Swedish Police Search For Pickpocket Who Assaulted and Spat On Mother Who Tried To Help Elderly Victim

sweden tube attackEven in our crime infested world, there is occasionally a crime that takes your breath away. In Sweden, this guy took that distinction when he combined the pickpocketing of an elderly woman and an assault on another woman with children who tried to help her. He punched the mother in front of her children and spat on her.

The crime occurred in Stockholm and the police released the video below to help find this guy.

sweden tube attackThe video is from the Gamla Stan tube station in central Stockholm, Sweden, was caught on CCTV and shows the man creeping up behind a women described as a pensioner who was trying to get her phone out of her bag. When the mother intervenes, he assaults her and then spits on her in front of the children. While one can hardly expect decency from criminals as a whole, I can say as a long criminal defense attorney that many criminals would not sink this low. I expect the Swedish police have made this guy a special project for arrest. Ironically, I would expect that he would have an equally hostile reception in jail from the other inmates.

One report indicates that they may have already arrested the suspect.

63 thoughts on “Swedish Police Search For Pickpocket Who Assaulted and Spat On Mother Who Tried To Help Elderly Victim”

  1. Isaac:

    “The question is, was he in the act of picking a purse or was he simply moving to the left in response to the woman and her child coming down the right and taking up half of the stair way. People routinely slide by others coming and going simply to keep moving.

    If he was picking the purse and got caught that is one combination of charges: attempted robbery, assault, etc. If he was offended for being accused of doing something of which he is innocent, then the charges would be much more muddy.”

    Unless I completely misunderstand you, are you trying to say that he can claim some sort of defense for punching a woman in the face because he was offended if he was wrongly accused of being a pickpocket?

    ???????

    I cannot watch the video, so I do not know if he was trying to pickpocket anyone. The photo seems to show he would have plenty of room to move around her without bumping into her. An investigation of the video will show what he tried to do. The best case scenario for him would be if he was not charged with pickpocketing.

    But that is immaterial to punching a woman in the face . You are not allowed to punch someone because you are offended or mad.

  2. I forgot to mention that preference should also be given to reformers and political dissidents fleeing extremist regimes. For instance the poets who escaped Iran.

  3. Jeff:

    “Yes, we should do the best we can, but we should not block everyone, no matter there national origin or religious affiliation. We also need more people like this mother who are willing to intervene. I want to know how many other people saw this incident and just walked away. I for one can not do that. When I see something like this, I step in.”

    I agree. I support legal immigration. My somewhat controversial position is that I vehemently oppose illegal immigration, and I also believe that quotas for areas known for savage practices against women should have lower numbers than for those countries that share our values. Preference should be given to female refugees and children fleeing abuse. My concern is that too high a rate of immigration from regions known for human rights violations and abuse of women will overwhelm our ability to assimilate them into our Western values. For instance, if the entire population of the ME immigrated here within a year, we would obviously be overrun with extremists and abusers. It would be too much. So there is a number that would be the tipping point. Restraining such numbers folds them into our own values, and enables us to respond to those who break our laws. We don’t want large roving gangs of rapists and assaulters such as Germany is now experiencing. And we’ve GOT to do something about the “vacation cutting” female genital mutilation of American girls born to immigrants who failed to abandon such barbaric practices at the border. We have to crack down hard and not tolerate this. Pediatricians should turn them in to CPS when a child shows up with FGM.

    As an environmentalist and conservationist, I well remember population growth estimates and studies in my ecology classes. At some point, the US will have difficulty feeding its population AND maintaining open space and national parks AND keeping down pollution AND maintaining a minimum standard of living and infrastructure. Our population is expanding at a very rapid rate. The density we can support will vary depending on what we’re willing to accept – complete buildout of skyscrapers with zero yards and import all agriculture, complete urbanization with the only open areas being designated national parks, or do we allow more sprawl and larger parcels of land? What level of ecological impact are we willing to incur as our population soars? This sounds like nothing we would have to worry about for a thousand years. However, you have to recall that a mere 200 years ago, there were vast areas of unsettled land in the US. Now it’s settled everywhere at far greater densities. Where will we be in a mere 200 more years? We cannot fail to plan for our population growth, nor can we allow unlimited immigration, because we will hit that red line far earlier.

