Note that I’m not necessarily opposed to her facing consequences for killing him – my issue is with how gleefully NYPost is framing it as if she just attacked him out of the blue and shoehorning her into the “evil transgenders” stereotype
I’m opposed to her facing consequences for killing him. If it had been a white cis woman instead, we wouldn’t be here
Correct. You would not be defending a cisgender murderer. On the the “right side” gets to do whatever they want.
Look at all the heroic liberals blindly defending a psycho.
Read the fucking article
Most people are not defending her, but are instead upset by the blatantly bigoted framing of the article.
Read the fucking headline.
Uhhh. No I am actually seeing at least half of the conversation in here being about how they did nothing wrong and should have stabbed the post-worker.
Literally on my comment is someone making up a version of the story based in the OP version of the story to declare an innacurate version of this event.
Here’s a news source with an account of what allegedly happened. Of course nothing has been proven in court yet.
According to the charges, Hodge was at the store’s sandwich counter when Cruz cut in line, leading a dispute between the pair. After a witness separated them, Cruz allegedly went into their bag while Hodge’s back was turned, retrieved a knife and threatened him with it.
Prosecutors said Cruz then allegedly threw a plastic bottle at Hodge before lunging at him, stabbing him multiple times in the chest, neck, and arms. After a struggle in which Hodge attempted to wrestle the weapon away from her, he collapsed. A witness reported hearing Cruz remark: “He deserved it.”
Hodges was rushed to Harlem Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
“This alleged broad-daylight stabbing shook the neighborhood, including the deli workers and customers who witnessed the attack,” said District Attorney Bragg. “My thoughts are with those grieving the loss of Ray Hodge, a postal worker and beloved father of two.”
After her arrest, Cruz reportedly admitted to police that she stabbed Hodge with a knife she carried for “protection.” Cruz also allegedly referred to Hodge as a racial slur.
Not sounding good.
“He rolls up his sleeves, and then he hits my client, and every time he approaches her, she backs up. And he approaches her again, she backs up until she’s all the way at the refrigerator and then when he’s still berating her and calling her a f**got and a tranny, she spat at him,” Schuman said. “You can see on the video that she’s saying to him, leave me alone. But he doesn’t leave her alone. He attacks her again.”
So there is an alleged video with contradicts a lot of what the witnesses say. I’d be cautious of defending this one. If it turns out that the lawyer is just exaggerating an unclear video, youre probably going to get tricked into defending an awful person. Again.
Cruz (the stabber) plead guilty.
The stabbing isn’t the question, the question is whether it was self defense or murder.
Is this something that just happened? The article I linked says she admits she stabbed him, but pleads not guilty to the charge of murder, I believe on the grounds of self defense. Considering New York’s typical (extremely hostile) stance on self defense pleas I’d be surprised if the judge agrees though.
Can’t really expect better from that rag
The framing uses quotes from the vicrim impact statements from the family of the victim.
Did he attack her though? Seems from the articles I read that she spat on him first. That’s the attack.
It also seems she was arrested 5 times prior for knife crimes.
There’s 15 very big reasons that say it was certainly not self-defence.
“I separate them. The mail guy in the front, the lady she was in back. She spit on him, in his face. And mail guy, he got mad. Lemon juice next to the coffee machine, he threw on her. So she took the knife,” the deli worker said.
Witnesses claimed that, in an instant, Cruz pulled out a knife and fatally stabbed Hodge.
Yeah
Cruz stands a towering 6 feet 5 inches tall. Witnesses to the murder described her as huge, and said she appeared to be high on drugs during her confrontation with Hodges.
…
Well thanks for adding a +1 to the womens murder rate and not to mens, we need it
TBH this community is pretty consistent for these sort of takes. Rage no matter how impotent is welcome here, but they issue warnings to people who want to de-escelate and look at the facts.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There’s a reason they tell you NOT to use a knife in a self defense scenario. It is nearly impossible to defend especially if you kill the attacker.
I think you statistically have a better chance of getting away with “executioner style” shots with a gun than knife use in self defense.
Knives are tools not weapons.
A knife fight cuts everyone. That’s why it’s a shit weapon.
Not if you study the blade. Like me.
