The Problem
Daniel Penny is not the problem. The government could arrest, prosecute, and convict Daniel Penny and subsequently lock him in jail for the rest of his life and the problem would not be solved.
The problem is Jordan Neely - and the thousands like him. The violent hoard of crazy and out of control individuals who are allowed to stalk the streets in order complete their psychotic mission of terrorizing others. That is the problem.
If we cannot agree on the problem - there is no possible way that a solution can be achieved. The insanity and dishonesty of ignoring the real issue because the fear that a rational solution would be in direct contrast to their preferred policies and dishonest narrative.
The anti-police/pro-criminal activists behave as if violent maniacs are to be coddled and simply allowed to push strangers in front of oncoming subway trains and that those who intervene to protect innocent lives are the true danger.
Defense of Others
A recent comment on my Tik Tok channel was,
“Your opinion is citizens should have carte blanch to intervene when someone is threatening others in public.”
To be clear, my opinion is that if someone is threatening to injure or kill other people -I want someone to step in and make sure that does not happen. And if someone does step in (at a risk to their own personal safety) to protect other people and to make sure that they are not the victim of violent crime, they should be granted a level of grace that approaches absolute immunity if something goes wrong. I believe that the vast majority of the culpability should be on the criminal who was issuing the threat and causing chaos in an otherwise calm situation.
If someone steps in, with the intent to protect others - they should get some societal and legal credit for that. And the one who was threatening and terrorizing others - should be sacked with the entirely of the blame.
Extreme Rhetoric
It should have been expected that elite members of the “defund the police” crowd would climb out from behind their safe gated neighborhoods and taxpayer funded security details just long enough to incite hatred and division with the precision of an evil assassin1.
A.O.C. called the Neely incident a “public execution” and a “lynching”.
New York State Senator Jabari Brisport tweeted, "Jordan Neely was lynched. He had no food, no water, no safe place to rest. He had the audacity to publicly yell about that massive injustice, so they killed him."
New York State Senator Julia Salazar said "This was a lynching."
Britannica defines “lynching” as, “a form of violence in which a mob, under the pretext of administering justice without trial executes a presumed offender, often after inflicting torture, and corporal mutilation.”
Does any honest or objective person believe that “lynching” is the most accurate way to describe this incident?
Bragged
Activist, Soros-funded, and pro-criminal District Attorney Alvin Bragg does not believe that this was a “lynching”. Or, at least, that he cannot prove it in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Penny was charged with second degree manslaughter - not first degree (intentional) murder.
Therefore, this case will be prosecuted under the legal theory that there was no intent to kill. But instead that the actions of Mr. Penny were “reckless or negligent”. Bragg will try to prove that Mr. Penny: was aware that his actions presented a substantial risk, that someone could be killed due to those actions, and that risk was disregarded.
*After Covington Catholic and Kyle Rittenhouse - you would think that the usual suspects would have learned their lesson and be more measured or more honest about these types of cases. The charged language about Mr. Penny is on the border of a legitimate defamation claim.
Legal v. Social
I think that it is important to make the distinction between a legal and social opinion.
Legal
Mr. Penny’s actions were the cause of death of Mr. Neely. This fact is not really in dispute.
Mr. Penny had no intent to kill Mr. Neely. Mr. Penny was likely legally justified to hold down, subdue, control, or take action to protect others from Mr. Neely. However, Mr. Penny would not have have been legally justified to shoot Mr. Neely and/or otherwise intentionally kill him on the subway.
Therefore, the facts of this incident are almost a textbook example of manslaughter.
Per the letter of the law, I understand why the charges were filed. There is probable cause to charge Mr. Penny with second degree manslaughter.
Social
Just because there is technically probable cause to charge someone in a crime - does not mean that they should be convicted.
For the reasons listed in my two prior articles and ten+ Tik Tok Videos on this case - I hope that Mr. Penny is not convicted. And if he is convicted, I hope that he receives zero jail time and is instead sentenced to a short period of probation - overlooking a pretty beach or a peaceful mountain, surrounded by friends, family, and with the knowledge that millions of decent people support and appreciate him.
The Hottest Ticket in Town
Jordan Neely’s funeral was this week. Whatever you think about the circumstances of how he died - the death of a mentally ill thirty-year old man is tragic. Mr. Neely was more a victim of his own untreated psychosis than he was an evil criminal. There is a difference between severe mental illness and intentional criminality.
Unfortunately, his funeral was politicized and treated like the Oscars. For the far-Left - this was their Super Bowl. And it was sickening.
Al Sharpton did the eulogy. Ben Crump passed out business cards. Countless white “allies” displayed a sickening level of virtue signaling on social media that would make any reasonable person roll their eyes.
The same people who are screaming behind screens that Jordan Neely didn’t “deserve to die” are too obtuse to recognize that he also deserved better than to be used as a political pawn.
Jordan Neely needed help, treatment, and medication while he was alive. Not the false soft compassion from those who refused to help him when he needed it most.
Final Thoughts
My final thoughts on this case remain constant.
This is the thought meme that runs through my mind when I think about this case through the lens of the future of our society, good v. evil, and how objective people must fight for truth and basic human decency.
You either support the man who threatened to kill strangers or the man who made sure that he didn’t. It is that simple.