logo
NYC man accused of violently shoving wheelchair-bound neighbor to the ground in spat over dogs: ‘How dare you?'

NYC man accused of violently shoving wheelchair-bound neighbor to the ground in spat over dogs: ‘How dare you?'

Yahoo26-04-2025
A Brooklyn man allegedly violently shoved a wheelchair-bound neighbor onto the pavement during a shocking caught-on-video squabble that some fear could stoke racial tensions in Crown Heights.
The incident erupted March 29 along Lincoln Place between Levi Kabakov and Troy McLeod, who was walking his two muzzled German Shepherds without leashes.
McLeod, 50, told News12 that Kabakov, 30, urged him to cross to the other side of the street with his dogs.
Kabakov, who is an Orthodox Jew, allegedly rushed out to the street, telling McLeod, who is black, he did not want the German Shepherds to scare his small children, McLeod explained to News12.
But before he could, Kabakov allegedly struck McLeod twice with a wooden bench from his yard before pushing him out of his wheelchair and into a parked car, the video — posted to Reddit — showed.
The wooden bench is visible in the 67-second-long clip. Kabakov and McLeod talk over each other as a second Orthodox man tries calming the irate dad. The woman filming the video repeatedly called out for someone to call 911, and yelled at Kabakov to stop touching McLeod.
The video caught Kabakov pushing McLeod hard, and overturning his chair. McLeod's head is seen slamming against the side of the parked vehicle.
'How can you do that to a man in a wheelchair? The children were fine,' said the woman recording, as other neighbors come to McLeod's defense, yelling, 'How dare you?' at Kabakov.
Police said Kabakov then threw a wooden block at McLeod while he was still on the ground.
'I was scared, I was trying to get back up, I was in shock and thank God someone was there,' McLeod told the station. 'It felt like a vengeful vibe to me. . . There was no need for it.'
McLeod told News12 his dogs were muzzled the entire walk, and noted they're so well-trained, they stood in place, even as he was being attacked.
McLeod told cops he sustained injuries to his hands, shoulders, and torso.
Kabakov was arrested the next day and charged with two counts each of assault, criminal possession of a weapon, aggravated menacing, and attempted assault.
He was arraigned that same day and released without bail pending a July 17 court appearance.
Kabakov did not respond to calls seeking comment. McLeod could not be reached for comment.
Crown Heights was the setting for one of the city's ugliest periods in August 1991 after a motorcade carrying Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad Jewish religious movement, unintentionally struck and killed 7-year-old Gavin Cato, the son of Guyanese immigrants.
The boy's death led to a mob of black teens chanting 'Let's go get a Jew' to surround and kill 29-year-old Yankel Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jewish graduate student from Australia. Three days of rioting damaged scores of Jewish businesses and homes.
District Leader Anthony Beckford condemned the attack on McLeod, and called on members of the community 'to not allow their anger about this situation manifest into hatred or resentment.'
He said he'll be urging District Attorney Eric Gonzalez's office 'to prosecute this case to the fullest extent, to make a clear example that behavior like this will not be tolerated by anyone.'
Rabbi Yaacov Behrman of the Jewish Future Alliance and Rabbi Shmuel Rosenstein and Rabbi Zalman Friedman from the Crown Heights Jewish Community Council issued a joint statement, reading, 'There is absolutely no justification for assaulting someone in a wheelchair — ever. The perpetrator has been arrested and charged.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Debate Over Banning Social Media For Kids Under 14
Debate Over Banning Social Media For Kids Under 14