Kid. Don’t. Ok. Just dont
lol tough room
Nope just too many real edgelords. If you were joking, my apologies
I’m sorry your joke didn’t land, I, for one, snorted air out my nostrils quite handily.
Not everyone on the internet understands sarcasm unless you put a “/s” unfortunately.
Hey, clear handwritten correspondence used to be a thing, so the jokes were easy to see. Now everyone is just saying whatever, so it’s hard to tell
Also, there are real people who say that, so…
Identity politics are cancerous
She stabbed him because he was s mail man?
The fuck?
Not helping dude
How bad is your reading comprehension?
this post is complete dogshit. “self defense” my ass
deleted by creator
You can absolutely get murdered by an unarmed person
deleted by creator
So if an MMA fighter starts kicking your ass, you aren’t allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself because they are unarmed?
That’s complete bullshit.
How many manslaughter cases have there been where 2 people get in a fist fight and one of them gets brained on the concrete?
To be clear, the claim that it’s legally indefensible may be true, but your life is absolutely in danger in an unarmed fight
Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.
Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.
An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.
The jury doesn’t seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don’t repeat that nonsense that it can’t.
After getting hit 3 times?
deleted by creator
The person doesn’t have to have a weapon to be a threat to your lif. Based on your logic someone could say I’m going to beat you to death and go about doing it and 10 minutes later with 17 broken bones you’d have no case for self defense that doesn’t track at all.
I think you misunderstand
Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.
This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. “Being armed” does not negate your claim.
that’s every gun self defense claim ever othetwise
That’s easy to say when you’re not the one getting punched in the face repeatedly. You never know how far a violent person will go.
deleted by creator
The specifics of this case are irrelevant. You said multiple times that an armed person has no claim to self defense against an unarmed person and that is demonstrably and obviously untrue. The fact that you’re carrying a weapon doesn’t require you to tolerate unlimited violence by someone without a weapon. That’s crazy.
deleted by creator
You are not required to brandish a weapon because this isn’t a thing you should do outside of a movie. Waving around your gun means someone takes it from you.
This is even more laughable with a knife.
I’m not defending anything except my position that your assertion is incorrect. Brandishing a weapon with the intent to scare someone off is illegal in its own right in every jurisdiction I am familiar with in the US. You are giving bad advice and you need to educate yourself before you give what could be interpreted as legal advice.
You are defending someone
Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don’t constitute support for this woman.
If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats
I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.
You are conflating “threat” and “force”. They are distinct. A “threat” is an attempt to influence the subject’s decision to act, by making them fear a future action. “Force” is a physical action imposed on the subject.
A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject’s choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.
Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).
There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = “death or grievous bodily harm”) may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.
When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.
An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
armed people will never have a self defense claim against an unarmed person
Oh bullshit. 95lb woman against me, a 225lb man? If I were to attack a woman like that you are saying she shouldn’t be able to level the field.
deleted by creator
Go ask a criminal attorney if there’s a self defense claim
If you had ever followed that advice, you wouldn’t be repeating this nonsense. You would have learned the 6 general criteria required for a self defense claim, and that none of those criteria require the defender to be less-well-armed than the attacker.
This subject is too serious for your uninformed opinion. PM me your zip code, and I would be happy to find you a class on the laws regulating self defense.
But you’re making absolute statements and it’s just false.
deleted by creator
This is basically fabrication. For instance around here in WA a woman shooting a man attacking her was deemed self defense because he presented a threat of great bodily harm or death you know actual legal standards. If she didn’t use it her merely having the gun wouldn’t prevent said harm so she got a free pass to ventilate him.
He lived she didn’t go to jail
deleted by creator
Here is CBS’s coverage of the event:
A deli worker told CBS News New York that Hodge was ordering a sandwich when a woman at the counter got angry and began arguing with him over who was first in line to order. According to the deli worker, in that instant, the woman pulled out a knife and stabbed Hodge in the stomach. USPS confirmed Hodge was a letter carrier assigned to Manhattan.
It appears to have started over a dispute over who was first in line. It’s up to you to decide if that’s a rational reason to attack someone with a knife, regardless of your sexuality / gender identity.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/usps-worker-stabbed-to-death-in-harlem/
In this version nobody attacked her.
