THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE

Jordan Neely, a homeless man, was on a subway train reportedly threatening other passengers. In response, a Marine veteran, Daniel Penny, assisted by two others, was able to get Neely in a submission hold. Neely ended up dead, and Penny turned himself in to face criminal charges. New York Times

The case should be interesting. For sure, part of Penny’s defense will be that he was acting in self-defense. Anytime an incident like this occurs, it is a solid bet that some talking head will discuss the right to self-defense. What is this right, and how can a person apply it correctly? I can certainly address the first question. The second question is much more difficult.

Most people find the idea of self-defense to be self-evident, even instinctive. Throw a punch at someone, and they will duck, move to avoid or try to block it. They don’t want to be hit. So for most, the question isn’t whether a person can defend themselves, it’s to what extent a person can defend themselves. The death of the assailant is the penultimate price of self-defense. So when is this morally acceptable?

According to the Catholic Catechism,
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an
exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent
that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can
have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the
killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.
Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right
to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even
if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow… (par 2263-64)

Of course not everyone is Catholic, but I am, and this can certainly be used as a basis for a discussion of the concept. Self-love is a basis for the defense of one’s self. Based on what we read above, the intent of the defender is of great importance. If I am defending myself from an attack, is my intent to kill? Only I would know, and it’s certain that, in the moment, I may not know. Or I might think I know, then later think I didn’t know. People involved in a traumatic incident often experience one thought during an incident, only to have questions about it afterwards. This confusion is a natural occurrence, but doesn’t help us here.

So clearly Penny thought he needed to defend himself. I would argue that he did not intend to kill Neely. For this I call upon my own knowledge, having taught basic hand-to-hand combat skills in the U.S. Army. A person who intends to kill has several, more direct, methods of subduing a threat. Penny could use punches and kicks to help nullify the threat, which has the benefit of keeping Neely outside of the reach of the attacker. Penny could have used a weapon. New York City has stringent gun laws, so it would be unlikely that Penny would have had a gun, but he may have had a knife, or he could have grabbed any number of items from someone on the train to use as a weapon. A briefcase, a belt, a travel mug, any of these could be used as what the military calls a “field-expedient weapon”.

Instead, Penny closed with Neely, got behind him, and was using a submission hold. Many reports have called it a “choke hold” but this may be a misnomer. A choke hold in MMA impedes breathing, often causing damage to the trachea. In the video the point of Penny’s elbow is at Neely’s chin, which tells me that Penny’s goal was to clamp down on the carotid artery, causing Neely to temporarily black out, ending the struggle. That Penny put Neely in a recovery position on his side afterwards is another data point in favor of Penny. A person who is attempting to kill someone doesn’t worry about putting them in a recovery position. If I want them dead I don’t want them to recover. Closing with a person and submitting them to a submission hold is a difficult task. Most people shy away from close combat of any kind.

Worse case scenario, if Penny was in fear for his life, he could be justified in killing in self-defense. So was Penny in fear for his life? Penny is 24 and a Marine combat veteran. The easy trap to fall into is to think that such a man shouldn’t be afraid in such situations. The term ‘fear’ as used here doesn’t just mean the emotion of fear, but also fear as as an intellectual concept. Penny could conceivably have no fear during the confrontation, yet have a concern that Neely could take his life. A witness reported that Neely, “went on an explosive tirade just before his caught-on-camera death, telling people he was willing to “kill a motherf—-er” and “[take] a bullet” and go to jail.” NY Post This witness also stated, “Mr. Neely, he gave people cause to feel that their life was being threatened. He didn’t care. He said he didn’t care.” The witness was a 66-year old woman who thinks Penny is a hero.

Was Penny to wait until Neely actually attacked someone? Neely was reportedly throwing trash at people, and threatening to kill them. When is a reasonable time to intervene? After the attack? Before the attack? The trial, if indeed there is one, will address this question, to be settled by a jury of Penny’s peers.

My take is this. Penny acted to prevent a man from acting out on his threats. He attempted a submission hold, and Neely died. While the coroner has ruled the death a homicide, the actual reasons for Neely’s death have not been released as of the date of this blog. I think that Penny was justified in doing what he did. I am certain he did not go into this thinking he was going to kill Neely. Penny was defending himself and others from a man who was reportedly acting in an aggressive manner, and had made threats to kill.

A court of law will hopefully address the legal aspects of Penny’s actions, but I can’t help but think I would act in a similar manner should I, heaven forbid, be in a similar situation, especially if any of my family are present.