The trial of Daniel Penny, who is charged with second-degree manslaughter for restraining Jordan Neely on a subway train, has raised questions about the motivations of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. During the trial, witnesses supporting Penny testified about feeling terrified by Neely's threatening behavior, which included aggressive statements. One witness expressed gratitude to Penny for protecting her and others.
The defense claims that Penny's actions were rational and brave, while forensic testimony indicated that Neely's death was not solely caused by Penny's chokehold. This testimony pointed to other factors like Neely's health issues and drug use. The trial presented evidence that Neely had K2, a substance that can lead to psychosis, in his system, and he had survived until police arrived.
Critics of Bragg argue that the prosecution's case appears politically motivated and lacks strong evidence. As closing arguments approach, it seems unclear how the jury will interpret this case, especially considering the testimonies that favor Penn. Overall, the prosecution's weak position raises concerns about the rationale behind pursuing the case.
https://nypost.com/2024/11/24/opinion/the-house-of-cards-case-against-daniel-penny-is-falling-apart/
No comments:
Post a Comment