Marine Veteran Pleads Not Guilty in Fatal Choking Case of Homeless Man on NYC Subway

Marine Veteran Pleads Not Guilty in Fatal Choking of Homeless Man on NYC Subway

In a case that has brought attention to New York City’s challenges with homelessness, mental health, and violence in its subways, Marine veteran Daniel Penny pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Penny is accused of fatally choking a homeless man, Jordan Neely, on an F train last month.

The incident occurred on May 1 when Penny was traveling uptown on a Manhattan subway train and Neely entered the car. Witnesses reported that Neely was using threatening language and shouting at passengers. Although there was no indication that Neely had physically confronted anyone, Penny placed him in a chokehold for several minutes. The city’s medical examiner later determined that the chokehold had caused Neely’s death.

Penny appeared in a Manhattan courtroom after being indicted by a grand jury earlier this month. If convicted of manslaughter, the more serious charge, he could face up to 15 years in prison. Penny’s lawyers, Thomas Kenniff and Steven Raiser, expressed confidence in their case, stating that all the evidence they have seen suggests that their client acted reasonably under the circumstances.

The confrontation between Penny and Neely has raised several issues that have concerned and polarized New Yorkers, including episodes of violence on the subways, the vulnerability of homeless and mentally ill individuals, and race relations. Penny is white, while Neely was Black.

Neely’s relatives revealed that he had a history of mental illness and a criminal record, including instances of attacking people on the subway. However, it is unlikely that fellow passengers on the subway car in May were aware of his history.

Donte Mills, a lawyer representing Neely’s family, spoke after Wednesday’s hearing and warned the crowd of reporters and passers-by not to be surprised when justice is served.

Penny is expected to argue that he was acting in defense of other passengers when he restrained Neely. Prosecutors will have to demonstrate that Penny used deadly force without reasonable belief that Neely was about to do the same.

In videos released by Penny’s lawyers, he claimed that Neely had thrown his jacket at other passengers and made three distinct threats, including a threat to kill someone, shortly after entering the train. Penny stated that he did not intend to kill Neely and that his actions were not motivated by race.

Following the incident, Penny was interviewed by the police but was not immediately arrested. However, an outcry ensued after video footage of the chokehold was released. Prosecutors working for District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg began an investigation, and Penny surrendered more than a week later.

The case has shed light on the complex issues faced by New York City and has sparked discussions about the treatment of homeless individuals, mental health support, and the use of force in public spaces. The trial will continue as the city grapples with finding solutions to these pressing challenges.

Did Penny’s military training and diagnosis of PTSD justify his use of deadly force in the situation?

Onably and in self-defense.

The defense team argued that Penny, who served in the Marine Corps and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), felt threatened by Neely’s aggressive behavior and believed he needed to protect himself and others on the train. They claimed that Penny’s training as a Marine taught him to react quickly in dangerous situations and that his actions were justified under the circumstances.

Prosecutors, however, painted a different picture, arguing that Penny’s response was excessive and unnecessary. They highlighted the fact that Neely was unarmed and had not physically harmed anyone before Penny intervened. They also pointed out that Penny, as a Marine, should have been trained to use non-lethal force and de-escalation techniques, rather than resorting to deadly force.

This case has brought attention to the challenges faced by New York City in addressing homelessness, mental health issues, and violence in its subways. Critics argue that the lack of adequate resources, support, and outreach for the homeless population contributes to incidents like these. They call for increased funding for mental health services, affordable housing, and social programs to help prevent such tragedies from occurring.

The trial is set to begin in the coming months, and it will likely be closely watched by both advocates for homeless individuals and law enforcement professionals. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how individuals with mental health issues are treated and how law enforcement officers are trained to respond to similar situations in the future.