Jump to content
GoDuBois.com

Woman Raped On Pa.Train While Bystanders Did Nothing


mr.d
 Share

Recommended Posts

Upper Darby police investigating rape on SEPTA train; suspect in custody

According to police, the alleged assault happened at about 10 p.m. on a westbound train on the Market-Frankford Line.
 
 
UPPER DARBY TWP., Pennsylvania (WPVI) -- Police in Upper Darby Township, Pennsylvania are investigating after a woman was sexually assaulted on board a SEPTA train Wednesday night.

According to police, the alleged rape happened at about 10 p.m. on a westbound train on the Market-Frankford Line.

SEPTA officers took a man into custody following the assault and the woman was taken to an area hospital where she was treated for her injuries, said Tim Bernhardt, the superintendent of the Upper Darby Police Department.
 
11130424_101521-wpvi-upper-darby-index-p
EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS 
 

Tim Bernhardt, superintendent of the Upper Darby Police Department, discusses a sexual assault that took place on board a SEPTA train Wednesday night.



The suspect, who has been identified as Fiston M. Ngoy, 35, has been charged with rape, indecent assault, sexual assault and other related charges, Bernhardt said.

Investigators said surveillance video shows Ngoy sit next to the victim and attempt to touch her. The woman is seen attempting to push him away several times.

The video then shows Ngoy push her down, rip her clothes off and sexually assault her, police said.

Police said a SEPTA employee noticed something was happening and notified police, who met the train at the 69th Street Transportation Center.
 

Police said the victim went into a state of shock. The assault went on for eight minutes.

"The victim, I spoke with her this afternoon. She is an unbelievably strong woman. She came forward, she provided a lot of information, and she's on the mend," Bernhardt said.

Police said the attack was caught on SEPTA's surveillance system. It may also have been recorded by other people on the train.

Ngoy is currently behind bars in lieu of 10% of $180,000 bail.

On Friday evening, SEPTA issued a statement calling the rape a "horrendous criminal act," and urged people to call 911 if they observe a crime being committed.
 

"The rape that occurred on SEPTA's Market-Frankford Line Wednesday night (Oct. 13) was a horrendous criminal act. The assault was observed by a SEPTA employee, who called 911, enabling SEPTA officers to respond immediately and apprehend the suspect in the act.

There were other people on the train who witnessed this horrific act, and it may have been stopped sooner if a rider called 911. SEPTA urges anyone who observes a crime being committed or any dangerous situation occurring to report it. Anyone witnessing an emergency should immediately call 911. For non-emergencies, we encourage the public to use the SEPTA Transit Watch app. If people see something they think SEPTA Police should know, this allows them to say something - quickly and discreetly.

Upper Darby Township Police are leading the investigation into the rape with assistance from SEPTA Transit Police. Anyone who witnessed the incident is urged to contact Upper Darby Township Police," SEPTA said.                                                                                                                                    SEE VIDEO REPORTS      ;    https://6abc.com/septa-sex-assault-woman-raped-on-train-market-frankford-line-upper-darby-police/11130410/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't rescuing her from the rapist, but fear of political entanglements that they were afraid of.  It's legally dangerous to help a victim in need.  Some of us don't care and will bail in regardless, but others are gullible or have a lot to lose.  Pity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Good Samariton law -Any person, including an emergency response provider, whether or not trained to practice medicine, who in good faith renders emergency care, treatment, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency event or crime or who moves the person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of rendering such care

People are covered legally.  Its just more and more people are pu**ies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, buschpounder said:

The Good Samariton law -Any person, including an emergency response provider, whether or not trained to practice medicine, who in good faith renders emergency care, treatment, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency event or crime or who moves the person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of rendering such care

People are covered legally.  Its just more and more people are pu**ies.

That wouldn't cover anything in this case.  That covers a person in case they render aid and inadvertently inflict an injury to the person they are helping.  It stops a person from suing civilly someone that rendered aid and caused them injury.

 

Frankly, I'm all for some type of charges against those that see something like this happening and do nothing.  I'm not saying they have to physically confront the individual, but they damn well can call 911 and report it.  If it was recorded, that just speaks to level that many in our country have reached.  Instead of dialing 3 numbers on their phone to provide help, they are more interested in getting a video of the awful act they were forced to endure on their ride.  Then they try to make it about their suffering of having to witness that.  Start charging them for their indifference and things might begin to go in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, allboys said:

That wouldn't cover anything in this case.  That covers a person in case they render aid and inadvertently inflict an injury to the person they are helping.  It stops a person from suing civilly someone that rendered aid and caused them injury.

