How narrow is the distinction between a hero and a vigilante? It’s incredibly thin, as demonstrated by Daniel Penny’s trial.

Penny is a white former Marine who placed Jordan Neely, a Black man, in a choke hold for six minutes on a New York subway in May 2023. Neely died following the encounter, leading to murder charges against Penny.

On Monday, a jury found Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. A charge of second-degree manslaughter was thrown out on Friday, as the jury was deadlocked.

Media coverage of this tragic event seemed to amplify racial tensions: a privileged white man versus a homeless Black man.

However, the case also raised larger questions beyond race: To what extent are we ready to tolerate threats? Is it ethically permissible for a bystander to use force to eliminate a danger?

In my opinion, Penny is a hero who stepped in to defend individuals who were unable to protect themselves. The jury’s decision to acquit him was justified, and the mere fact that he faced charges is deeply troubling.

Subway riders described feeling ‘terrified’

Penny likely never anticipated using his combat skills learned in the Marines in a chaotic confrontation on Manhattan’s F train. Yet, that’s exactly what occurred, putting him at risk of facing up to 15 years in prison.

After Neely shouted threats of violence, Penny put him in a choke hold on the floor of the train. Other passengers called the authorities, who began to perform CPR once they arrived. Neely was later declared dead at a nearby hospital.

During police interrogations, Penny clarified that his intention was not to inflict harm on Neely but to subdue him. Soon after the incident, however, Penny faced charges.

Cellphone recordings and police body camera footage offer clear evidence of the incident. During the choke hold, Penny appears neither aggressive nor cruel. Instead, he is calm and focused, clearly trying to mitigate a threat. Two other individuals assisted him in controlling Neely. Testimonies from passengers later revealed their sense of relief that Penny acted to protect them.

The prosecution did not claim that Penny deliberately murdered Neely. Instead, they contended that the choke hold exceeded reasonable force, breaching both legal standards and human decency.

The medical examiner determined that Neely’s death stemmed directly from the choke hold (a finding that the defense contested), asserting that well-intentioned actions that inadvertently result in tragedy can still have legal repercussions.

Nonetheless, the prosecutor’s argument seemed weak throughout the proceedings. Although substantial evidence, including video documentation and eyewitness testimonies, indicated that Penny acted heroically, charges were still brought against him.

Various subway riders testified to feeling genuine fear because of Neely’s bizarre actions. One witness recalled Neely screaming, “I don’t give a damn. I will kill a motherf—–.” She said under oath that Neely’s threats terrified her. She even expressed gratitude to Penny for his protective actions afterward.

Another witness described being “terrified” by Neely’s conduct, while a mother shared with jurors her struggle to shield her child amid Neely’s aggressive behavior, noting that he had a history of 42 prior arrests, including multiple allegations of violence against women in the subway.

Forensic expert Dr. Satish Chundru, called by the defense, testified that Penny’s choke hold did not cause Neely’s death. Instead, he attributed it to a “combination of health issues, mental illness, and substance use.”

Fellow Marines who served with Penny vouched for his character, highlighting his commitment to honor and service.

The prosecution’s case against Penny seemed less about enforcing the law and more politically motivated. The New York Post Editorial Board commented that “(District Attorney Alvin) Bragg’s choice to prosecute appears to be purely political.”

Would you prefer to confront a man or a bear?

As a single woman, my safety is a daily concern. The Penny case raises challenging questions: What if the danger to my safety isn’t clear, but feels substantial? What risks am I prepared to take to ensure my safety or that of others?

Recently, there has been a “debate” on social media discussing whether a woman, alone in a forest, would opt to face a bear or a man. To the surprise of some, many women have chosen the bear. These women argue that men have a reputation for harmful behaviors, from unwanted advances to violence.

However, this man-or-bear debate is based on a flawed generalization, confronting all men with baseless stereotypes.

Events like the subway incident involving Neely and Penny highlight the times when a good person is needed to safeguard others from potential threats.

Women face the task of evaluating their safety versus risk every day, whether they’re commuting, jogging in their neighborhoods, or visiting stores or schools alone. The home also poses a significant danger, as violence against women occurs more frequently than against men.

Penny took action to ensure the safety of fellow passengers

Upon viewing the subway footage, I felt sympathy for Neely, but also gratitude for men like Penny. I’ve experienced numerous situations where I felt endangered, and while it’s ultimately my duty to ensure my safety, I occasionally find myself searching for a hero like Daniel Penny.

Women would consistently prefer a good man to handle a threatening situation if we had assurance that there were more noble men like him ready to confront bad individuals. I would welcome a man like Penny on my train, bus, plane, or even at a rest area during a trip.

Psychologist and author Jordan Peterson stated, “A harmless man is not considered a good man. A good man is a dangerous man who is able to control that danger.” This definition fits Penny perfectly.

What the world needs is an increase in individuals like Daniel Penny, not a decrease. He deserves to be recognized as a hero.