Atlantic City Man Arrested After Video Show Him Taunting And Assaulting Homeless Woman

Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 8.56.54 PMIbn Hunter, 25, is one person that Atlantic City could do without. Hunter was arrested after he starred in a vicious video posted on YouTube where he taunts and then knocks out a 45-year-old homeless woman. The videotape below is disgusting and all the more disturbing by the utter lack of reaction of people around them.

Hunter is shown standing in front of the victim and asking her: “I ain’t gonna do what? I ain’t gonna grab you? I ain’t gonna do what?”

A person off camera joins the taunting and says: “She said you ain’t gonna smack her, dog.”

Hunter then stares into the camera and decks the woman as the cameraman yells “Bing! and “It’s over.”

The role of the cameraman should result in his arrest as well since he is actively participating in the creation of a videotape (which appears the strong motivation of Hunter). They appear joined in a common purpose to assault the woman while filming the crime.

The woman suffered severe head trauma. She was eventually upgraded to serious but stable condition.

Hunter was arrested on a warrant for aggravated assault. Not surprisingly he has a long criminal history with prior convictions for drugs and theft, including five adult convictions for burglary, robbery and drug possession. He racked up his first cocaine conviction at the age of 16.

It is not clear if an individual identified as Bdsp BroadDay was the man who filmed the crime, but police are trying to find him. BroadDay said on the web that the woman had tried to spit on Hunter.

The joy shown by Hunter in the taunting and assault of this woman should weigh heavily in my view on sentencing. I consider this type of criminal to be the most dangerous to society — someone who enjoys causing and watching the pain of defenseless individuals. It is conduct that should push a sentence to the very top of the discretionary scale for a court in my view.

184 thoughts on “Atlantic City Man Arrested After Video Show Him Taunting And Assaulting Homeless Woman”

  1. Steg – No offense taken. I think we were kind of agreeing with each other on certain points but not fully understanding each other? Maybe we’ll talk again in another thread.

  2. Steg – We’re arguing past each other and this thread is pretty much dead, so adios!

  3. ringhals – You’re still missing the point. I think I understand what you are saying though. You are saying that even if the reciprocity clause applied to firearms, the states would still be allowed to make their own unique regulations relating to them- as in the case of cars- and that we would still have to be aware of them.

    Also in the article is the big difference “There is no statement in the Bill of Rights that gives you the right to drive a car, but there is one for keeping and bearing arms.”. Since ‘owning and operating a motor vehicle as licensed by the state’ is not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, it falls under the scope of government’s power. Traveling is something which will definitely effect directly other people other than the traveler. Some places like dense cities need more careful motor vehicle regulation than a sparse town.

    Carrying a gun (any weapon, arms is short for armaments, look it up) is explicitly a protected right, yet it is treated with much vitriol. Break a ‘law’ regarding your inalienable right, and you could be a felon, or maybe just spend a good number of years behind bars. All because I drove through NJ with a PA legal rifle in my trunk.

    Now, if I turned on red in a state where I wasn’t supposed to, would I get the beat down a legal gun owner would get for making a mistake in NJ? Probably not. Yet if I walk with a handgun on my hip it effects nobody directly- like if I were driving a 3000 pound vehicle- if not paying attention to my route, and the ten million other people on the road, could result in serious death and destruction.

    The handgun on the hip does not cause me to crash when I daydream, or direct my attention to butterflies on the flowers. Yet the explicitly protected right is treated as a monster, less than dirt, inhuman, insane- when the real dangers lie elsewhere.

  4. Paul – Oh, c’mon! Sure, we have the right to representation by two senators but there are state voting and elections laws to ensure fair and free (presumably) elections, no?

    We have a constitutional right to own firearms for our personal protection, but that doesn’t mean that states can’t enact reasonable licensing requirements in the interest of public safety. “Reasonable” is up to the courts to decide if a law is challenged. That’s how it works here.

    1. riinghals – Inga would find it ‘reasonable’ that the homeless be restricted from owning a firearm. Would you agree?

  5. Steg – I didn’t miss your point. The article you linked to gives an example: “…And just as with the driver’s license, each state sets their own requirements for…what kind of activity is legal. Some states allow right turns on red and some states allow the open carry of long guns without a license.”