 

Frankly, I'm all for some type of charges against those that see something like this happening and do nothing.  I'm not saying they have to physically confront the individual, but they damn well can call 911 and report it.  If it was recorded, that just speaks to level that many in our country have reached.  Instead of dialing 3 numbers on their phone to provide help, they are more interested in getting a video of the awful act they were forced to endure on their ride.  Then they try to make it about their suffering of having to witness that.  Start charging them for their indifference and things might begin to go in the right direction

I don't agree...the law includes the wording .....any person... who in good faith renders ....rescue at the scene of a crime.  I think the rape in a train that people saw fits that.

I agree with your second paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buschpounder said:

The Good Samariton law -Any person, including an emergency response provider, whether or not trained to practice medicine, who in good faith renders emergency care, treatment, first aid or rescue at the scene of an emergency event or crime or who moves the person receiving such care, first aid or rescue to a hospital or other place of medical care shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of rendering such care

People are covered legally.  Its just more and more people are pu**ies.

Welcome to the new we have to be "Politically Correct" World.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buschpounder said:

I don't agree...the law includes the wording .....any person... who in good faith renders ....rescue at the scene of a crime.  I think the rape in a train that people saw fits that.

I agree with your second paragraph.

It only offers civil protection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that either:

Superintendent Timothy Bernhardt of the Upper Darby Police Department said 

"There was a lot of people, in my opinion, that should have intervened; somebody should have done something," Bernhardt said. "It speaks to where we are in society. I mean, who would allow something like that to take place? So it’s troubling."

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, allboys said:

It only offers civil protection.  


Using force and deadly force on such types of perps:

PA Title 18, Chapter 5, Subchapters 505 and 506 - you may use deadly force to stop a killing, serious bodily injury, rape, or kidnapping.

------------------

Civil protections:

PA TItle 42, Chapter 83, Subchapter C

§ 8340.2.  Civil immunity for use of force.

(a)  General rule.--An actor who uses force:

(1)  in self-protection as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection);

(2)  in the protection of other persons as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 506 (relating to use of force for the protection of other persons);

(3)  for the protection of property as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 507 (relating to use of force for the protection of property);

(4)  in law enforcement as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 508 (relating to use of force in law enforcement); or

(5)  consistent with the actor's special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 509 (relating to use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others)

is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the actor as a result of the use of force.

(b)  Attorney fees and costs.--If the actor who satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) prevails in a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the actor, the court shall award reasonable expenses to the actor. Reasonable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income.

(c)  Definition.--As used in this section, the term "perpetrator" shall mean a person against whom an actor is justified in using force as provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 505, 506, 507, 508 or 509.

(June 28, 2011, P.L.48, No.10, eff. 60 days)


-----------------

And if they run:

And PA's Supreme Court Rule the following too.   You may also kill them if they flee, and you have announced your intent to arrest them, and you cannot readily arrest them.

Commonwealth v. Chermansky

430 Pa. 170 (1968)

"Justifiable Homicide

A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. Commonwealth v. Micuso, 273 Pa. 474, 117 A. 211 (1922); Commonwealth v. Long, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 641 (1901); 2 Trickett, The Law of Crimes in Pennsylvania 683 (1908). And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. See Commonwealth v. Micuso, supra; 2 Trickett, supra. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.

The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today.[1] Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law.[2] Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has  committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.  We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A.2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct."

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hombrey

They should charge the bystanders that did nothing with accessory to rape.I personally would have shot him since I carry all the time,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely, but the legal entanglements and time spent defending yourself is what I mean.  She should have been helped even if someone batted him across the head with their purse or a heavy shoe.  However, even if you are protected from liability, it doesn't free you from losing time and money in clearing up your part in the situation.  That's what stops people from helping.  It's not me, but it's a lot of stupid people's reasoning.

There should be some way to make it easier to testify and not have to give up part of your own life in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be fooled by the last name we all know the race of this individual and those that watched and recorded on their phones. This is their culture in big cities - worthless human beings. I have friends of color and they are sickened by this act along with all the shootings that happen in the inner cities as am I and most other Americans.

Like I said before Philly the cesspool of PA

 

https://celebsaga.com/photo-who-is-fiston-ngoy-ngoy-name-origin-and-arrested-charges/?fbclid=IwAR14Z5S1ufImFuOKqRMVZ3dxtwuCNRZ-dNOyrdLiwp7156HWLv24siQsWfQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 6:04 PM, fedup said:

New rules. Everyone carry a gun. If the lady can't use her gun to protect herself then other gun owners should shoot the sumb1tch between the eyes then go home for supper. Let the rats eat the rotten person.

I agree with carrying a gun.  It could have been used to stop the perpetrator in his tracks by threatening him.  If he didn't comply, then do what you must to help the lady.  I really feel that fear was why the other people didn't help.  This could have been a gang related thing, and there may have been other gang members present to watch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...