Daniel Penny was found not guilty in the so-called “chokehold trial” in NYC.  In my opinion, he never should have been arrested and tried in the first place.

If you’ve ever ridden the subway in NYC, you know what it feels like to be vulnerable to other riders around you in that closed chamber on wheels.  If you are unfortunate enough to be on a subway car with someone who suddenly exhibits violent behavior, you’re likely to experience the “flight or fight” response.  However, what does one do when there is no way to retreat?  Or suppose you could escape the threat but are aware of the threat to others who might not be able to escape?  Should you run for cover and leave them unprotected?

This is the dilemma that faced Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old Marine veteran, when he found himself in a subway car with Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man who had been arrested dozens of times for various crimes including assaults on women in the subway and larceny.  Mr. Neely was screaming and threatening violence toward passengers while proclaiming that he was “ready to die.”  Witnesses said they feared for their lives as Neely screamed, “I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison.  Someone is going to die today!”  Mr. Penny ignored Neely until he saw him approach a mother with her small son, hiding behind a stroller.  He heard Neely threaten: “I will kill.”

That’s when Penny got involved.  He came up behind the man and grabbed him by the neck, and they both fell to the ground with Penny’s arm around Neely’s neck.  The police arrived several minutes later, and Neely was found to have a faint pulse as he was being transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced DOA.  Penny was questioned by NYPD detectives and released without charge.

Yet it didn’t take long before the incident sparked accusations of vigilantism and racism.  (Neely was black; Penny is white.)  The usual race-baiting began, along with demands that Penny be prosecuted.  It didn’t matter that many passengers, black and white, championed Penny’s intervention, or that Neely was a recidivist criminal who was threatening to kill people.  Instead, the mob was in control, and the protector of innocents found himself charged with homicide.

After the trial, the judge had instructed the jurors before they went to deliberate that they should consider the main charge, which is manslaughter, and if they didn’t prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt, then go to the lesser charge, which is criminally negligent homicide.  Seven men and five women, over the course of four days, studied the main charge and the lesser charge, and came back to tell the judge that they were deadlocked.  At that point, the judge did something unusual: he dismissed the manslaughter charge but told the jurors to continue deliberating on the lesser charge.  By doing so, the judge implied that there was something more they should deliberate on.  That’s tantamount to coercion by the judge to influence the jury to come back with some finding of guilt.

When the jury came back the second time, while the predictable mob was protesting outside the courthouse with screams of “Penny is a murderer,” and “Daniel Penny, the Subway Strangler,” they were not intimidated into arriving at a guilty verdict.  The usual suspects, including Black Thugs Matter and other malcontents, who add nothing positive to the city, state, or country, spewed the tired old racial rhetoric that is as anachronistic as rotary-dial phones.

We owe that jury our admiration for their courage and integrity.  This time, the race-baiting mob didn’t win.

Image via Pxfuel.