    “The basic rules of the road are the same among all the states. For example, people have to drive on the right side of the road and obey the speed limits in every state. However, many states differ on the more detailed aspects of driving. It is very important to check your state’s driving laws each time you move or travel across state lines to make sure you do not end up with an expensive ticket.”

    This would undoubtedly hold true for concealed carry permits as well.

  6. You miss the point. My one license is good in every state. What traffic laws are you talking about? Driving on the left vs right? Stop lights? Road signs? Speed limits? Pedestrian right of way?

    1. Steg – your licence is not only good in every state, but in every country. Although there is an International Drivers licence, it is just a translation of your licence into a variety of languages.

  7. Steg – Traffic laws differ from state to state, you do indeed need to know and follow the law.

  8. ringhals – The original paragraph I quoted from the article shows the idea. This is that the full faith and credit clause is already applied to cars, so that I don’t need to learn new rules and regulations to drive in a different state. The author is indeed debunking the idea that guns should be treated like cars, yet if you read again the quoted paragraph you see he would actually be in favor of it.

    You said, ” Of course, you’d still be responsible for learning and complying with another states gun laws and restrictions.”

    That is what the article is saying would not be necessary. The full faith and credit clause. If my gun is good here, it is good anywhere.

  9. Steg – “That’s the argument being debunked.” Not sure what you’re saying here? The way I read the article the author is trying to debunk that guns should be treated like cars. As an aside, he argues that if we did so then concealed carry licenses should be treated like drivers licenses are nationally. That might be a fair point, if enough states allowed concealed carry.

  10. Rick & DBQ – “A 2001 study analyzing the firearm tracing data of crime guns recovered in 25 U.S. cities revealed that states with some form of both registration and licensing have greater success keeping firearms initially sold by dealers in the state from being recovered in crimes than states without such systems in place. This data suggests that licensing and registration laws make it more difficult for criminals, juveniles and other prohibited purchasers to obtain guns, and help ensure that firearm owners remain eligible to possess their weapons.”

  11. Steg – I wouldn’t have a problem with concealed carry licenses being treated like driver’s licenses in interstate travel. Of course, you’d still be responsible for learning and complying with another states gun laws and restrictions.

  12. Paul – Constitutional rights are not absolute. There are restrictions on speech, for example.

    1. ringhals – some Constitutional rights ARE absolute. Every state has two Senators. That is absolute.

  13. Also, it seems reasonable to require a record of transfer of ownership, like the title to a car, for *all* gun sales

    @ ringhals

    That IS required in California. Want to bet how many gang bangers, illegal aliens, felons and just regular folks who want to give grandpa’s gun to the grandson actually comply with that law?

    Go ahead. We’ll wait.

  14. “Actually, come to think of it, I’d like it if this aspect of guns were treated as if it were cars we were talking about. I can use my driver’s license in any state in the union, and the “full faith & credit” clause of the Constitution means that it’s valid. I don’t need to double check if my Texas driver’s license is valid in New York, and I don’t need an out-of-state driver’s license to drive a car in Massachusetts. But for concealed carry licenses, that’s exactly the case. If concealed carry licenses were treated like driver’s licenses things would make a whole lot more sense to me.”

  15. ringhals
    Also, it seems reasonable to require a record of transfer of ownership, like the title to a car, for *all* gun sales. That might reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of felons.

    Since “felons” are already prohibited from gun ownership this assertion assumes they will willingly break that law but stop doing so because of their unwillingness to break another law. When your position requires you to make arguments like this it’s a good indication your position has no merit.

  16. “Elaine, Think of all the auto accidents. You would have us riding bikes, wouldn’t you Elaine? LOL!” -NS

    Oh, my. Someone’s fantasizing. Just can’t let go. Dreaming of days gone by…

  17. Justice is not just rendered by some dork in a black robe, sitting on a bench, acting high and mighty. In fact justice is rendered tout suite, on the street, gun in hand, shoot the perp, dont let him slurp, hop on the bus Gus, throw away the key, Lee. Put it on video and gaze at dead twerp.

  18. Also, it seems reasonable to require a record of transfer of ownership, like the title to a car, for *all* gun sales. That might reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of felons. Wouldn’t stop it but could *reduce* the occurrence.

Comments are closed.