Hope Walz's controversial dating rule excludes Joe Rogan fans
- Daniel Penny put Jordan Neely in a chokehold for six minutes after Neely threatened passengers in May 2023 in New York City.
- Neely had a history of schizophrenia and multiple previous encounters with police, raising concerns about the treatment of homeless individuals.
- Jurors sided with Penny's defense, ruling his actions as justified in the context of perceived threats, fueling ongoing discussions about self-defense and public safety.
In May 2023, in a subway incident in New York City, Jordan Neely, a homeless man diagnosed with schizophrenia, threatened passengers by stating, 'someone is going to die today.' Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old former Marine, responded by placing Neely in a chokehold for approximately six minutes until Neely lost consciousness. This incident occurred while the subway train was in motion and multiple passengers were present, leading to varying accounts of the situation. Following the incident, the authorities detained a 26-year-old male suspect who was found in possession of a firearm similar to that used in another shooting, raising concerns about escalating violence on public transport. The police reported that Neely had a significant history of encounters with law enforcement, underscoring the challenges faced by those with mental health issues living in precarious situations. The court case regarding the chokehold was closely followed, as it ignited discussions about self-defense, mental health, and the treatment of homeless individuals in urban environments. During the trial, jurors ultimately sided with Penny's defense, accepting his claim that he acted out of a need to protect fellow passengers during an apparent threat posed by Neely. This decision highlighted the complex societal dynamics at play, reflecting a controversy regarding the justification of lethal force in self-defense situations. The verdict raised further debates about public safety and the responsibilities of individuals in volatile circumstances. Many commentators noted that the outcome of the trial could set a significant precedent for how similar cases would be handled in the future, particularly in a city grappling with issues like homelessness and mental illness. The implications of the jury's decision reverberated beyond the courtroom, reflecting broader societal concerns about violence, mental health, and the treatment of vulnerable populations in urban areas.