Final Plea: Defense Argues Daniel Penny Acted to Protect

[Social Media]

 

In a Manhattan courtroom, defense attorney Steven Raiser delivered an impassioned closing argument on behalf of Daniel Penny, the 26-year-old Marine veteran charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the fatal May 2023 subway encounter with Jordan Neely. Raiser framed Penny as a selfless individual who acted to safeguard others when no one else did. “Danny acted when others didn’t,” Raiser told jurors in Manhattan Supreme Court on Monday. “He put his life on the line. He did that for perfect strangers.”  

THE TRUTH ALWAYS COMES OUT.

As reported by @TPostMillennial and @MythinformedMKE, it looks like Jordan Neely was STILL ALIVE after Daniel Penny RELEASED him from the hold he restrained him with.

Dude's still trying to get up AFTER these men put him in a recovery position.

OMG. pic.twitter.com/IEqFXBoUz9

— Isaiah L. Carter (@IsaiahLCarter) May 8, 2023

 

Encouraging jurors to empathize with Penny’s perspective on the day of the incident, Raiser asked, “Who would you want on the next train with you? The guy with earbuds minding his own business, or someone you know will be there for you if something happens?” Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man with a history of mental illness and drug abuse, had reportedly been threatening passengers on the uptown F train before Penny subdued him in a chokehold. Raiser argued that Penny’s actions were aimed at preventing harm to others, saying, “He acted to save.”  

 

However, Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran countered with a starkly different interpretation of events, accusing Penny of excessive and reckless behavior. Yoran acknowledged that Penny’s initial restraint of Neely may have been justified, given Neely’s menacing behavior, described by a witness as an “unhinged” rant. But she argued that Penny’s continued use of the chokehold—long after Neely was subdued and unconscious—crossed a critical line.  

 

“We are here today because the defendant used way too much force, for way too long, in way too reckless of a manner,” Yoran stated. She emphasized that Penny held Neely’s neck for 51 seconds after he had passed out and while the train car was nearly empty. Displaying a still frame from a bystander’s video, she told jurors, “There is no conceivable justification under the law, and human decency, to hold an unconscious man in a chokehold.”  

 

Yoran reminded the jury that the law does not condone deadly physical force unless it is necessary to counter an imminent deadly threat. “No one had to die,” she said of the incident that unfolded as the train approached the Broadway-Lafayette station on May 1, 2023.  

 

The prosecutor also highlighted Penny’s words during his police interrogation, pointing out that he referred to Neely as a “crackhead.” The comment, shown in video evidence, added weight to the prosecution’s claim that Penny acted recklessly and with disregard for Neely’s life. “He was just a crackhead, you know what I mean?” Penny had said, shaking his head in response to questioning.  

 

Throughout the closing statements, Penny sat at the defense table wearing a brown suit and maroon tie, staring ahead without appearing to make eye contact with the jury. His usually stoic demeanor shifted briefly when Yoran accused him of recklessness, prompting him to shake his head at least twice.  

 

As jurors prepare for deliberations, the stakes remain high for Penny, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison. The trial has drawn widespread attention, with arguments reflecting a broader societal debate on the use of force, mental health, and public safety in urban spaces.

 

Based on a report by the NYP 2024-12-04

 

 

 

[impulse]

If they convict the guy, every death that happens while able bodied guys sit there watching and not acting to stop it, is on them.

 

[JonnyF]

If anyone in the future asks "Why did they just stand there and film it" then look no further than Daniel Perry. This is what happens when you step in to help, your life is turned upside down.

 

Even if he is found not guilty, he will likely be a marked man amongst certain Demographics, just like the policeman who stopped career criminal Chris Kaba.

[Chomper Higgot]

I’ll wait for the jury verdict and then accept it regardless of which way it goes.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll wait for the jury verdict and then accept it regardless of which way it goes.

Jury verdicts are not always sound that's why there is an appeals procedure. For me to accept a result depends on the evidence in the public domain and the legal arguments and advice.

 

If I was following a case closely I would certainly not accept a result regardless of which way it goes if its clear that an appeal will happen because of other evidence or other legal reasons.

[impulse]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Even if he is found not guilty, he will likely be a marked man amongst certain Demographics, just like the policeman who stopped career criminal Chris Kaba.

 

I follow a guy on YouTube who does firearm training and served as an expert witness on dozens (hundreds?) of 2nd Amendment self defense cases.  He suggests thinking before going all Rambo with a gun, because defending such a case starts at $100K and can easily run into the $millions. 

 

So even if Penny is found not guilty, he's broke.  Unless he has deep pockets supporting him. 

 

And lawyers are great at writing contracts so that they can't be discharged in a bankruptcy.

 

[WDSmart]

If he did this in true self-defense, then he should be found not guilty. If, however as it seems, he did this just to subdue someone making threats, then he should be found guility.

[impulse]

26 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If he did this in true self-defense, then he should be found not guilty. If, however as it seems, he did this just to subdue someone making threats, then he should be found guility.

 

So it has to be self defense?  You're okay if he sits on his thumbs and watches while the bad guy threatens those around him, including women and kids?

[WDSmart]

24 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So it has to be self defense?  You're okay if he sits on his thumbs and watches while the bad guy threatens those around him, including women and kids?

Yes, IMO, to not be guilty of some kind of homicide charge, he has to have done what he did in self-defense. He doesn't have to "sit on his thumbs," but he does not have the right to take the "bad guy"'s life just because he was threatening people. 

Again, this is just my opinion, and I am not a legal expert. It's my personal point of view on this. 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Jury verdicts are not always sound that's why there is an appeals procedure. For me to accept a result depends on the evidence in the public domain and the legal arguments and advice.

 

If I was following a case closely I would certainly not accept a result regardless of which way it goes if its clear that an appeal will happen because of other evidence or other legal reasons.

That’s fine.

 

But I’ve never followed any case as closely as the jury, I would be surprised if you had.

 

Appeals are of course part of justice but until an appeal (if any) is heard the Jury verdict stands. 
 

And just to close the little gap were an argument might be sought, I also accept the outcome of appeals regardless of the ruling.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s fine.

 

But I’ve never followed any case as closely as the jury, I would be surprised if you had.

 

Appeals are of course part of justice but until an appeal (if any) is heard the Jury verdict stands. 
 

And just to close the little gap were an argument might be sought, I also accept the outcome of appeals regardless of the ruling

 

I have never followed any case as closely as a jury either, what a swerve. To do that you would need to be a juror but I have an opinion as I said based on other matters as I clearly stated.

 

Do you often like to state the obvious? "until an appeal (if any) is heard the Jury verdict stands." who claimed otherwise?

 

9 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Jury verdicts are not always sound that's why there is an appeals procedure. For me to accept a result depends on the evidence in the public domain and the legal arguments and advice.

 

If I was following a case closely I would certainly not accept a result regardless of which way it goes if its clear that an appeal will happen because of other evidence or other legal reasons.

 

 

[RichardColeman]

Problem in this is it is a democrat hell hole, a trial brought by a democrat DA, and a jury probably of democrats. I would not find the guy guilty. The fact there was no security on a train that they know has criminal activity , deaths and stabbings means everyone fears for their lives.

 

All I see on the net are blacks saying he should have sat and talked to him, yeah right, guy saying he wants to kill people and you expect a conversation ? Like trying to sit down for a chat with a jihadi !