1/3/13

Police Announce Arrest in the Beating of Jewish Boy

Police have announced the arrest of a 13-year-old black teen, who was charged with assault and aggravated harassment in connection with the beating of Jewish boy on President Street. The motive behind the attack was not ‘knockout,’ rather bullying.

Around two weeks ago, we reported on the assault of a 12-year-old Jewish boy on President Street near Brooklyn Avenue. The victim was accosted by two black teens, one of whom punched him in the face.

This evening, police sources notified CrownHeights.info that detectives have made an arrest in connection with the incident. Police say that a 13-year-old black teen was arrested and charged with Assault in the 3rd Degree as well as aggravated harassment.

Due to the perpetrator’s age, he was released to the custody of his mother, but will have to return to court to answer these charges in two days from now, on the 27th.

Sources said that the ‘knockout’ game was ruled out as motive for the attack. Apparently the assailant’s friends bullied him into assaulting the victim. “His friends told him that if he did not hit someone he would not get any respect, and he was repeatedly made fun of until he did.”

The assailant lives in the nearby neighborhood of East Flatbush, and attends school in northern Crown Heights on S. Johns Place.

Video of the victim speaking to CBS2 about the attack:

 

42 Comments

  • 1. in support of a long moment of silence wrote:

    That thug wannabe deserves a long moment of silence in solitary confinement. Doing hard time in prison is sure to give him all the street cred he will ever need.

    Reply
  • 2. TZIVIA PEKKAR> {C.H.} wrote:

    B.H. This Black Teen done an Adult Crime, and therefore, he should do Adult Time, no Rachmonus.
    There are Juvenile Facilities, and he should be put there.

    Reply
  • 3. Now I feel safer wrote:

    Now I feel a little safer!
    Knowing justice has been done, might eliminate thugs from doing the same

    Reply
    • 7. My cousin knows her wrote:

      Milhouse claims it is a bubba maysa (because he believes Snoopes), except my cousin’s friend knows her. She has a license to carry a gun and is active in their neighborhood watch. She specifically asked that details of story, such as location, not be disclosed for fear of her safety.

      The reason Snoopes says the story is “false”:

      “The original source, awfbase.com, appears to be a site and forum where many stories are shared, some of which appear to be legitimate or semi-legitimate. But there is a lack of any location in this story. There is no street, city, or state listed as to where the purported incident took place.

      Second, the person who posted the story on the site is listed as “guy.” Not exactly reassuring.

      Third, besides awfbase.com, the story has only appeared on forums and on alternative news sites that mostly aggregate stories–some of which are false.

      No legitimate media entities have covered this story. With knockout game stories getting such heavy coverage over the past few weeks, a story of this magnitude would be likely be splashed across mainstream media.”

      Each of these “proofs” can be explained EASILY.

      There was a story that came out recently about a teen who tried to knock out a man in Lansing, Michigan as part of the knockout game. But he failed, and the man shot the teen twice. The teen was then sentenced to a year in jail.
      http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/366605-marvell-weaver-fails-at-knock-out-game-gets-shot-and-arrested/

      When Milhouse reads something on line, he paskens based on that, and then he shares it with everyone as a “fact”.

    • 8. Troll Patrol wrote:

      Thank you for putting troll Milhouse in his place. I would further suggest to just ignore him. He’s a troll who really doesn’t care about this or any other issue and is just looking to provoke a reaction from well-intentioned people.

    • 9. Identify Milhouse wrote:

      Can you give me his name? He seems to know torah, halacha, chassidus and secular all in one.

    • 10. Milhouse wrote:

      LIAR. You are a damned liar. There is no woman, and there is no cousin who knows her, there is just you and your stinking LIES.

      The woman “asked” that the location not be disclosed? Really?! Whom exactly did she ask this of? If it had really happened, if she had really killed two people, there would have to be a police investigation and report, and a DA’s decision on whether to charge her; how could she possibly keep that secret? There is no way this could possibly be kept out of the local paper.

      The Snopes team a reputable and competent; you are neither. If Snopes says something is false, it takes a lot of evidence to prove them wrong, not some ridiculous claim that your cousin knows her, which will inevitably turn into the lady who does your cousin’s nails said her sister-in-law’s postman kind of heard of something like this.

      When a first class troll like you calls other people trolls, it’s not funny, it’s sad.

    • 11. Troll Patrol wrote:

      I think he goes by Moshiach ben David but I’m not positive.

      Please don’t respond to his last rant, as tempting as it may be.