  4. You are still unable to tell us what makes one a Muslim.

    The same thing that makes someone a Catholic, Mormon, Holy Roller, Snake Handler, Santeria follower. Muslim is a religious belief and like the Catholic church in the older days also a political system. A follower of that religion/set of laws/beliefs will follow that religion and those beliefs. Snake handlers will handle snakes. Santeria followers will make their sacrifices. Amish will do what they do.

    A country that is majority Islamic….or majority Catholic….and has a government that also enforces the religious beliefs can logically be called an Islamic country just as Ireland …in the past….can be called a Catholic country when it maked laws that enforce religious tenets…such as birth control. When the government and the religion are basically the same thing, then it IS an Islamic or Muslim country.

    A religion is not an ethnicity or a race. Followers of Islam can have many different names from Muhammad Ali to Sven Johnson to Ivan Gorbachov. Just like Christians, Muslims come in all sorts of ethnicities, countries and have a lot of different names. A rose is a rose is a rose. Or ….walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….is a duck.

    Just as there are various brands of Christianity, there are different brands of Islam and Judaism. There are common strains of the faith running through each and some brands of all can be more or less radical and more or less peaceful

    Since Islam is a religion that currently is expressing itself in a radical way in the majority of the ‘brands’ and one that advocates violence, murder, rape, maiming all in the name of God those who follow it will have those characteristics. Perhaps Islam will at some point in the future cease being violent and like the Catholic church stop those practices that were violent in the past.

    I’m pretty sure that the Catholic church doesn’t conduct Inquisitions or burn heretics at the stake any more. Thankfully, the church has moved beyond the Middle ages. I suggest that it would do Islam and those Muslims who adhere to the Medieval mind set of their religion that makes it antithetical to modern cultures should do the same. If they want to continue to exist in the modern world that is.

    Moderate Muslims don’t seem to be very vocal or active in bringing their religion into check or into the modern world. If they want to not be seen as radicals, then they need to make a change within their own religion.

    Also, when someone who is representing the religion-government-organization publicly declares war on others or pronounces jihad or otherwise makes it clear that they plan to commit mayhem……it is incumbent on us to believe what they say and act accordingly.

    1. 1-The same thing that makes someone a Catholic, Mormon, Holy Roller, Snake Handler, Santeria follower. Muslim is a religious belief…
      Obviously not. Apparently, for all of those above, we can distinguish who they are from what they do. Being Catholic, mormon…etc is part of who one is but isn’t the whole being. They are individuals beyond their faith. In the case of Muslims however, we are told that being Muslim is the core identity, is the sole identity, Muslims cannot be American and be Muslims, Muslims are responsible for all other Muslims because, well, they are Muslims! That is why, as evidenced here, we talk of Muslims as if they cannot be anything else. And what that else is, we cannot really tell. All of the hateful diatribe prevalent here relies exactly on that, to make Muslims nothing else, and once they are nothing else but Muslims, we can then decide what being Muslim means, and make generalizations and otherise Muslims as different from Catholics, Mormons and everyone else.
      A Christian rapist, even a church going one, would never be made to bear the burden of his faith, while a Muslim rapist (even if he doesn’t believe in God) will be offered as the burden of Islam.

      2-A country that is majority Islamic….or majority Catholic….and has a government that also enforces the religious beliefs can logically be called an Islamic country
      Sure! How many of those are there? karen and others, including Isaac above claim it is either all or a great majority of them? How many countries actually fall in that realm? Very few, yet it keeps being advanced as fact that undergirds the fallacious arguments that abound here.