Ny post is still anti -trans regardless
Ahh the good ole broken post
You know something is up when they state that they are transgender when it bears no meaning to the actual article. This would be the same as “Gay man murdered people” the point is bigotry.
Yeah, you hardly ever hear Christian gunman kills X children at school.
Violently homosexual man brutalizes innocent bystander in gay rage.
You gotta mention that the innocent bystanders are straight, or else conservatives won’t know whether to feel sorry for them or be happy they were attacked.
Innocent God fearing all American red blooded heterosexual bystanders.
deleted by creator
That’s my point, gender has no relation to violent crimes, bringing it up in the headline is just bigoted
deleted by creator
This might be an important detail to put in the post, but in the headline? It makes no sense past bigotry
deleted by creator
I agree, OP makes it out like it wasn’t an extreme act of violence, even though it did start as self defence.
deleted by creator
it did start as self defence.
Was the mailman armed? If not i can’t really frame stabbing someone with a knife as self-defense.
The real story is “Mentally Ill Person with a History of Knife Crime Stabs Mail Carrier in Fight”
To the people who consider them being trans headline-worthy, “trans person” and “mentally-ill person” are synonyms.
If a WASP with a trump shrine and 20 guns has mental health issues and kills 4 people it’s mental health issues.
If anyone not fitting the conservative mold, even if they have mental health issues, kills people it’s about their differences from the mold that come first. “Mental health” might get a one line mention at the bottom of the article.
deleted by creator
My comment was regarding how the press, the Post in particular, handle crimes if they can get more views by making it about lgbtq. I had no intent to offer an unqualified diagnosis of the person in the OP article.
the article skips why, but it is actually extremely relevant…
Cruz’s attorney claimed his client, a transgender woman, lashed out against Hodges because the 36-year-old postal worker had made a slur “about her gender identity.”
….
Cruz claimed that Hodges had ridiculed her with homophobic remarks and struck her several times before she pulled a knife and fatally stabbed him.
She showed no remorse for her actions when interviewed by detectives at the 28th Precinct in Harlem.“I hope he’s maggot food,” Cruz told detectives, according to court documents. “I killed him laughing. Oh, well. I’ll piss on his grave.”.
Hodges had struck Cruz at least three times during the deli fight before she stabbed him, she claimed.“I told him, ‘You come to me and I’ll kill you,’” Cruz told investigators. “No motherf—ers are going to put their hands on me no more.
“He tried to mess with me because I’m trans, and I poked him up,” Cruz said.
In a world where cis men have been deemed not guilty for murdering trans people just because they couldn’t tell until they got to the sex, there is no way I’d hold a trans person guilty of murder for defending themselves from an ongoing assault that very well could have escalated to a murder against her.
The story seems to be all over the place so it’s hard to piece together.
Getting in a fight over who’s first for a sandwich though and her comments afterwards make her seem like she was looking for an opportunity for something like this.
the dude started attacking her in a full on hate crime…
if anyone starts attacking me in a sandwich shop, i am going for maximum damage… i’m not going to just hope they’ll stop attacking me, i will do my best to make it not possible for them to attack (although leaving is the first choice… if i can’t, i’m hurting them).
she has zero remorse, but i don’t imagine it’s the first time she’s been attacked for being trans.
Yea, as awful as the NY Post is for framing it this way, this ain’t about them being trans. She bought a knife, wanted to stab someone, picked a fight and continually escalated (she fucking spat on him, sorry but bodily fluids are an assault and the dude had every right to treat it as being hit) until she pulled a knife in an encounter she started.
Got hit three times before pulling a knife? Just cuz she was too fucking slow to stab him after the first hit like she wanted to.
Can’t believe there’s people defending this.
I’m guessing that people are defending transgenders in general and this shitbait NY post article frames it in. Away that isn’t too far off from insinuating that all trans are “pure evil”.
Hell, “trans” shouldn’t have been in the headline as it is of no consequence to what happened. Whatever the reason for the incident, she didn’t stab the guy because she’s trans. One human stabbed another, that one was trans or black or green for all I care doesn’t matter and it is very hard not to feel that this bit was added just to sow division amongst people
Duh, because it’s the NY Post. They are trash. That’s why most comments have even been prefacing statements about the defendant talking about how shitty the Post is.
deleted by creator
it’s a dogwhistle. they’re implying that trans people are mentally ill and that the postal worker is a victim of inaction with or indulgence in the trans population.
