Man douses subway rider with flaming liquid on downtown NYC train

[rangerrebew]

AMERICAN NEWS May 26, 2024
Man douses subway rider with flaming liquid on downtown NYC train
"I protect my fiancée with my body.”
 
Sara Higdon
May 26, 2024
 

On Saturday, 49-year-old Nile Taylor was arrested after allegedly throwing an unknown flammable substance at a man on the New York City subway who shielded his fiancée from the attack, which caused severe burns on his body. 

According to ABC 7, Taylor was charged with assault, arson, and reckless engagement, along with petty larceny and criminal possession of a weapon.



In an interview with the New York Post, the victim of the attack, 23-year-old Petrit Alijaj said, "I protect my fiancée with my body.” He added that he was on the No. 1 train with his fiancée and cousin heading to see the Statue of Liberty.

"He had a cup," Alijaj described the incident. He said it had something inside, "like oil, he made a fire and threw it all."

https://thepostmillennial.com/man-douses-subway-rider-with-flaming-liquid-on-downtown-nyc-train#google_vignette

[GtHawk]

And since it's New York this POS will be back out on the street almost immediately

[Fishrrman]

Is it them again, Yogi...?
(no need to look)

[berdie]

I'm impressed he protected his fiance.

[Kamaji]

Nile Taylor should have been charged with attempted murder, and with a hate crime.

[GtHawk]

Nile Taylor should have been charged with attempted murder, and with a hate crime.

This kind of thing keeps happening and eventually someone or someones in the public will start doing the job police aren't allowed to.

There are places, like in parts of Los Angeles, in California I don't feel safe and carry for protection....and I don't have a CCW. I'd rather be alive, and un maimed defending myself in court than be sitting in a cremation urn.

[Kamaji]

This kind of thing keeps happening and eventually someone or someones in the public will start doing the job police aren't allowed to.

Yes they will.  It'll be another one of these guys:

[DCPatriot]

The original headline read:  "Man sets strap hanger on fire..." 

I thought...WTF??   

Now today, I read the SCOTUS is considering an emergency session to end all gun permits....when they mean "...as a requirement to conceal carry them"

Again...WTF???

[GtHawk]

The original headline read:  "Man sets strap hanger on fire..." 

I thought...WTF??   

Now today, I read the SCOTUS is considering an emergency session to end all gun permits....when they mean "...as a requirement to conceal carry them"

Again...WTF???

Well I don't think there was ever a requirement for a permit to carry a gun concealed or open during the period that comes under the Bruen decision test, of course I think the best New Yorkers(or other blue state residents) can hope for is that the permit policy is less restrictive.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/the-bruen-decision-and-concealed-carry-licenses

The Supreme Court in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen1 considered the constitutionality of a portion of New York’s handgun licensing regime relating to concealed-carry licenses for self-defense. The laws at issue in the case generally required a New York resident wishing to possess a firearm in public to get a “carry” license authorizing concealed carry, which typically required the license applicant to show “proper cause” —for carry unrelated to specific purposes like hunting or target practice, a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” 2

The lower court in Bruen upheld the challenged laws based on the two-step inquiry described above,3 but in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed.4 The majority opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, began by addressing the proper standard for evaluating Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations and rejected the two-step framework that “combines history with means-end scrutiny.” 5 In the majority’s view, the two-step approach was inconsistent with Heller, which focused on text and history and “did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” 6 As such, the Court concluded that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is rooted solely in text and history, stating the test as follows: