Marine veteran Daniel Penny, thrust into the national spotlight following a fatal subway incident in New York City, has finally broken his silence after being acquitted of criminally negligent homicide. In an interview with Judge Jeanine Pirro, Penny offered a firsthand account of his confrontation with Jordan Neely, a man whose erratic and threatening behavior left subway riders terrified. Penny’s detailed recollection not only sheds light on the events of that chaotic day but also highlights the larger safety issues plaguing New York City’s transit system.
Penny described Neely’s behavior as wildly erratic and menacing, with the man openly threatening to kill passengers and claiming he was ready to spend the rest of his life in jail. Faced with such threats, Penny acted decisively, grappling with Neely in what he described as a bid to neutralize an imminent threat. For Penny, the alternative—doing nothing—would have been unconscionable. He insists that the guilt of allowing harm to come to innocent riders would have been far worse than enduring the public scrutiny and court battles that followed. Despite being branded a hero by some and vilified by others, Penny remains steadfast in his belief that he acted out of necessity.
The former Marine admitted that he’s uncomfortable with the attention the case has brought him. Penny believes the focus should be on the deteriorating safety conditions in New York City’s subway system, which he says have reached a boiling point. The incident occurred against the backdrop of a transit system marred by rising violence, with recent high-profile attacks leaving passengers on edge. Penny pointed to this climate of fear as a catalyst for his actions and criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for what he called a politically motivated prosecution. According to Penny, the district attorney’s priorities are misplaced, focusing on headline-grabbing cases instead of addressing the systemic issues driving crime and fear.
Penny also called out city leadership for their failure to address the underlying crises of mental health and public safety. Neely, he noted, had a lengthy criminal history, an outstanding arrest warrant, and a documented struggle with severe mental illness and drug abuse. Yet, despite being a clear danger to himself and others, Neely was allowed to roam free, creating a volatile situation that left subway riders vulnerable. Penny argued that policies enabling such outcomes are emblematic of a leadership too entrenched in its ideology to acknowledge its mistakes. He framed his intervention as a direct response to this systemic negligence, contrasting his actions with what he sees as the city’s indifference.
Eyewitness testimony from the subway supports Penny’s account, with multiple passengers describing Neely’s threats as far more alarming than the typical subway outbursts New Yorkers have begrudgingly come to accept. One rider recalled Neely explicitly declaring that someone would die that day—a chilling statement that Penny and others took seriously. For many, the case epitomizes the frustrations of citizens who feel abandoned by political leaders more focused on scoring ideological points than ensuring public safety. Penny’s story, tragic as it is, underscores a broader societal failure to balance compassion with accountability, leaving ordinary people to grapple with the consequences.