      3-A religion is not an ethnicity or a race. Followers of Islam can have many different names from Muhammad Ali to Sven Johnson to Ivan Gorbachov. Just like Christians, Muslims come in all sorts of ethnicities, countries and have a lot of different names. A rose is a rose is a rose. Or ….walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….is a duck.
      Interesting that I have been the one trying to make the same exact point all along, and it always fell into deaf ears, until now. Now that it benefits your argument to blame Muslims for crimes they did not commit, we now accept that Muslims are really that diverse of a group? It is a moot point however to wonder whether Aleksandr, Mark, Marina are Muslims. There is nothing about that article that claims they are, and to assume they could be is disingenuous.
      As for walks like a duck…what does that mean? You can tell a Muslim by how they walk? How they look? What their name is?

      4-Since Islam is a religion that currently is expressing itself in a radical way in the majority of the ‘brands’ and one that advocates violence, murder, rape, maiming all in the name of God those who follow it will have those characteristics. Perhaps Islam will at some point in the future cease being violent and like the Catholic church stop those practices that were violent in the past.
      Again, another BS argument, vague and deceptive. What are those brands you speak of?
      What is a radical way?
      Which ones advocate violence, rape, maiming and who follow them of the 2 billion muslims?
      Has Christianity stopped being violent? Tell that to the gays being lynched in Uganda. Tell that to the Iraqis invaded under “Jesus told me so” Bush!
      Tell that to the victims of terrorism here and elsewhere by right wing supremacists!
      Have you not read the article above that states that until 1970, there were very few islamic radicalism? What changed? Perhaps that the US is currently bombing 7 Muslim countries at the tune of 24000 tons of bombs in 2015 alone?

      5-I’m pretty sure that the Catholic church doesn’t conduct Inquisitions or burn heretics at the stake any more. Thankfully, the church has moved beyond the Middle ages. I suggest that it would do Islam and those Muslims who adhere to the Medieval mind set of their religion that makes it antithetical to modern cultures should do the same. If they want to continue to exist in the modern world that is.
      That’s a false analogy if I ever saw one! There is no Muslim church, there is no Muslim head. And yet though there is a Catholic head, independent actors are still doing their evil, and it is NOT tied back to the church at all. The closest Muslims have is a bunch of scholars speaking as a group against extremism, and they have been INCREDIBLY vocal, yet the deaf still refuse to hear them.

      6-Moderate Muslims don’t seem to be very vocal or active in bringing their religion into check or into the modern world. If they want to not be seen as radicals, then they need to make a change within their own religion.
      What was the link I offered above?
      A conference in a Muslim country hosted by a muslim king, with non-muslim contributors, to erect a framework that resurrects the Madinah charter, a constitution that gave equal rights to non-Muslims in madinah.
      What have I offered before? Links for the letter to Baghadi, a letter written by prominent muslim scholars condemning ISIS on religious grounds.
      Link to 70,000 scholars and imams condemning terrorism.
      Spend 2 minutes online and get back at me. One can lead a horse to water but as for drinking, some effort is required.
      But this makes my point all along. Why aren’t you asked to denounce the radicalism of your faith?
      Why isn’t bambam asked to denounce the extremism of his faith?
      Perhaps because you are not Muslims?
      Which then proves my points that Muslims are not like catholics or mormons, and your argument, as usual, is BS.

  5. “with respect to the single greatest source of deadly intentional violence worldwide [i.e., terrorism], Muslim societies are among the least violent in the world.

    1. BS. I don’t believe any data coming from within Muslim controlled countries, much like communist-controlled nations, which are reliably and unceasingly mendacious.
    2. Worldwide terror is done to coerce subjugation to Islam. Once subjugated, the terror is one-on-one rather than mass killings.

  6. none of those names sound islamic to me…Am I missing something?

    Yes. You are missing a lot. Many Muslims are not necessarily of Arabic derivation. There are Muslims from all parts of the world (Indonesia, Bosnia, Russia, Africa etc) and since being Muslim is not related to genetics or ethnicity and is a religion (and political system) the names are not material.

    What is material is the actions which are quite obviously at odds with the cultures of the countries that are being invaded and at odds with just common human decency.

