Woman attacks 79 yr. old man on subway for reading from the bible.

[TheGreenHornet]

Typical New Yorkers do nothing to restrain this woman who got away but is now being searched for by the police. I will not mention the race of the woman but we all know.

The man does not appear to be white.

The video appears edited to avoid showing her face and the actual moment she hit the man and all the blood which required 30 stitches.

Removed link due to Spam

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I wonder how long she will last in lady jail before the lifers learn about why she is there.

God bless you and the man always!!!

Holly

 

[elongobardi]

Animals belong in a cage. Exactly where she belongs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[williepete]

Mathew 10-22

 

[cnm]

Not quite what the OP states. But that'll teach him for torturing captive audiences.

The 79-year-old man was delivering a sermon aboard a southbound No. 2 train headed toward 42nd Street-Times Square just after 10 a.m. Thursday when the 30-something woman removed her shoe and whacked him in the head, police said.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/25/subway-rider-used-her-stiletto-to-attack-elderly-preacher-cops/​

 

[Lysistrata]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

 

[pknopp]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

As far as we know, it disturbed one passenger.

 

[Lysistrata]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

As far as we know, it disturbed one passenger.

And? At his age, he should know how to behave in public. Haven't you ever been on a bus or subway? Perhaps sitting next to somebody yapping loudly on a cell phone? People shouldn't be rude on public transportation. This headline made it sound like this guy was just reading a book on his lap. Misleading. The people who were in that train car were not there to be some sort of audience for him. They were just going places.

 

[pknopp]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

As far as we know, it disturbed one passenger.

And? At his age, he should know how to behave in public. Haven't you ever been on a bus or subway? Perhaps sitting next to somebody yapping loudly on a cell phone? People shouldn't be rude on public transportation. This headline made it sound like this guy was just reading a book on his lap. Misleading. The people who were in that train car were not there to be some sort of audience for him. They were just going places.

And? And nothing. Rant away. I was simply correcting a statement.

 

[Blues Man]

Not quite what the OP states. But that'll teach him for torturing captive audiences.

The 79-year-old man was delivering a sermon aboard a southbound No. 2 train headed toward 42nd Street-Times Square just after 10 a.m. Thursday when the 30-something woman removed her shoe and whacked him in the head, police said.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/25/subway-rider-used-her-stiletto-to-attack-elderly-preacher-cops/​

Doesn't matter

it's still an assault and since it is an assault because of his religious beliefs it is technically a hate crime

 

[OldLady]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

These folks never shut up. We have a local proselytizer who used to come into the local diner and have an extremely LOUD "conversation" with the others at her table which was a sermon and could be heard by the entire restaurant. Now, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. If I want to eat my eggs over easy and read the paper, I go to the diner. The waitress would try to get her to quiet down, but within a minute she was back up to full volume. It was annoying as hell and I FELT like hitting her over the head with my shoe, though I didn't. Maybe if I was a New Yorker, I would have.

 

[Blues Man]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

These folks never shut up. We have a local proselytizer who used to come into the local diner and have an extremely LOUD "conversation" with the others at her table which was a sermon and could be heard by the entire restaurant. Now, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. If I want to eat my eggs over easy and read the paper, I go to the diner. The waitress would try to get her to quiet down, but within a minute she was back up to full volume. It was annoying as hell and I FELT like hitting her over the head with my shoe, though I didn't. Maybe if I was a New Yorker, I would have.

The difference there is that a diner is private property and the owners can ask any patron to leave if they are being disruptive.

There is never a good reason to assault an 80 year old man no matter what he is saying or where he is saying it

 

[CWayne]

So, the consensus seems to be that if you're loud about Conservative things, you need to be quiet. But if you're loud about progressive stuff, then its the first Amendment.

 

[sparky]

Thou shalt not wacketh with shoe

Sparky11.2....

 

[pknopp]

So, the consensus seems to be that if you're loud about Conservative things, you need to be quiet. But if you're loud about progressive stuff, then its the first Amendment.

Nobody has said that. Maybe you should check into these voices in your head?

