Daniel Penny’s nightmare has come to an end. After an exhaustive eight-week trial and five days of jury deliberations, the Marine veteran was acquitted of all charges related to the death of Jordan Neely, a career criminal who threatened subway passengers on an F train in May 2023. Penny’s actions that day—subduing Neely, who had frightened passengers with violent threats—were heroic, measured, and entirely justified under the law. Yet Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, fueled by a progressive agenda, relentlessly pursued charges against Penny in a politically charged case that never should have been brought to trial.
Penny’s acquittal is a victory for justice, but the trial itself underscores the perils of overzealous, agenda-driven prosecution. Neely, who had a long history of violent behavior and drug use, created a clear and present danger on the subway. Witnesses testified that he menaced passengers, ranting that “someone is going to die today” and that he was “willing to die and go to jail.” Penny, recognizing the imminent threat, restrained Neely with the help of other passengers until police arrived. Tragically, Neely died, but Penny’s actions were anything but reckless or malicious.
The Legal and Ethical Case for Penny’s Actions
Under New York law, Penny’s actions fell squarely within the doctrine of justification, which permits individuals to use reasonable force to defend themselves and others. Testimony from passengers supported the conclusion that Penny acted out of necessity and not with the intent to harm. Furthermore, Penny took steps to ensure Neely’s well-being, including repositioning him to aid breathing. At the time, Penny and others believed Neely was alive when police arrived.
Complicating the case further was the presence of synthetic drugs in Neely’s system, raising plausible questions about the exact cause of death. These factors should have given prosecutors pause, yet Bragg pressed forward, determined to make an example of Penny.
A Prosecutor’s Overreach
Bragg’s decision to charge Penny with both second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide was a calculated move designed to extract a conviction at any cost. The manslaughter charge required proof that Penny acted with wanton disregard for an obvious risk of death—a standard that was not met by the facts of the case. The negligent homicide charge, while less severe, still implied that Penny’s actions were unreasonable under the circumstances.
Adding to the prosecution’s cynicism was its racial framing of the case. Despite no evidence of racial motivation, Bragg’s team repeatedly referred to Penny as “the white defendant” and “the white man,” injecting race into a situation where it was irrelevant. This strategy seemed intended to exploit jurors’ progressive sympathies, further polarizing an already charged case.
A Chilling Precedent
Even with Penny’s acquittal, the damage has been done. Bragg’s decision to prosecute sends a chilling message to good Samaritans in a city plagued by rising crime and dwindling police presence. New York City’s 34,000 officers cannot be everywhere in a metropolis of 9 million people. The willingness of civilians like Penny to intervene in dangerous situations is vital to public safety. Yet Bragg’s prosecution may deter others from stepping up, fearing legal and reputational ruin.
The jury’s decision to acquit Penny on the negligent homicide charge—a swift conclusion after reconvening—was a rejection of Bragg’s prosecutorial overreach. Justice was served, but the trial itself exposed the toxic consequences of prioritizing politics over law.
A Call for Change
New York City does not need more Alvin Braggs. It needs leaders who value justice over ideology and who recognize the importance of empowering, not penalizing, law-abiding citizens who protect their communities. Daniel Penny’s ordeal serves as a stark reminder of what’s at stake when justice is subordinated to political agendas.