  7. Statistics comparing the free world with the countries under religious dictatorships mean nothing. The West is an experiment in free will and self control. It does well and sometimes not so well. The important aspect is that it is a journey forward to solve problems ourselves. The Islamic world, for the most part, is composed of religious dictatorships where people are kept down through fear of anything up to and including losing their lives.

    The primary reason, other than economic-that same reason most inhabitants of the West share-that people are immigrating to the West from Islamic nations is because they want to be free of the extremism of their own religion. They want to worship how they wish without being obligated to do it so many times a day or wearing sheets. They have more in common with us than those who they left behind.

    Of course there are the nuts that filter through and the ones that are created here through racism and intolerance. The West must attempt to stop the nuts from coming in but more importantly, work on assimilating those that wish to be assimilated while allowing them to retain their religious identity. Terrorists and religious extremists are often times created by their future targets.

    1. Sorry Isaac, your two main arguments are fallacious:
      1- Every society is an experiment in free will and self-control. The idea that the west is on the path and the “islamic world (which am still not sure what it means, what constitutes the islamic world?) is not means absolutely nothing.
      There is no islamic world, there are theocracies and dictatorships, a minority (propped by us, the West,which says something about our values when we allow and support the abuse of other people’s rights) , and there are mostly muslim countries with non islamic constitutions, or some with an islamic constitution but with a democratic bent.
      Nigeria, Indonesia, both of the most populous muslim countries AND democracies. As the article I linked to asserted, 7 American murders for every one of Indonesia.

      2- Most people who immigrate from their homeland do it for economic reasons OR because their country is now a conflict zone, or because they are oppressed by their government, the latter two reasons unavoidably being so BECAUSE of the west ‘ involvement of some sort.
      The number of people emigrating solely for religious reasons is very low, and it usually consists of people of some minority faith threatened by the majority, as has been happening in Myammar where the Royingha Muslims have been massacred by the Buddhist majority and driven out of their homes.

  8. John, that applies to everything. Africa was an environmental niche until the barbarians, the white man came and raped everything in sight.
    Same as the native Americans.
    Same as…everywhere.
    in terms of rape, who has raped more than the white man? Rape is power and the white man has been the more powerful tribe for a long long time. Why did the Japanese elect an administration whose main main argument was to kick the US out of Japan? Because of the rapes that the GI’s commit anywhere we have a base. In that, I guess I agree with the tribal perspective.

    Also, it is not a racial issue, and not a religious one, I agree, it is a cultural one. Race does not exist in terms of human nature, the same “race” in different climes and culture may behave differently.

  9. Sorry Po I gotta disagree on this. Scandinavia is an environmental niche, flood it with invasive people from different tribes and they will be weeds that choke out the more gentle flowers.

    The issue is not Islam it is is the propensity of people from certain countries to rape. I wouldn’t blame it on Islam, rather, I would blame it on innate tribal differences among peoples.

    Let’s observe what Louis Farrakhan (whom I admire for many reasons) recently said, and that is, when explaining his remarks from the past about black superiority to whites: if white and black interbreeds, the children are black. Hence, he explained, in so many words, one might conclude that the black germ plasm was superior.

    Well, he was telling the truth about the mixing issue, but it doesn’t mean that one is superior to the other: but it does mean that one phenotype is more rare than the other and a more attenuated type. The same is true of Siberian tigers, breed them with Bengal tigers and the Bengal traits will predominate. And it’s the Siberian tigers that are more endangered, so they need their habitat protected more.

    We can all understand that with animals, but for the more delicate human types like Scandinavians, people have no compassion at all. The Arab population of the world is doing just fine. And they have countless nations to themselves. Scandinavians? Not so much.

    1. Just the facts, folks, just the facts 🙂
      ——————————————-

      The Truth About Islam
      Of course it isn’t a religion of violence. If it were, why would so many Muslim societies be so peaceful?

      By Andrew Mack

      The savagery of the terror assaults perpetrated by ISIS and its franchise groups has helped build support for claims in the West that Islam is a religion of violence. But the faith of 1.8 billion Muslims, almost a quarter of the world’s population, is far too complex and open to far too many competing interpretations, to be reduced to simplistic slogans like a “religion of violence”—or indeed a “religion of peace.” Islam is both.

