In a highly publicized trial that has stirred intense debate across the nation, Marine veteran Daniel Penny was acquitted of criminal charges in the choking death of subway performer Jordan Neely.
The Manhattan jury’s verdict, after a week of deliberation, concluded with a deadlock on the manslaughter charge, leading to that charge being dropped — and a not-guilty decision on Dec. 9 on the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide.
The case has ignited a fierce conversation about justice, self-defense, and the balance of power in the city’s bustling subway system.
Penny’s defense argued that he acted out of fear and necessity when Neely, a homeless man with a history of mental health issues, became aggressive on a subway train. Opponents, however, argue that Penny acted as a vigilante. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the incident, which was captured on viral video, leaving the jury to navigate a complex web of emotions and legal principles.
Many are now left to question whether the jury’s decision is a reflection of a justice system that adequately protects those in vulnerable situations or if it signifies troubling implications for accountability and public safety.
But what do you think? Was the jury justified in its decision to acquit Daniel Penny?
amNewYork Metro wants to hear from you! Take our poll and tell us how you feel. We’ll report back next week with the results.
To see poll results, click here.
