The upcoming trial of Daniel Penny, a former Marine accused of fatally choking a homeless man on a New York City subway, has brought attention to the use of chokeholds and the science behind them. Penny is charged with second-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, a well-known Michael Jackson impersonator. Dr. John R. Black, a use-of-force expert, emphasized the need to understand the decision-making process involved in such cases and how it aligns with scientific evidence.
Black explained the two types of chokeholds involved in the case, highlighting the lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR) as a method of shutting down blood flow to the brain and causing momentary unconsciousness. Borden, another expert, discussed how law enforcement uses the LVNR to control unruly subjects safely. He also noted the public’s perception of chokeholds, particularly after fatal incidents, has led to some departments banning their use due to concerns about their safety.
Black raised questions about why Penny chose to use the chokehold on Neely in a subway setting, given his background in the Marine Corps. He suggested that Penny’s decision may have been based on a rational intention, even if it may not have been appropriate for the situation. Borden noted the risks involved when civilians, like Penny, attempt to apply restraints without proper training or understanding of the less-lethal techniques involved.
The prosecution in Penny’s case is likely to focus on the severity of the threat posed by Neely and the proportionality of Penny’s response. They will argue that Penny’s actions were disproportionate to the threat level presented by Neely. The defense is expected to counter this by asserting Penny’s right to use force necessary to protect himself or others. They must prove that Penny genuinely believed his life was in danger at the time of the incident.
The trial is set to begin on October 21, with Penny facing the possibility of five to 15 years in prison for manslaughter and additional time for the negligent homicide charge. The case highlights the complex nature of use-of-force incidents and the legal considerations involved in determining the appropriate response to perceived threats. It serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the science behind physical restraints and the decision-making processes that guide individuals in high-stress situations like the one alleged in this case.
