Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
For the first time in years, a jury opted to follow the evidence and the facts — rather than racial narratives and feelings — in its verdict acquitting Daniel Penny in the death of Jordan Neely.
Where were you when the O.J. Simpson verdict dropped? Or when deadly riots broke out over the death of George Floyd? These landmark moments shook the world, sparking debates on justice, race, and accountability. They are pivotal events that stay with us, not just because of their outcomes but also because of the cultural weight they carry.
Add to those events yesterday’s acquittal of Daniel Penny. While that case may not leave a lasting impression in the minds of many outside of New York City, it should — and here’s why.
The case, the trial, and the verdict reflect a potential shift in how our society approaches justice, moving away from the performative outrage of identity politics toward evidence-based fairness. This is a moment worth remembering, even if it doesn’t dominate headlines for years to come.
At the heart of this case is a tragedy that unfolded in the microcosm of America’s cultural divide: the subway death of Jordan Neely and the trial of Daniel Penny. Outside the Manhattan courthouse, protesters chanted “Justice for Jordan Neely,” while inside, jurors grappled with the complexities of law and public opinion. The outcome — a not guilty verdict on the charge of negligent criminal homicide — was not just a decision on the case itself but a broader statement on the tension between truth and ideology in today’s justice system.
Could this case mark the beginning of the end of the social justice era, when political narratives sway verdicts? Perhaps it signals a return to the foundational principles of true justice — justice blind to race, identity, or public outcry.
On May 1, 2023, Jordan Neely, a homeless man with a long history of mental illness and run-ins with the law, boarded a New York City subway car. Shouting about his dire circumstances, he alarmed passengers with his aggressive demeanor, though reports indicate that he did not physically assault anyone. Witnesses described Neely as “unbelievably off the charts” and noted that he “scared the living daylights out of everybody.” A 911 call played during the trial captured a passenger saying Neely was “trying to attack everybody.”
Daniel Penny, a former Marine, stepped forward to intervene, restraining Neely in a chokehold for several minutes. Tragically, Neely died in the aftermath, and Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter. Reports indicate that when police arrived at the scene, Neely was unconscious but still had a pulse. Body camera footage presented during the trial captured officers stating, “I feel a pulse,” confirming that Neely was alive upon their arrival. However, Neely was not breathing at that time. Officers administered Narcan, a medication used to counteract opioid overdoses, and performed chest compressions in an attempt to revive him.
Despite these efforts, Neely was later pronounced dead at the hospital. An autopsy later revealed that the chokehold did not cause his death. Drugs in his system, along with his deteriorating physical and mental health, likely played a significant role. Neely’s tragic demise and the circumstances surrounding it ignited a national debate over justice, mental health, and public safety.
What should have been, evaluated on its facts, a senseless tragedy instead became another lightning flash in America’s cultural divide. Almost instantly, the media and activists sought to define the case through the lens of race and identity politics. Neely, a black man, was cast as a martyr of systemic oppression, while Penny, a white man, was painted as a vigilante whose actions embodied racial violence. The truth, however, is far more complex — and far more uncomfortable for those pushing these divisive narratives.
This case was never about race. It was about the consequences of failed governance, a broken mental health system, and the complex moral decisions individuals face in moments of perceived danger. Neely’s tragic death was not the result of Daniel Penny’s race or intentions but the inevitable outcome of systemic neglect.
The subway itself became symbolic of the deeper issues plaguing New York City: the fear of unchecked violence, the indifference toward the homeless, and the failure to address the mental health crises overwhelming urban areas. Crime statistics only deepen this picture. In 2023, major felony crimes on the subway rose by nearly 50 percent. The message to commuters was clear — trust no one and prepare for the worst. Against this backdrop, Penny’s actions were not a matter of racial bias; they were a reaction to an environment that forces citizens to choose between self-preservation and standing idly by.
Yet the narratives spun by the media and activists ignored this context. For them, this was a story about systemic racism — a familiar script that demands a villain to fit the identity-driven narrative of oppression. The reality is that Neely’s plight was not unique because of his race; it was the same fate suffered by countless individuals abandoned by a broken system. The tragedy of his death is not a racial injustice — it’s a societal one.
The courtroom became the battleground where competing visions of justice would clash — one rooted in evidence and another shaped by public opinion and racial identity politics. The media’s portrayal of Penny as a villain and Neely as a victim of systemic oppression sought to frame the trial before it even began. Yet the jurors, tasked with deciding Penny’s guilt or innocence, refused to be swayed by public outrage or activist pressure.