      What is striking about the current debate is how extraordinarily little its participants appear to know about the extent of Muslim—and non-Muslim—violence. It appears, for example, that none of the anti-Muslim critics are aware that, with respect to the single greatest source of deadly intentional violence worldwide, Muslim societies are among the least violent in the world.

      This reality might seem to lend credence to claims that Islam is indeed an inherently violent religion, but this is to confuse the ultra-violent ideology of a very small minority of Muslims at a particular point in time with the Islamic religion as it is understood and practiced today by the overwhelming majority of a billion-plus Muslims worldwide. This majority, of course, despises the gross brutality of ISIS, al-Qaida, and the other ultra-violent Islamist groups. The animus of mainstream Islam is hardly surprising—ISIS has mostly killed fellow Muslims.

      Given today’s headlines, it may come as a surprise to learn that in the 1970s there were no major conflicts involving Islamist radicals being waged around the world. This raises an obvious question. If Islam is in fact an inherently violent religion, how do we account for these—and many other—long periods of peacefulness within Muslim societies?

      The reality is that Islam—like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and other major world religions—is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Like every other great religion, the history of Islam is darkened by periods of violent bloodletting. And the holy texts of all religions can be mined for quotes to legitimize terrorism—or indeed principled nonviolence.

      Thus ISIS and other extreme Islamist radicals have no difficulty finding justification in medieval Islamic texts for their ultra-violent ideology and barbaric practices. But these extreme interpretations have minimal support among Muslims around the world and tell us nothing about the propensity for violence in mainstream Islam.

      In October 2014, the first opinion polls on public attitudes toward ISIS were published in three Arab countries for the Fikra Forum. The findings were instructive. Just 3 percent of Egyptians held favorable views of ISIS. The figure for Saudi Arabia was 5 percent and for Lebanon less than 1 percent. A year later Pew Research found that just 1 percent of Lebanese held “favorable opinions” of ISIS, 3 percent in predominantly Sunni Jordan, and 1 percent in Israel. In the Palestinian territories the figure was 6 percent, but even here a massive 84 percent held unfavorable opinions of ISIS. Previous polls revealed very similar trends about Muslim opinions toward al-Qaida.

      Discussions about the violence of contemporary Islam focus overwhelmingly on armed conflict and terrorism. But a more appropriate metric for determining the propensity for violence of a particular society, culture, or religion is the incidence of intentional homicide.

      In almost all societies it is murder, not war, that accounts for the large majority of intentional killings. And perpetrating homicide, unlike embarking on wars or terror campaigns, does not require long preparation, intensive organization, a huge range of weaponry, complex logistics, political mobilization, intensive training, or a great deal of money—which is one reason why war and terrorism death tolls around the world are far smaller than the number of homicides. It is far more difficult to mount an armed campaign against a state than to kill an individual.

      And even today, wars directly affect only a relatively small minority of countries. All countries suffer from homicides, however. In 2015, the Global Burden of Armed Violence published by the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, found that between 2007 and 2012, for every individual killed in war or terror campaigns around the world, seven individuals were murdered. Worldwide, for most people, in most countries, most of the time, murder is a far greater threat to human security than organized political violence.

      So if there really is an inherent—Islam-driven—propensity for deadly violence in Muslim societies, we should expect to find that the greater the percentage of Muslims in society, the greater would be the numbers of homicides. In fact, the reverse is the case: The higher the percentage of Muslims in a society, the lower the homicide rate.

      In 2011, a major study by University of California, Berkeley, political scientist M. Steven Fish presented cross-national statistical data showing that between 1994 and 2007, annual homicide rates in the Muslim world averaged just 2.4 per 100,000 of the population. That was approximately a third of the rate for the non-Muslim world and less than the average rate in Europe. It is also approximately half the homicide rate in the United States.

      In comparing individual countries, the difference is even greater. The latest homicide statistics from the U.N.’s Office on Drugs and Crime reveal that for every murder perpetrated in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, seven people are murdered in the United States. This reality should give American Islamophobes pause.

