Daniel Penny's manslaughter trial resumed on Tuesday as closing arguments began following the Thanksgiving break.

The trial of Penny addresses complex issues surrounding the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man with mental health struggles, who died after being placed in a chokehold by the defendant, a former Marine, and the case, brought by D.A. Alvin Bragg, will determine whether Penny's actions in restraining Neely were excessive or a justified response to perceived threats, as Fox News reports.

The incident occurred on a New York subway on May 1, 2023. Neely, 30, who was homeless and had a history of mental illness, including schizophrenia, reportedly boarded the subway car and began making threatening statements. Witnesses, many of whom testified during the trial, described Neely's behavior as frightening.

Neely Found to Have Been Under Influence

Neely was under the influence of synthetic marijuana at the time of the incident, according to reports. He had a warrant out for his arrest and a criminal history that added layers to the trial's narrative. His aggressive demeanor on the train led several passengers to fear for their safety.

Among those on the train was Penny, a 26-year-old architecture student and Marine Corps veteran. Witnesses testified that Penny took action to subdue Neely, a move some passengers saw as necessary for their protection.

Legal Implications of Penny's Actions Under Microscope

Penny's defense argues that his military training justified the force used, suggesting Penny's intervention was to protect others. "All of those riders and more," Defense Attorney Steven Raiser stated, "Daniel Penny was the one who moved to protect them."

Officer delays played a role in the unfolding events. Police were not on the scene until seven minutes after the 911 calls, and medics arrived 20 minutes later. This absence became a focal point for the defense, with Raiser questioning why responsibility fell solely on Penny in the absence of law enforcement.

Complex Racial Undertones Emerge

Conversely, the prosecution argues that the level of force used by Penny was unnecessary and excessive. They contend that while Neely's behavior was indeed alarming, Penny could have restrained him without the lethal chokehold. Prosecutors maintain that "so much less physical force" could have been sufficient.

The trial has also touched on underlying racial elements, as Penny, who is white, allegedly confronted Neely, a Black man. Although Penny faces no hate crime charges, the prosecution did describe him in racial terms, which sparked controversy and objections from the defense.

Witness Testimonies Highlight Subway Incident

Witness testimonies added personal accounts of the event. Lauri Sitro, who was present in the subway car, recounted fear for her child's safety and expressed relief at Penny's intervention. "I was scared for my son," she testified.

Another witness, Arethia Gittings, returned later to personally thank Penny. Caedryn Schrunk echoed fears shared by other passengers, fearing for her life during the chaos.

These testimonies depicted the tense and uncertain atmosphere of that subway ride.

Key Events Ahead of Indictment

Following Neely’s death, initial procedures saw Penny questioned by responding officers, who at that time had not been informed that Neely had died. It wasn't until nearly two weeks later that the Manhattan District Attorney's office moved forward with an indictment against Penny, charging him with manslaughter.

If convicted, Penny faces the possibility of a 15-year prison sentence. The legal battle has since drawn considerable public scrutiny, with debates focusing on the appropriate response to threats in public spaces and the responsibilities of ordinary citizens versus law enforcement.

Arguments Intensify as Trial Progresses

As court proceedings advanced, Penny's defense highlighted the failure of authorities to act promptly, arguing it was unfair to lay the blame solely on Penny. "The government wasn't there," Raiser asserted, underscoring the lack of a police presence.

Meanwhile, the prosecution remained steadfast in their characterization of the incident as an avoidable tragedy. "No one had to die," they insisted, suggesting that Penny's response was inappropriate given the circumstances.

Jury to Decide Outcome in Complex Case

The jury now faces the task of navigating these competing narratives and complex issues of race, self-defense, and the appropriate application of force. The outcome will hinge on whether Penny's actions are deemed reasonable within the context of military training or an excessive response resulting in an unintentional killing.

As closing arguments conclude, the trial serves to highlight broader societal questions about safety, mental health, justice, and individual accountability in urban environments. The legal and moral implications remain as poignant as the personal testimonies shared throughout the trial.