In Judge Maxwell Wiley’s courtroom, jurors heard witness testimonies, examined video footage, and evaluated forensic evidence. The prosecution framed Penny’s actions as reckless, arguing that the chokehold continued far too long, leading to Neely’s death. The defense, however, emphasized the context of the incident: a chaotic subway car, an agitated man making threats, and a split-second decision by Penny to protect fellow passengers.
Despite the weight of public narratives pushing for a conviction, the jury focused on the facts. They deliberated over exactly what happened in that subway car, not the cultural scripts written by the media or the protesters’ chants outside (which could be heard inside the courtroom). Their decision to acquit Penny of manslaughter underscored a commitment to impartial justice—a rare and vital stand in an age where identity politics often sway verdicts.
This verdict sends a message: justice must be determined by evidence and due process, not by public opinion or media narratives. It’s a reminder of what our legal system was designed to protect — truth, fairness, and the presumption of innocence. In a city often associated with progressive ideals and social justice activism, this outcome is a powerful testament to the resilience of impartiality in the face of cultural pressure.
The reaction to Daniel Penny’s acquittal was as predictable as it was hollow. Representatives for Jordan Neely’s family decried the verdict as a failure of justice, and Black Lives Matter activists seized the opportunity to frame Penny as a symbol of systemic racism. One speaker, Hawk Newsome, asked, “How can you make a moral appeal to a nation built on genocide and oppression?” Others described the outcome as proof of a rigged system designed to devalue black lives.
Yet, unlike the George Floyd case, these familiar cries of injustice failed to galvanize widespread public support. The streets were not filled with protesters, and social media outrage was notably subdued. This muted response reflects a cultural shift — a growing public fatigue with identity-driven narratives and performative outrage that no longer hold the same sway over Americans.
The American justice system has been at the mercy of public outrage for years. Verdicts have often been judged not in courtrooms but on social media, where the loudest voices dictate the narrative. Cases like George Floyd’s death became not just legal battles but cultural flashpoints, forcing society to wrestle with systemic issues while amplifying polarizing voices.
The Daniel Penny case, however, represents a new chapter. For the first time in years, the script didn’t follow the usual trajectory. Activists attempted to portray the incident as another instance of racial oppression, but their rhetoric failed to resonate. The protests were smaller, and the outrage was less pervasive. Even those who supported Jordan Neely’s family appeared resigned to the outcome, rather than invigorated by it.
What has changed?
The recent election has hinted at the fact that Americans are increasingly questioning the legitimacy of identity politics and performative social justice. The Penny verdict suggests that the public is beginning to reject the idea that justice must align with the demands of activists or the whims of popular opinion.
Instead, people are seeking fairness —the recognition that facts, not feelings, must guide the scales of justice.
But this cultural reckoning isn’t just about rejecting identity politics; it’s about reclaiming the very essence of justice. For too long, we’ve allowed guilt or innocence to be tied to someone’s race, gender, or perceived privilege. The jury resisted these pressures in the Penny case, focusing solely on the evidence. Their verdict was not just a decision in one case; it was a statement: Justice must be blind.
From a biblical perspective, this shift aligns with God’s design for justice. Scripture repeatedly calls for impartiality in judgment. “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15). True justice doesn’t consider wealth, status, or identity — it considers only the truth.
The Daniel Penny case offers a sobering reminder of the interconnected crises facing our society: selective outrage that clouds justice, systemic failures in mental health care, and a waning sense of personal responsibility. But it also presents an opportunity — a chance to move forward with clarity, compassion, and purpose.
The legacy of Jordan Neely and the lessons from Daniel Penny’s trial demand more than hashtags and headlines. They require commitment to societal change, community empowerment, and personal accountability.
Let this case challenge us not just to critique what is wrong but also to build what is right — a society that values truth, compassion, and justice.
Justice that restores is not an abstract concept: It is lived out in how we advocate, serve, and lead. The Daniel Penny case will fade from the headlines, but its lessons must not. It calls us to reject the narratives that divide us and embrace a new, kinder, more color-blind vision of society.
Let us seize this moment — not to deepen wounds but to begin the healing. Let us create communities where lives like Jordan Neely’s are valued before they are lost and where individuals like Daniel Penny are guided by wisdom, not fear. This is not just a call for change. It is a call for unity, and it starts with each of us.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