    • 14. Sticks and stones will break my bones wrote:

      Milhouse resorts to name calling when he is loss of a logical response. Names will not hurt me. Especially, kol haposel – b’mumo posel.

    • 15. Milhouse wrote:

      The Truth is the only logical response. I always tell the truth, you always lie. You know damn well that this woman doesn’t exist, and there is no cousin who knows her. You lie for fun. You lie because it gives you a perverted pleasure. The gemoro says a person doesn’t do an aveira for no profit; you are clearly an exception to that rule, a mumar lehach’is, who lies for no other reason but to upset those who care about the truth.

    • 16. Selective reading wrote:

      Notice how Milhouse ignores the truth as posted earlier:

      There was a story that came out recently about a teen who tried to knock out a man in Lansing, Michigan as part of the knockout game. But he failed, and the man shot the teen twice. The teen was then sentenced to a year in jail.
      http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/366605-marvell-weaver-fails-at-knock-out-game-gets-shot-and-arrested/

      Then Milhouse claims that HE is the keeper of the truth by calling everyone else a liar and whatever other name calling this child conceives during his tantrum.

    • 17. Milhouse wrote:

      You lie and lie and then try to hide your lies. Yes, the story in Lansing happened, and was widely reported by legitimate news sources, and nobody has ever disputed that it happened. The assailant survived. This story, however, that we are discussing, is a complete bobbe maiseh, and YOU KNOW IT VERY WELL. You don’t have a cousin who knows the woman in the fake story, because there is no woman for your cousin to know. The story is ridiculous, and no sane person could possibly believe it. But you just lie, for no reason at all.

  • 19. Leah wrote:

    Get a life! What a cope out blaming it on others, an evil teenager becomes an evil adult and absolutely didn’t care one iota of the pain he caused an innocent boy… what’s wrong with this picture????
    Yes, he deserves to go to jail not solitary confinement, real time where there they beat anyone up for absolutely no reason

    Shalom is right we need to instill in them the fear of
    G-d by the one moment of silence.. Baruch Hashem you are alright we all love your family very much

    Reply
  • 22. Fed Up wrote:

    All right, it is good to hear that the 13 year old coward was arrested! The book should be thrown at him, no going easy on him because he is “only a kid”. To his mother, don’t try and tell the world that your son is a good boy because he is not. He is a rotten worthless piece of garbage, who should be thrown into a cell where he belongs. Hopefully that will scare him straight!

    Reply
  • 24. hat_glasses_beard wrote:

    Oh no, so now the kid is going to get off light because of the bullying. Fantastic.

    Dont get me wrong, assuming that is true the kid does deserve some sort of understanding (although crime is…crime) but I sure hope the cops will go after the kid(s) who bullied him. Last thing we need is THAT to grow into an epidemic!

    Reply
  • 26. Milhouse wrote:

    Sources said that the ‘knockout’ game was ruled out as motive for the attack. Apparently the assailant’s friends bullied him into assaulting the victim. “His friends told him that if he did not hit someone he would not get any respect, and he was repeatedly made fun of until he did.”

    Nu, what do you think “knockout” is, if not this?

    Reply
    • 27. The Intent wrote:

      There is a HUGE distinction between hitting someone just for the amusement of hurting someone, and being pressured by others to do something out-of-character until one reluctantly succumbs to the pressure.

      However, if the police actually believe this to be true, that the others pressured the perp to strike the victim, then the others are aiding and abetting, therefore this is grounds to charge them too.

    • 28. Milhouse wrote:

      “Aiding and abetting”?! Do you think that using fancy words without knowing their meaning makes you seem smart? They neither aided nor abetted him; if his story is true, they did incite him, and could be charged with that.

      But the whole “knockout” phenomenon from the beginning has obviously been about teenagers proving their manhood to each other, which is exactly what this report says. If he didn’t accept this dare nobody would respect him, which is probably the plain truth.

    • 29. Just like hiring a hit man wrote:

      The hiring makes you a legal party to the crime. The get away driver or look out is party to the crime. The one who actively encourages a crime has legal culpability. (That might be a fancy word, so look it up in Black’s Legal Dictionary – and while there, look up definition of “party”).

    • 30. Milhouse wrote:

      No, it is not at all like hiring a hit man. Hiring someone to do something aiding him; moreover, he is doing it for you, as your agent, and you are equally culpable. Merely telling someone to do something doesn’t help him do it, and isn’t even illegal at all, unless (as is alleged in this case) he is whipped up into such a frenzy that he does it immediately while under your influence, before having a chance to think about it for himself. If that is the case,then you are guilty of incitement, but nothing more.

