Daniel Penny’s Attorney SLAMS Prosecutors For Disparate Treatment Between His Client and Subway Shooter

On Friday, Thomas Kenniff, the attorney representing Daniel Penny, expressed his frustration with the disparate treatment of his client compared to Younece Obuad, a man who allegedly shot an aggressive subway rider earlier this week in what New York City prosecutors deemed “self-defense.” While Kenniff was pleased that Obuad was not charged, he found it “absolutely frustrating” that Penny faced charges for his actions in a similar situation last year.

In May 2022, Penny, a Marine veteran, restrained Jordan Neely, a homeless man who was allegedly threatening passengers on a subway car. Neely later died, and Penny was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Kenniff argued that his client’s actions were comparable to Obuad’s, as Penny used a “restraint move” to subdue Neely with the intention of holding him until police arrived.

The recent subway shooting incident involved 36-year-old Dajuan Robinson and 32-year-old Younece Obuad. According to video footage, Robinson initiated a verbal altercation with Obuad, hurling racial slurs and threats. The situation escalated into a physical fight, with Robinson punching Obuad several times before bystanders intervened. Robinson then reportedly pulled out a handgun, prompting Obuad to wrestle the weapon away and shoot Robinson four times in self-defense. Robinson remains in critical condition.

Kenniff highlighted the similarities between the two incidents, emphasizing that Penny’s approach to the situation with Neely was more controlled and less violent than Obuad’s. He argued that squaring off with an individual, as seen in the recent video, can lead to dangerous escalation, particularly when the presence of weapons is unknown.

The contrasting legal outcomes for Penny and Obuad raise questions about the consistency and fairness of the justice system in handling cases of self-defense on public transportation.

While the specific details of each case may differ, the apparent disparity in treatment underscores the need for a thorough examination of the factors that influence charging decisions and the application of self-defense laws.