After spending many hours going over the evidence, twelve New York jurors just unanimously decided that Daniel Penny was not guilty of a crime. Today the NY Times published a story about the verdict headlined "In Penny Verdict, a Flashpoint in the Debate Over Crime and Mental Illness." The word flashpoint is supposed to suggest conflict and subhead clarifies where that conflict can be found "Republican politicians hailed the verdict. But some New Yorkers found it deeply disturbing." It's Republicans vs. real New Yorkers, at least that's what we're being promised.

Outside the Manhattan criminal courthouse on Monday, a scuffle broke out among demonstrators, their chants amplified over bullhorns.

On one side were supporters of Daniel Penny, a former Marine who was charged with fatally choking a fellow subway rider, Jordan Neely, on an uptown F train last year. They held signs, including one that said, “Daniel Penny deserves a prize not a prison.” On the other side were people protesting on behalf of Mr. Neely. Upset, they grabbed a sign and ripped it up.

We then get a walk through the story of what happened that day and the video of Penny holding Neely down which went viral. Again, the focus is conflict between two groups of people.

Some residents saw Mr. Neely as the embodiment of a system that had broken down, letting vulnerable people slip through the cracks. Mr. Neely was on a city list informally known as the Top 50, a small number of people in a city of eight million who stand out for the severity of their troubles and their resistance to accepting help.

For others, it was emblematic of a string of high-profile crimes on the city’s subways, many involving homeless and mentally ill people, and evidence of the city’s inability to keep residents safe.

It goes on like this and does mentions some GOP politicians who priased the verdict. The story ends with the disappointment of Jordan Neely's father who just filed a civil lawsuit against Daniel Penny. 

But apart from Neely's family and the BLM folks protesting outside the trial, are there really that many people who think Penny was guilty? The Times seems eager to suggest there are two groups who see this differently, which is surely true, but it never really delves into the relative sizes of those two groups. 

And that should matter, shouldn't it? If the people who think Penny was a murderer (as the BLM protesters outside have claimed) are a tiny fringe do they really deserve equal footing with the majority of people, including the 12 jurors, who say he's not?

As is sometimes the case at the NY Times, the comments are better than the article. I'm limiting this to just the responses from readers in NYC.

What's disturbing is how out of touch our city council is with most in the city who've had enough of their subway rides becoming obstacle courses. Trying to dodge the clearly deranged on the platform, then hoping they won't approach you on the train, and when they do, counting down the seconds until the next stop when you can either exit or get to another car. Do these council members even ride the subway? Doubt it.

This person puts the blame on DA Bragg.

That was my subway stop where it happened and I was about to take it that afternoon but jumped on a bus instead. And no, I am not a Republican. Enough is enough. Total malfeasance on the part of the Manhattan DAs office that assigned this violent convicted felon to a diversion sentence that he was not eligible for under the guidelines, and from which he walked away from and engaged in a crime spree in the intervening three months.

Another one:

The real crime was committed by the City, State, and Federal Govt.  This man should have been in a safe, clean, place and not on the street.  As a subway rider I can tell you through personal experience that being in a closed car with a deranged person is scary and you wonder if you or your fellow passengers can defend themselves if necessary.  The not guilty verdict is correct.  The guilty verdict is on our society as a whole and how we treat the mentally ill.

Some progressives are arguing that if Jordan Neely had just been offered help he wouldn't have become a victim of "white supremacist violence." There's a problem with that theory. He was offered help and rejected it.

Community Notes for the win pic.twitter.com/Sqt7wCk2Tj

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 10, 2024

Neely had been on the street for years, becoming more violent over time. Now suddenly his family is front and center and looking for a payout.

I find it very curious that family who were not involved in caring for Mr. Neely as he found his way to the 50 most vulnerable list is now deeply involved, filing civil suits and trying to profit off his passing.

And finally, some well-earned criticism of the NY Times.

I've talked to many many people here in NYC about this (most of whom would describe themselves as liberal) and the vast majority are of course sorry about the death in general but also fully supportive of Mr. Penny and his actions.  Why this article makes a point of emphasizing Mr. Penny's Republican supporters, when his support is likely far and wide regardless of political ideology, is curious.

Why is the Times trying to suggest conflict over a verdict that most New Yorkers agree with?