      It is possible in principle, as some critics have argued, that the lower murder rates in Muslim countries could be due not to a generally low propensity for homicide but to authoritarian governments whose harsh anti–violent crime policies are more effective in reducing the incidence of murder than those of democracies like the United States. But Fish’s careful statistical analyses controlled for this possibility and found no evidence to support it.

      When it comes to war, Fish found no statistical evidence to support Samuel Huntington’s controversial “clash of civilizations” thesis that Muslim societies are inherently more war-prone than non-Muslim states.

      Yet another metric for determining the violence-proneness of countries is the “conflict year,” the number of armed conflicts—civil as well as international—that a country experiences in a calendar year. Some particularly conflict-prone countries—Burma is the prime example—have frequently found themselves fighting several different wars in a single calendar year for decades. Here the Human Security Report found that the countries that had experienced most “conflict years” since the World War II were—in this order—Burma, India, Ethiopia, the Philippines, Britain, France, Israel, and Vietnam. Again no Muslim-majority country was in the top eight.
      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/islam_isn_t_inherently_violent_or_peaceful.single.html

  10. But, I agree with everyone that since this was obviously the first crime that ever happened in Sweden, we should nip it in the bud, lock this guy up and gas him. No women was ever attacked in Sweden, this guy will change everything. I say let’s also lock up every non-white swede, including all those who were born and raised in the country, including white Swedes who converted to Islam, all of them.
    The first registered Muslim groups in Sweden were Finnish Tatars who emigrated from Finland and Estonia in the 1940s. Islam began to have a noticeable presence in Sweden with immigration from the Middle East beginning in the 1970s.
    Most Muslims in Sweden are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. The majority are from the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Iran. However, 5 out of 6 Iranians in Sweden consider themselves secular rather than Muslim and are in strong opposition to the Islamic Republic regime in their ancestral home. Most Iranians and Iraqis fled as refugees to Sweden during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988. The second-largest Muslim group consists of immigrants or refugees from former Yugoslavia, most of them are Bosniaks, who number 12,000. There is also a sizeable community of Somalis, who numbered 40 165 in 2011.
    Sweden has a number of mosques providing the Muslim communities in Sweden places of worship.[2] The Malmö Mosque, built in 1984, was followed by the Uppsala Mosque in 1995. More mosques were built during the 2000s, including the Stockholm Mosque (2000), the Umeå Mosque (2006) and the Fittja Mosque (completed 2007), among others. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Libya have financially supported the constructions of some of the largest Mosques in Sweden.[3][4
    As of the year 2000, an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 people of Muslim background lived in Sweden, or 3.5% of total population;[5] thereby included is anyone who fits the broad definition of someone who “belongs to a Muslim people by birth, has Muslim origin, has a name that belongs in the Muslim tradition, etc.” regardless of personal religious convictions.[6]), of whom about 100,000 were second-generation immigrants (born in Sweden or immigrated as children).[7] In Sweden registration by personal belief is not common and is normally against the law, thus only figures of practising Muslims belonging to an Islamic community can be reported. In 2009, the Muslim Council of Sweden reported 106,327 registered members.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Sweden

    This is how it starts, one guy commits a crime and all of a sudden, nice, non-violent Swedes get the idea and start committing crimes.
    I say no way!
    Internment camps and the oven, I say!

  11. I don’t like blaming Islam for what to me looks a lot more like a racial problem than a religious one. It seems to me that the Arabs have rape in their veins. And I’ll bet Bosnian Muslims are a lot less prone to rape than Tunisians. …. Swedes whether Lutheran or not don’t rape, so that nullifies the notion that Christianity prevents rape. Let’s stop blaming Islam for a racial difference, although, that will make conservatives quite uncomfortable to admit.

  12. @Paul Schulte it isn´t the police´s fault. They can´t be everywhere. The number of police at any given event was sufficient for the old society. But now we have a new society with people in it who can´t behave like civilized human beings.

Comments are closed.