His mom complained but school officials did nothing. Abel complained, and the school ignored him. So one day, he brought a blade/knife to school.
The bullies harassed him and assaulted him with paper balls, spitballs, and pencils and Abel snapped and confronted them and a fight broke out. One of the bullies got stabbed in the chest and later died. Abel, an
LGBTQIA youth was arrested, charged, and sentenced to 14 years for manslaughter and 8 for assault.
Daniel Penny kills
Jordan Neely with a chokehold -his Marine instructor never taught him and who testified it was performed wrong- who was merely screaming that he was hungry and only had a muffin in his pocket and is exonerated.
Something is way off here where two young Hispanic men get imprisoned for literally defending themselves and a White non-Hispanic young male gets exonerated for attacking and choking a homeless man with mental illness to death who was simply having a mental health episode.
As stated, it is not open season one the homeless, etc. We will see people killing each other now and crying out in self-defense. We will see people calling everything a threat and attacking people who allegedly make them. In the Bronx, I remember my friends saying to each other platonically, "I will F*ck you up!" This, of course, can be interpreted as, "I will beat you up." Today, I still hear the youth saying the same line to each other playfully. Will one of these youths get choked to death because they say the phrase which can be interpreted as a verbal threat of physical violence?
In New York City, we often see Protestant preachers on the street yelling and shouting and sometimes condemning random people to hell. They yell extremely loudly with microphones and speakers and even without them. Their screams can be unnerving and annoying causing one's blood to boil, so to speak. This is especially true when they target gays or even Catholics with images of the crucifix of Mary on their person of ten condemning them to hell or calling them idolaters or sinners. Their shouting and condemnations can be considered a "threat." Does this mean gays and Catholics can choke them to death? What about protestors? We are seeing the more often now due to the Israel-Palestine conflicts. They often get rowdy and say "threatening" things. Will they get choked out as well now? Will this be okay and legal? Where do we draw the line? This is what the Daniel Penny verdict has brought upon New York City.
I have nothing against Daniel Penny and hope he is safe now in his free life despite having a permanent target on his back, but he had to face the consequences of the violations of the law he made and the death of Jordan Neely. He is young and made a mistake thinking it to be the right thing to do. He did not have to play "hero." In New York City, we will see all kinds of strange and odd behavior. I remember in the Bronx as I sat at a park in the Little Italy area there was a homeless unkept looking lady. She was sitting on one of the benches. She had a dress or nightgown-looking attire like what elderly women wear. Out of nowhere, she lifted her dress grabbed her labia majora, and began to urinate using her hand to guide the stream of urine. People around gasped in shock and disgust and ran off.
She was known in the area and was often aggressive with people. One time when I went to get my PO Box mail, she asked me for money and I did not have and told her, she then slightly hit the letters in my hand when I passed by her out of frustration. I did not attack her back or choke her to death. It was no big deal. I did not see her as a threat. Unfortunately, before the pandemic, I found out from friends at the 48th precinct of the NYPD at the Build the Block meetings that she was a victim of assault. Someone attacked her, beat her up, urinated on her, and broke her legs. However, this article says she was hit by a car (
https://bronx.news12.com/20yearold-man-arrested-for-peeing-on-homeless-woman-in-the-bronx-42132848). It took this evil act for the city to finally get her help!
Had Daniel Penny been around her, he probably would have choked her to death just for her erratic behavior! We cannot have this! This cannot be the norm. As stated, New York City is full of people like Neely and this homeless woman from the Bronx. They are now prime targets of overzealous people looking to play Batman as vigilantes. This is a bad precedent that the Daniel Penny verdict now begins in one of the largest and most crime-plagued cities in the world.
Jordan Neely needed help and never got it. All he had on him was a muffin, no weapons. He was not a threat. The Daniel Penny trial shows us that the stereotype of black people being scary still exists. We often hear of the "Angry Black woman." These are stereotypes created by racists which are meant to tarnish black people. Even today on social media, we see statements like "usual suspects," or statements like "show the color of the person," "we can assume what people did it..' and things like that which insinuate that Black people are automatically criminal by nature. These are racist statements that stem from non-Hispanic Whites being raised to fear Black people. Daniel Penny and others who claim Neely was a threat perpetuate this racist sentiment.
This is why Black Lives Matter was formed. While some of its founding members have missed donations, the overall purpose of this movement was to highlight that Black people are targeted and are treated like they do not matter. I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if Daniel Penny was Black and Jordan Neely was White. Would he have gotten a not-guilty verdict?
As a relative and friend of many people with Autism, I now worry for them that someone might come "to the rescue" and choke them out just because of their antics and outbursts which are often seen by ignorant people as a "threat" or "strange." They simply are not educated on what Autism is and are prejudged. Hopefully, Attorney General Leticia James and Governor Hochul will do something to protect people in New York from being victims of people claiming to "come to the rescue."
We still need to work hard for a world where Black Lives Matter, Homeless Lives Matter, Mentally Ill Lives Matter, and White people can live and not be paranoid of people of color.