 

[CWayne]

So, the consensus seems to be that if you're loud about Conservative things, you need to be quiet. But if you're loud about progressive stuff, then its the first Amendment.

Nobody has said that. Maybe you should check into these voices in your head?

No, they did not say it. My statement is what is termed, a 'Rhetorical statement'. I read the posts here, and from the tone and content, came to an opinion that because the old man was reading out loud from a bible in a public space, that everyone thought it was bad because it was from the bible.

On that very same subway train, I wonder how many liberal messages are on display that the rest of the world simply must 'tolerate'? If a person was reading out loud literature from something like a global warming brochure, would it then be acceptable to hit them in the head with a shoe? I'm thinking those who tend to lean left would not agree with that, yet they pay lip service to an old man being hit in the head because he is being, 'annoying'. I would find most left-leaning messages, spoken in a public space, to be annoying. But I would consider it wrong to hit these people with a shoe, or any other object, for speaking.

 

[OldLady]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

These folks never shut up. We have a local proselytizer who used to come into the local diner and have an extremely LOUD "conversation" with the others at her table which was a sermon and could be heard by the entire restaurant. Now, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. If I want to eat my eggs over easy and read the paper, I go to the diner. The waitress would try to get her to quiet down, but within a minute she was back up to full volume. It was annoying as hell and I FELT like hitting her over the head with my shoe, though I didn't. Maybe if I was a New Yorker, I would have.

The difference there is that a diner is private property and the owners can ask any patron to leave if they are being disruptive.

There is never a good reason to assault an 80 year old man no matter what he is saying or where he is saying it

He deserved a good boink over the head, if you ask me. But no, I wouldn't hit an old timer, either. Or anyone else. I think it's pretty ridiculous to sue over it, but there ya go--it's New York City.

 

[Jitss617]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

These folks never shut up. We have a local proselytizer who used to come into the local diner and have an extremely LOUD "conversation" with the others at her table which was a sermon and could be heard by the entire restaurant. Now, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. If I want to eat my eggs over easy and read the paper, I go to the diner. The waitress would try to get her to quiet down, but within a minute she was back up to full volume. It was annoying as hell and I FELT like hitting her over the head with my shoe, though I didn't. Maybe if I was a New Yorker, I would have.

I think you need god

 

[pknopp]

So, the consensus seems to be that if you're loud about Conservative things, you need to be quiet. But if you're loud about progressive stuff, then its the first Amendment.

Nobody has said that. Maybe you should check into these voices in your head?

No, they did not say it. My statement is what is termed, a 'Rhetorical statement'. I read the posts here, and from the tone and content, came to an opinion that because the old man was reading out loud from a bible in a public space, that everyone thought it was bad because it was from the bible.

Then you were reading things not there.

 

[pknopp]

The OP's headline is a bit misleading. It gave me the impression that this woman wacked him for reading a book. Lots of people bring reading materials on the subway, so I thought "wow, that sucks." But it turns out that he was putting on some show that was disturbing the rest of the passengers. I can't condone wacking him with a shoe. I would like to think that someone would ask him politely to stop and that he would stop.

These folks never shut up. We have a local proselytizer who used to come into the local diner and have an extremely LOUD "conversation" with the others at her table which was a sermon and could be heard by the entire restaurant. Now, if I wanted to hear a sermon, I would go to church. If I want to eat my eggs over easy and read the paper, I go to the diner. The waitress would try to get her to quiet down, but within a minute she was back up to full volume. It was annoying as hell and I FELT like hitting her over the head with my shoe, though I didn't. Maybe if I was a New Yorker, I would have.

The difference there is that a diner is private property and the owners can ask any patron to leave if they are being disruptive.

There is never a good reason to assault an 80 year old man no matter what he is saying or where he is saying it

He deserved a good boink over the head, if you ask me. But no, I wouldn't hit an old timer, either. Or anyone else. I think it's pretty ridiculous to sue over it, but there ya go--it's New York City.

Why is it ridiculous to sue for obvious damages?