  • 31. to #1 wrote:

    he is not a wanna b thug he is just putting on a show in court…”his freinds made him do it.or else he would not get respect”and thats why all the thugs just go right back to what they where doing(harassing our community) this needs to b put to an end!!! moshiach were are you!!!

    Reply
  • 32. JD wrote:

    Milhouse, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

    An accomplice in this case would most likely be charged with a second degree offense but not in the form of incitement. It’s usually referenced as a crime of assault and/or conspiracy, which is more closely related to aiding and abetting. I’ve worked as a city prosecutor for nearly 16 years.

    Reply
    • 33. Milhouse wrote:

      In what way did they aid him, or abet him, you fool? If you’re a prosecutor, no wonder the city’s going to the dogs. If it can be proven that they incited him, then their crime is incitement. It’s as simple as that.

    • 34. JD wrote:

      Conspiracy is actually considered MORE egregious than aiding/abetting; that is, one charged with conspiracy by definition aided and abetted AND ALSO actively did something to advance the crime event.

      Milhouse said: “If it can be proven that they incited him, then their crime is incitement. It’s as simple as that.” WRONG! That’s about as intelligent as pinning misdemeanor battery charges on an accomplice to murder.

      If it can be demonstrated that they incited him, the DA will want to know if the inciter could have done something to prevent the crime. If he could have and didn’t, he will be charged with conspiracy (and, in this case, quite possibly a second degree hate crime assault charge, as well).

      Milhouse, you are really out of your league here. The only reason I’m responding here is to give people some clarity against your misinformed ramblings.

    • 35. Milhouse wrote:

      First of all, whether conspiracy is more or less egregious than aiding and abetting, it isn’t aiding and abetting. It’s a different crime. Even if they can be charged with conspiracy (which I doubt) that would not justify your claim that they can be charged for aiding and abetting, which they did not do.

      Second, the definition of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to jointly commit an illegal act. Here there was no such agreement; the inciters had no intention of hitting the kid, they wanted the object of their incitement to do it on his own, to prove his manhood.

      As you just wrote, they must have “actively [done] something to advance the crime event”. In this case, what did they do? Nothing. Speech is not an overt act. They didn’t give him a weapon, or transport him to the scene, or assist him in any other way. They just told him to do it, and he did it. That’s not conspiracy, it’s not being an accomplice, it’s incitement. If his story holds up, the elements of incitement are all there (unlike in most cases where people call for an incitement charge).

  • 36. Semantics shtus wrote:

    What’s this semantics game? Does it really make a difference if the motive was a knockout copycat or bullying. He comitted an assault, so he should be punished just the same, regardless.

    Reply
  • 37. JD wrote:

    Milhouse, now you’ve made up legal definitions to make yourself appear knowledgeable.

    For the last time, conspiracy IS a form of aiding/abetting, but NOT the other way around. So yes, if he’s charged with conspiracy he also aided and abetted, but the DA wouldn’t charge him with the latter because the former is more egregious. Comprende?

    Second the LEGAL definition of conspiracy is not so simple. It can also be applied to someone who had knowledge of an impending crime and didn’t act to prevent its occurrence. Comprende?

    How do you know the alleged “inciter” didn’t offer some tangible reward to the perp? That would not only constitute conspiracy but also necessitate reciprocal charges for the accomplice.

    If the prosecution can demonstrate in any way that the accomplice was compensated for the crime then he will likely be convicted of conspiracy, if not worse.

    Milhouse, if your goal is to actually learn something then you’ll need to develop better listening and comprehension skills. However, if you’re purpose is to simply feel good about yourself by putting others down then I can’t help you.

    Reply
    • 38. Milhouse wrote:

      What are you going on about? The legal definition of conspiracy is exactly as I gave it. I didn’t make it up.

      You claim that ” someone who had knowledge of an impending crime and didn’t act to prevent its occurrence” can be charged with conspiracy. That’s bull. There is no duty to prevent crimes by other people. Someone with knowledge of an impending crime has every right to sit on his bum and let it happen. It’s none of his business. He certainly doesn’t become a conspirator or an accomplice by doing so.

      Yes, if he offered the criminal a physical reward, then he would be an accomplice. But there’s no indication that the inciters offered anything but their approval and respect, and that makes them innocent of the crime itself. The only thing they did wrong, if the assailant is to be believed, is incitement.

    • 40. Milhouse wrote:

      JD, yesterday I checked my understanding with several experienced lawyers, including a retired judge, and they confirmed that I was correct.

Leave Comment

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.