Top Menu

Brothers stabbed man for speaking Arabic during family walk in Brooklyn

NYC Crime Scene

People are Arab, not “Arabic,” a language, which if spoken in the wrong place these days, can lead to assault with a deadly weapon.


Via Daily News:

Two brothers stabbed a man in his stomach for speaking Arabic as he walked with his wife and 5-year-old son in Brooklyn, authorities said Thursday.

Erick Pastuizaca, 18, and Manuel Pastuizaca, 19, allegedly stabbed the 41-year-old man as he walked on 41st St. near Sunset Park around 2:30 p.m. on Oct. 16, according to a complaint filed in Brooklyn Criminal Court.

“I’m going to stab you because you’re Arabic and deserve it,” Manuel allegedly said.

The man survived and the brothers face charges including assault as a hate crime.

, , , , , , ,

  • Friend of Bosnia

    Many of the so-called self-styled “Islam critics” post messages so dripping of bloodthirsty hate, blind rage, bigotry, fascism, racism, inhumanity, genocide, falsehood, outright lies that I can only ask myself why does God allow such people to live. I would love to see to it that such people suffer exactly the same degree and quantity of cruelty they so callously vest on others. I think such people will, given the chance, go out and kill, maim, rape and rob people who happen to be Muslims. It’s such people who committed the worst atrocities during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Sure, many were Serb soldiers or policemen, but many more were just ordinary law-abiding and God-fearing folks who behaved like mad dogs towards their Bosniak nbeighbors and friends as soon as they got the message that the Muslims were “dangerous enemies” and that the Serbs could do to them anything they wanted.
    So. I’m very wary about people who espouse a war-like and aggressive rhetoric against Muslims, and who hold all Muslims collectively guilty of all evil currently going on in the world. Also those who say that Islam is essentially evil. Because they mean that all Muslims are essentially evil. To me they are all potential genocidals and mass murderers. The world would be better off without them. And I can’t trust the state institutions to protect me. I mean if they can’t protect me from ordinary criminals. And history has shown more thzan once that the state itself and its institutions can become criminal as well.

  • Friend of Bosnia

    Yes, either way I lose. I get killed or sent to jail. So far I have been lucky; people here in my neighborhood are all right. What worries me is when I go somewhere else. My wife wears Hijab, not because I have ordered her but because she was raised that way. I have told her that it’s her decision.
    The way things have become I’m actually glad that my daughter is very secular and I hope she will stay that way.
    I can only hope my luck will not run out.
    People should learn not to hate what they don’t understand. Muslims are not more or less evil than other people.
    Also, the Wahhabi inspired islamist fanatics and the xenophobic genocidals and fascists are truly two sides of the same coin. To those who say that the European rightists don’t commit suicide bombings I say the methods are different but the idea is the same: to suppress what does not fit into their views.
    But it is pointless to discuss with those disgusting half-idiots (please note that I’m not referring to you; you discuss things reasonably.)

  • Captain Scorpio

    Not suggesting that at all. I hope neither ever happens. Just that the reason people may feel free to hurt you is the same reason you face the likelihood of injustice from the state; it’s all part of the same machine. I’m not ssaying you shouldn’t arm yourself, just noting that our society puts you in a place where it is very difficult to win, so whatever you do, do so with care and caution. I wish you luck.

  • Friend of Bosnia

    1. I was only asking.
    2. So I must allow myself to be stabbed to death before anybody will do anything for me? Too bad I’m not 210 cm tall and 1 m across the shoulders; too bad I don’t have an elite soldier’s training and thus the ability to disable a potential attacker with my bare hands.
    3. I don’t trust justice. Judges and prosecutors are always only concerned about the perpetrator, not the victim. It’s zeitgeist that priority is to reintegrate the perpetrator into society, no matter how futile this is, how evil he is. Who has ever become a victim of a violent attack, be it for robbery or out of political motives, is left to fend for himself. Should anybody do me, my wife or my daughter irreversible physical harm then I want to do the same to him. Because no money could compensate me, besides I’d never get any money from my attacker. Because even if there was a judicial order to compensate me, then they suddenly don’t have any.

    Justice is for the state, not for the victims of violence. Sure, it is necessary to enforce certain norms without which people just couldn’t live together, but it invariably fails to help the victims of violence. On the contrary if I act in legitimate self-defense they’d rather do me in for murder.

    I don’t ever want to find myself in that poor man’s place; or of that poor woman who had a beer mug smashed in her face just for speaking her maternal language. People who do such things deserve at least the trashing of a lifetime, or to be kicked in the butt so hard they’ll never forget it. Not like today, allowed to get away with murder.

  • Captain Scorpio

    I would only caution you to bear in mind what police (and others) will assume if they arrive and see you with a gun. I’m sorry you’re left with such choices.

