Were I a Juror in the Daniel Penny Trial...

Were I a juror in the case I would likely come to the conclusion that Daniel Penny was guilty of manslaughter.  Then I would vote to acquit him.  Here's why.

I think the evidence shows that Jordan Neely was not a threat.  He didn't present an actual threat to anybody on the train.  Unhinged?  Sure.  Crazy?  Sure.  Presenting an actual threat that justified a physical response?  Not a chance.  Making general statements about killing people, yet not directing actual threats at any single individual along with failing to physically accost any single person means the unhinged, abnormal, weird, concerning individual was not an actual threat that required force.  It's that simple.  Had Penny moved closer to the man, to act in case he were to present an actual threat to somebody on the train, then he would have acted reasonably.  But he didn't do that.  He didn't act anywhere near reasonably.

Instead, he approached the man who had his back turned to him in the most historical standard of non-threat presented in every black and white western on television ("he shot him in the back, Sheriff") and put him in a chokehold.  Could Neely have been threatening somebody other than Penny?  Sure, but no evidence shows that to be the case.

Then he maintained that chokehold for several minutes.  In those several minutes, Penny was responsible for Neely's life, having made the decision to place himself between Neely and God and take it upon himself to act as his mortal gatekeeper.  Penny did so with the assistance of two other individuals.  Whatever non-threatening yet uncomfortable scenario existed before Penny took that action was most certainly averted and mitigated.  And leaving Neely in that chokehold raises serious questions given that three men, now conversing and planning and organizing, were able to respond should the more-tired (and likely more angry) Neely get up and escalate his crazy yet non-threatening statements into something more.  Instead, Penny kept the chokehold in despite Neely obviously becoming increasingly incapacitated.

I think Penny jumped the gun unreasonably and was, in fact, guilty of manslaughter.  His actions were unquestionably unreasonable.  Self defense requires reasonableness and not simply being uncomfortable or not liking somebody's public speech in a public place.  Penny's actions were inexcusable.

That being said, the standard in a court of law is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Despite the conclusion that I would likely draw, I would yet find that a reasonable person could doubt my conclusion; primarily because the police responded, found that Neely was still alive and had a pulse, and chose not to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.  Neely was alive after Penny released the chokehold.  Penny clearly did some damage or at least altered Neely's physical state in some manner, obviously, but was it enough to amount to manslaughter?  Did Penny cause Neely's death?  If a person punches another and they get a swollen black eye, and minutes later they die, is their demise to be laid at the feet of the pugilist?  What if their swollen eye led to them not seeing the oncoming car that hit them?  In this case, the inaction of the police, the question of toxicology, and most importantly the fact that Neely was alive when released from the chokehold invite a reasonable doubt as to Penny's guilt despite the fact that I think Penny committed manslaughter.  That reasonable doubt requires acquittal.

Whatever the jury decides, this whole incident was a tragic shit show.  A poor man with a life full of hardship and tragedy and mental illness had his life taken from him because others equated discomforting speech with a direct threat of physical violence and because one incredibly not-bright veteran made the idiotic and entirely-not-heroic decision to involve himself where he had no business.