The Daniel Penny verdict has predictably sent the usual suspects into a frenzy, but let’s start with the facts: a jury found Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely. This case, if nothing else, has shined a spotlight on the divide between those who value public safety and those who prioritize inflammatory narratives.
Jordan Neely, whose death sparked the trial, was threatening passengers on a New York City subway. Let’s be clear—this wasn’t a case of someone peacefully riding the train or minding their business. Neely’s erratic behavior had passengers on edge, and Penny stepped in to protect others. Tragically, Neely died during the encounter. But despite the media’s attempts to paint this as an open-and-shut case of vigilantism gone wrong, forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru testified that Penny’s chokehold did not cause Neely’s death. Instead, Neely’s death was attributed to a mix of health issues, including schizophrenia, sickle cell crisis, and synthetic marijuana in his system.
Yet, even with this testimony and a jury’s decision, the outrage machine keeps spinning. Enter Hawk Newsome, founder of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, who didn’t mince words after the verdict. “We need some black vigilantes,” Newsome declared at a press conference, calling for violence against white people in the city. Let that sink in: an activist, ostensibly fighting for justice and equality, openly calling for racially motivated attacks. Imagine the media firestorm if the roles were reversed. Crickets, anyone?
This rhetoric isn’t just dangerous—it’s counterproductive. Newsome’s comments aren’t about justice or accountability. They’re about stoking division and fueling chaos. Threats of violence do nothing to address the root causes of the challenges communities face. They do, however, make for great soundbites on cable news and social media platforms eager to amplify outrage.
“We need some black vigilantes!”
New York BLM leader Hawk Newsome after Daniel Penny’s acquittal.pic.twitter.com/lsz5QCphhn
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) December 9, 2024
Meanwhile, the subway itself became a target for performative activism. Nine individuals vandalized an F train with graffiti reading, “A man was lynched here,” likening Neely’s death to a premeditated, racially motivated killing. This narrative falls apart under scrutiny—not just because of the forensic evidence but because it ignores the context of the situation. Neely wasn’t attacked because of his race; Penny intervened to stop what passengers perceived as a threat.
The jury’s deliberation reinforces the complexity of this case. They spent a week carefully weighing the evidence, ultimately deciding Penny was not reckless or negligent in his actions. This wasn’t a snap decision or a politically motivated move—it was the result of a thorough judicial process. The justice system worked as intended, even if that outcome doesn’t satisfy the mob.
The real tragedy here is that this case could have been an opportunity for productive conversations about mental health, public safety, and systemic failures. Instead, it’s become a lightning rod for division. Activists like Newsome seem more interested in escalating tensions than seeking solutions. And the media, ever eager to pour gas on the fire, amplifies the most extreme voices while sidelining the facts.
Megyn Kelly: “Somebody yelled out in the courtroom, ‘it’s a racist country’. That’s not working any more. You’re going to have to find a new line… the BLM era is officially over… Trump’s re-elected and Daniel Penny’s acquitted.”pic.twitter.com/k77kmkfp6g
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) December 9, 2024
Daniel Penny acted to protect his fellow passengers in a moment of uncertainty. The jury agreed he wasn’t criminally responsible for Neely’s death. The justice system spoke. Now, the question is whether activists and media outlets will listen—or keep fanning the flames of division. If the latter, buckle up: the subway is the least of New York City’s worries.