  • Jekyll

    then please don’t

  • jini man

    Pure Hate Crime. Lock the loser brothers for life.

  • JuiceZak

    This sounds so hilarious 😉 … too bad they didnt stab the Arab animal right at the heart and send the shit right to Allah ,,, dead to you,muslim animals

  • Jekyll
  • ShunTheRightWhale

    If you define terrorism as spreading terror with a political agenda, Breivik certainly qualifies. I’d like to call him a terrorist too, but the term so often used, that like racism (essentialism in a biological category), the term becomes a mere label or worse an insult. Terrorist cases are for example the IRA in Northern Ireland, RAF and NSU in Germany and ETA in Basque Country. In most cases these are networks of groups cultivating extremist thought (having a political model ruling out any compromise) in a vicious circle (thinking the more extreme one’s thought the purer or closer to the ultimate truth) leading to the conclusion that, since large numbers are lacking, instilling fear through ruthless inhuman actions (terror through random or targeted (mass) killings, attacks, abductions, violence etc.) is the only viable option, because in their thought all not conforming to their ideas forfeit their status as humans (very often they see themselves as the vanguard for the supressed or blinded masses). It’s exactly the same process of mental isolation like the lone wolves, except there is no social dynamic.

    Most often in Western media, if you hear something about terrorism it’s the Islamist variant and the favorites these days are ISIS, the Taliban and Boko Haram… Al Quaida is is a more typical example of terrorism, but the first three seem to have a paramilitary militia as their core, first two have territorial ambitions, that’s rather atypical of terrorism. Boko Haram employs terrorist tactics in the South of Nigeria, ISIS seems to have a terrorist branch and uses terror as the fundament of their “Public Relations”, primarly based on their own territory, so social isolation is not given, they are the dominating force there.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I don’t think I can agree that actions with the goal of spreading terror isn’t terrorism without an organization, but otherwise I’m with you here.

    I’m perfectly happy to call someone who stabs a Muslim with the purpose of scaring other Muslims a terrorist, or someone who committed an act of terrorism, whether the attacker is part of some organization or is a “lone wolf” or if they are encouraged by “unorganized” calls for stabbings.

    Still, I think that’s mostly semantics but we are in agreement on the broader points.

  • ShunTheRightWhale

    Every crime has a social dimension, many have a political dimension too. A series of stabbings, let’s say against blacks or Muslims would have the goal of spreading terror (Fear us, because you can be the next!), the stabbers would not have enough power/interest to kill every person in question. As long there’s no organization (be it a global network or a state) behind the terror, terrorism is not the right term. But the quality of the deeds would be the same.

  • Cowabunga Creeper

    That’s what I call

    (•_•) /

    ( •_•)>⌐■-■

    / (⌐■_■)

    A jewel of a shot…

    YEAAAaaahh… -ahem- I’ll see myself out…

  • Dr.S
  • HSkol

    I haven’t fully read above (just a quick eyeball), but intend to as my schedule permits. I just wanted to squeak a comment in this morning. I did wish to note that in my view racism in America is (or, at least appears to be) politically motivated in most instances – fearful white nationalists trying to preserve and establish a white priority that encompasses a nation’s sense of identity. This, of course, places itself directly in the face of non-white, non-Traditional-Christian, non-European persons – you know, those “obstacles”. I don’t know how one might get more political than that. I would suspect your view is similar, though likely more nuanced and well thought out.

  • Just_Stopping_By


    But what about stabbing people of a certain race or other characteristic for political purposes? What if the attacker here thought that it would discourage “Arabic” immigration: racist or political, or both?

  • ShunTheRightWhale

    Former would be a hate crime, latter an assassination.

    If you look at the media, open depictions of racist stabbings as cool are seldom (in which the stabbed person is the victim), because anonymous slaughter generally comes with a misanthropic feeling. Assassinations are thought of as bad as long as it’s the American President, but otherwise as a cool thing with a longstanding tradition and dramaturgical quality (most famously the tyrannicide).

    Assassinations can be more easily justified as a deed for the greater good and have generally further reaching consequences. Stabbing of people because of certain biological or cultural traits requires a justification that ties moral characteristics to these traits, so that the victim is not individually, but as part of a collective to be held responsible. That might sound as if hate crimes are more diffcult to legitimate, but humans easily categorize social groups/societies as single entities.

    Technically the deeds are the same, but the societal background varies greatly (from anonymous people to political leaders). I don’t think deadly violence is an appropriate option as long as the lives of others aren’t endangered and in this aspect at least assassinations may claim a legitimate cause, but (moral) responsibility concerning hierarchies is often not as simple as it seems.

  • MichaelElwood

    Ralph Adamo has said it before here on Loonwatch, so let me say it again for him. The Ralph Adamo who posts Islamophobic garbage here is not the same as the poet from New Orleans. :-)

Powered by Loon Watchers