It’s the same reason why all the chuds started banging out about how violent trans people/leftists are when that trans man (
if i remember correctlyi did) shot up a school a year or so ago.despite the fact that the overwhelming amount of school shooters are cis right wing incels
deleted by creator
She bought a knife, wanted to stab someone
Sorry, but when a “news” journal is that deep into batshit clickbait propaganda, you can’t use other articles written by them as a source of truth. Hell the second article isn’t even an article it’s just a statement with no source, wrapped in acid.
I’m not saying she’s innocent or that it was called for, but there’s no reliable truth in that article other than the man is dead.
Guns aren’t allowed in New York, She’s trans, needs to protect herself. It was a steak knife, not exactly a weapon you use to fight someone for funsies.
If she was pure evil, she would have gotten 25 years. They gave her 15 because she was in the wrong, but it wasn’t black and white.
Here’s CBS.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/usps-worker-stabbed-to-death-in-harlem/
Keep being a heroic dumbass
well that’s a GREAT way to get blocked, don’t let the door hit ya!
For posting an article proving many points of your statement to be incorrect?
Do you find it unacceptable or rude just to correct you? Or just tone because you need people to only interact with you the way you want?
Nah, I already read half a dozen articles on it from outside the US.
It was the nasty little comment. There’s no excuse for that tone here. If you can’t argue in good faith without being nasty, they get blocked.
I had already read the take from several neutral news sources that had dug further and clarified their information without going out of their way to be pejorative.
Also of note, when arguing, you don’t just go nuh uh and post a single link for someone to read. My problem was clearly with the tone of the bad-faith source they originally used. But then, if you go and look at their post history, they’re just constantly trolling.
Their account has a lengthy history of negative karma, and I don’t have time for that. Honestly, none of us should put up with that. Block the people being nasty and move on.
Her case is over, she plead out, she is sentenced. she got a middle of the road sentence for the crime.
Now, let’s suppose we do cover that article that is in your own words, “proving many points of your statement to be incorrect”. What exactly do you say that disproves? It says it happened, that’s certainly not up for debate. It says Hodge died, and she was arrested and charged with murder. Then then paraphrase the deli managers statement “According to the deli worker, in that instant, the woman pulled out a knife and stabbed Hodge in the stomach.”
There isn’t anything in that article that is substantially against my statement. You should consider re-reading what I wrote and understand I didn’t claim she didn’t do it, and wasn’t in any case innocent.
But, if you go and read any one of the other articles, or, what has been listed otherwise in this post, (or the actual coverage of the evidence in the court case) There was back and forth. Spitting and insults were raised, tensions were high, he might have thrown a bottle at her and likely called her names. She threatened him before stabbing him.
Rich and another customer tried to intervene, but neither Cruz nor Hodge wanted to back down, Rich said. ‘I got in between them - twice,’ said Rich, who remembered another woman joining her and trying to get Hodge to stand down. ‘Don’t to this, you have a good job, let this go,’ Rich recalled the other woman saying. Rich said Hodge, however, took his coat off and said to Cruz, ‘You want to stab me?’
Yeah, she’s guilty AF, but it wasn’t premeditated. She has some psychological issues, but she’s not some satan hellspawn looking for people to stab. She needs help, it’s good that she’s off the street. It’s fucking Harlem man, if someone threatens to stab you, take em at their word.
You’re saying that framing trans people as evil sociopaths is based…?
I think the intent was ‘based girl standing up for herself to the point of killing a dude’, but I could be wrong.
I’m not sure what the specifics of the attack are but he probably didn’t need to be killed either?
deleted by creator
It’s about time normal people stood up to cishet supremacy.
deleted by creator
If the traitor was using slurs, it got what it deserved.
Hey calling them a slur is wrong but that’s not something to be fucking killed over
Sometimes decent folks gotta manage that crisis.
No Clue, I was just trying to speak to why the og commenter may be calling this based.
[annoying tiktok voice]
WOW such literacy skills
Does this mean they’ll put “cisgender” in the title for all the other criminals?
