Daniel Penny was arraigned on May 12 on a charge of second-degree manslaughter of Jordan Neely. Penny was acquitted of the crime this month (AP pic under a CC BY 4.0 license). In 2023, a fatal encounter occurred aboard a New York subway train when Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old White marine veteran, used a chokehold to restrain Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless, mentally ill Black man. Neely died, and Penny was arrested. After video of the incident went viral, right-wing commentators argued that Penny would not get a fair trial in New York because Alvin Bragg, Manhattan’s first Black district attorney, was a progressive prosecutor who was “soft on criminals.” Bragg would paint Penny as a murderer and Neely as harmless, despite Neely’s lengthy criminal record and threatening actions on the subway train. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tweeted, “We stand with good Samaritans like Danial Penny.” DeSantis used the term “Good Samaritan” as if it meant defending others, which is not what the Good Samaritan did in the New Testament. The parable begins with a man who has been beaten, robbed, and left for dead. Two men noticed the injured man but did nothing to help. Then a Samaritan came across the injured man, bandaged his wounds, took him to an inn, and paid the innkeeper to care for him. It’s vital to remember that Jesus told this parable in response to a lawyer’s question. The lawyer knew he was supposed to treat his neighbor as he would like to be treated, but he wanted to know who his neighbor was. After telling the parable, Jesus asked the lawyer to identify which of the three men was a neighbor to the robbed man. The lawyer mentioned the Samaritan because he had compassion and showed mercy to a man who had been assaulted and left for dead. Jesus agreed and instructed the lawyer to go and do likewise. Did Daniel Penny behave like the Samaritan in the parable? Juan Alberto Vazquez, a freelance journalist who witnessed the incident, reported that Neely boarded the subway train and began screaming about his hunger and thirst, his need for work, his lack of fear of imprisonment, and his willingness to die. Another witness claimed that Neely stated, “Someone is going to die today.” Another witness told the police that Neely was behaving “hostile and erratic” and throwing garbage at people. Penny’s defense attorney alleged that his client disregarded the uproar until Neely approached a mother and her son, threatening to kill. Vazquez reported as Neely forcefully flung his jacket down; Penny approached from behind, grabbed him by the neck, and they both fell down. Penny stated he utilized a restraint method he learned during basic training. Two other men helped Penny. They instructed the passengers to call for help, and they intended to hold Neely until the police arrived. The period of Neely’s restraint varied according to reports. Some accounts claimed that Neely’s restraint lasted for 15 minutes, while others claimed it lasted for 5 minutes. However, Penny informed the police that it lasted only a few minutes. Neely died. Following the autopsy, the medical examiner determined that Neely’s death was a homicide by neck compression. However, the medical examiner made this decision before getting the results of the toxicology report. Penny was eventually charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The prosecutor recognized that Penny’s intentions to protect fellow passengers were noble, but Penny held Neely in a chokehold for six minutes, only to let go after Neely became unconscious and went limp. The prosecutor claimed that Penny used “way too much force” for “way too long” in a reckless manner. According to New York’s penal code, an individual is guilty of second-degree manslaughter if he or she “recklessly causes the death of another person.” The prosecutor told the jury that, while it was difficult to convict someone of murder when they had no intention of doing so, Penny should face the consequences. The defense argued that Penny’s actions were justified. Penny attempted to keep Neely restrained until help arrived, and he had no intention of rendering him unconscious. The defense’s medical examiner testified that Neely died from a combination of effects—sickle cell crisis, schizophrenia, struggle and restraint, and synthetic marijuana in his system—not from neck pressure.  The first medical examiner, responding to the defense’s determination of Neely’s death, stated that there are “no alternative reasonable explanations” for Neely’s death, and the defense’s proposed explanations were “so improbable that they stand shoulder to shoulder with impossibility. The first medical examiner reiterated that Neely died from compression to the neck. The jury had to decide which medical examiner was more credible and if Penny acted recklessly and in an unjustified manner. The judge instructed the jury to find Penny not guilty of manslaughter before they could consider the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide. After days of deliberation, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on manslaughter. The impasse on the first count ultimately freed Penny. Right-wing commentators celebrated Penny’s release and praised the jurors for refusing to convict Penny of manslaughter. According to these right-wing commentators, these jurors were “Good Samaritans” who defended Penny in the same way that Penny defended the subway train passengers. Those who hold that belief do not understand the parable of the Good Samaritan. The “Good Samaritans” were actually the jurors who agreed to convict Penny of manslaughter. These jurors showed compassion for the deceased. They attempted to hold Penny accountable since, when given the opportunity to demonstrate mercy, Penny didn’t—making his conduct reckless.           The post J. Pharoah Doss: Did Good Samaritans deadlock the Danial Penny Jury? appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.