NEW YORK - The trial of former Marine Daniel Penny, charged with manslaughter for the subway chokehold death of homeless man Jordan Neely, is drawing significant public and media attention as it centers on complex issues of self-defense, mental health, and societal responsibility. The trial began with the jurors viewing startling video footage captured during the May 2023 incident, which has raised pivotal questions about Penny's actions on the New York City subway.
On Monday, jurors saw never-before-seen footage of Penny gripping Neely around the neck on the subway train. This footage features two videos made by bystanders — one by high school student Ivette Rosario and another by freelance journalist Juan Alberto Vázquez. Prosecutors emphasized the urgency of the situation, pointing out how Neely, who was reportedly homeless and mentally disturbed, frightened passengers by shouting threats and acting erratically on the train. Visibly shaken, members of Neely's family exited the courtroom as the harrowing scenes played out on big screens.
Rosario, who testified during the trial, recounted the moments leading up to the incident. She described how Neely, known for his Michael Jackson impersonations, boarded the train and began shouting about his homelessness and hunger. Initially feeling frightened but unsure of what to do, she began to capture video of the struggle between Neely and Penny. According to Rosario, she never observed Penny release or loosen the chokehold during the entire approximately six minutes it lasted, even after other passengers began to exit the train.
One particularly poignant detail from the videos was the plea from another passenger who shouted, "Let him go! He’s dying!" Rosaro also remembered how it felt to witness the chaos, stating, “It was terrifying, and I honestly thought I might pass out.”
Prosecutors argue Penny's response escalated from initially attempting to subdue what he perceived as an imminent threat to recklessly endangering Neely’s life. Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran asserted during opening statements, “He was aware of the risk his actions would kill Mr. Neely and did it anyway,” highlighting the severe consequences of the prolonged chokehold.
Conversely, Penny’s defense lawyers contended he was acting out of necessity, intending to protect himself and other passengers after Neely reportedly threatened to kill someone on the train amid his agitated outburst. They framed Penny’s actions not as cruel but rather as those of an honorable citizen trying to neutralize what he believed to be a dangerous situation.
Another key witness, 61-year-old Larry Goodson from Brooklyn, emphasized how he pleaded with Penny to release Neely, warning, "If you don’t let him go, you are going to lose him." Goodson described Penny as being almost hypnotized by the circumstances, illustrating the confusion and urgency of the setting.
The case raises larger societal questions about how individuals are expected to react during crises involving disruptive behaviors from those who may be mentally ill or homeless. Witnesses have noted the visible distress Neely exhibited, likening it to when someone reaches their breaking point. Yet many bystanders were hesitant to intervene directly.
The cultural backdrop to this incident cannot be overlooked; it shines light on the struggles faced by New York City's homeless population and the often dangerous environment of public transit. Neely's unsettling behaviors during the incident reflect his long history of trauma, including the murder of his mother when he was just 15 and subsequent struggles with substance abuse. His family insists he had the right to occupy space on the subway without facing such repercussions, emphasizing the importance of treating all individuals with dignity, regardless of their circumstances.
Penny, who has pleaded not guilty, faces up to 15 years if convicted of involuntary manslaughter. His trial is expected to last for weeks, potentially extending through Thanksgiving, as both sides present evidence and arguments ranging from the legality of his actions to the moral dilemmas faced by onlookers. The case has ignited public discourse around issues of safety, mental health, and the responsibilities of citizens when confronted with erratic behavior.
The sheer emotional weight of the trial has shaken many involved, from Neely's family to those who witnessed the incident. With jury members now tasked with deciphering the true nature of the events and the decisions made by Penny, the outcome of this trial could signal shifts not only within legal parameters but within the broader cultural attitudes toward violence and self-defense actions.