Buzz Feed

time10 hours ago

  • Buzz Feed

Debate Over Banning Social Media For Kids Under 14

Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that he plans to ban social media in France for people under the age of 15. "We cannot wait," he said of the ban. In France, it's a pressing issue: Macron's announcement comes in the wake of the murder of a high school teaching assistant who was stabbed to death by a 14-year-old student, which has stirred up a conversation about the radicalization of children online. His plans involve adding age verification to some sites. Online age verification is a big topic in itself at the moment, with the swift implementation of the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act being implemented across the web. These age checks are ostensibly meant to protect minors from pornographic content and other harmful material, and of course apply to websites such as PornHub; however, the law also includes social media sites like X (Twitter), Reddit, Discord, and Bluesky, as well as sites such as Spotify and YouTube. Sites use methods like ID scanning and "AI" facial recognition software to "verify" users' age. In the wake of the implementation of the OSA in the UK, Americans are growing concerned that age verification will soon be implemented in the US, too. Critics worry that "age verification" is a path to censorship, surveillance, and even broader data harvesting than we have now. ...Which brings us to this little tidbit: in Florida this year, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of a state law that banned social media accounts for children under 14. While the judge appreciated concerns about the effect of social media on kids, he stated that the 2024 law was "likely unconstitutional." tuned in to this general conversation, when I saw this post on the popular Ask Reddit page from user Lola_girl_10 asking, "Do you support banning social media for anyone under 14 years old? Why?" I had to know what people had to say. Here are the best comments from the conversation: "I support it in theory, but how do you implement it? Does it require me to use my government ID to use the internet? I want less surveillance, not more…" "Yes. I mean, most platforms require users to be over 13, but kids half that age are addicted to them. But the Online Safety Act isn't the way to do it." "Let's start with the basics. How do you define social media? Is YouTube social media? Is Reddit? Are forums like Stack Exchange or GitHub social media? How about online video games? Niche platforms for marginalized and vulnerable populations?" "No, because we don't live in a world where anyone proposing this type of legislation cares about protecting children. Every single one of these proposals is nothing but a power grab that will be used to further eliminate privacy and control free speech." "Parental controls are available for things like this." "I don't support it because that requires age verification, and that makes it impossible to be anonymous." "In theory, yes. Social media, in my opinion, is like a drug, one to be used responsibly when you have a level of brain development that understands the impact it's having." "Yes, and I think we should also ban online gaming for young children." "Ban phones from schools and classrooms; otherwise, it'll take a cultural shift of parents actually parenting instead of handing their toddler a tablet as soon as they can be entertained by it. Any laws requiring ID or verification should be avoided." "Honestly? I support torching all 'social' media to the ground and salting the earth. They are evil. Facebook and Twitter data centers ought to be nuked." "Not at the expense of my privacy or risking my identity." "I don't support it in the way the UK has just done it. Neither the government nor corporations should be invading the privacy of citizens to make up for the failures of bad parents." "Probably. I listened to a podcast once that made the point that we massively restrict all these things that we know are bad for kids — alcohol, tobacco, etc. — but when it comes to social media, we do nothing, despite research showing a clear link between social media use and child/adolescent suicide." "Yes. But my kids are already banned. If you let your kids loose on the internet, then you're a bad parent." "I have two 13-year-olds and we have explained to them in great detail why they are not allowed to use social media. They. Do. Not. Need. It." "Yes, 100%. But 18 would be better. 'Social'-focused media like Instagram and Facebook are a societal cancer." "Yes, I support banning social media for kids under 14 — and not in a 'boomer killjoy' way, but a protect-your-brain-before-it's-fried kinda way." "No. And I'm not falling into the 'but it's the children!' trap either. The current actions are to establish control, and I feel like it's happening everywhere at the same time, from Australia to the EU and the UK to the US, as if it is a coordinated thing." "Yeah, I support banning social media for anyone under 14 because at that age, kids often aren't emotionally ready to handle the pressure, comparison, and potential dangers online. Giving them more time to develop offline social skills and confidence can help protect their mental health." And finally: "I'm just glad I grew up on the net before all this." So, what do you think about curbing kids' access to social media? Is it a terrible idea, a great idea, or perhaps a good idea that's pretty much unenforceable? I want to hear all your thoughts and opinions in the comments below — or, if you want to write in but you prefer to stay anonymous, you can check out this anonymous form: Who knows — your comment could be included in a future BuzzFeed article. Please note: some comments have been edited for length and/or clarity.

Target, Ulta partnership allegedly doomed by out-of-control shoplifting— including $10k a month at one store
Target, Ulta partnership allegedly doomed by out-of-control shoplifting— including $10k a month at one store

New York Post

time10 hours ago

  • New York Post

Target, Ulta partnership allegedly doomed by out-of-control shoplifting— including $10k a month at one store

The shop-in-shop partnership between Target and Ulta Beauty was allegedly doomed by rampant theft of the cosmetics company's pricey products — including at least $10,000 a month at one store. The retail giants last week announced that they've 'mutually agreed' to terminate their union — where Ulta's popular makeup items were sold at 610 Target locations around the country. Execs from both companies lauded the 'synergy' they enjoyed after joining forces in 2021, but many claiming to be current and former Target workers flooded Reddit to allege that shoplifting was the real culprit behind the partnership's demise. 4 The image above from 2018 shows a Target department store in San Antonio. AP 'The amount of theft is f–king insane. I could be wrong but at least 10k a month in theft,' one purported Target worker in the unnamed store posted on Reddit earlier this year. The complaint echoed those made by others in the r/Target and r/Ulta threads that blamed brazen bandits for snatching Ulta's high-end cosmetics at understaffed Target stores. Organzied retail theft surged after the pandemic, resulting in major retailers, including Target, being forced to put items under lock and key. Nevertheless, the security precautions seemingly did little to prevent shoplifting at some locations. One Target worker claimed 40% of all Ulta products received throughout the year had vanished after checking inventory reports. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'Thousands of dollars just in that tiny little beauty section,' the alleged employee wrote under the handle Efficient_Raise. 'At my store, it's the one area with the highest theft.' 4 Self-identified Target employees took to Reddit and wrote of high incidences of shoplifting that weighed down the partnership with Ulta. MelissaMN – Another claimed a group of thieves hauled off $8,000 in Ulta merchandise after walking in with trash bags. Target and Ulta did not respond to requests for comment about the shoplifting allegations. They also offered few details behind their decision to pull the plug on the partnership, which will end next August. 4 Products are locked behind glass as a person shops at a Target store in the Harlem neighborhood in Manhattan in 2023. Getty Images A note by analysts at TD Cowen pointed to 'shrink' – the industry term for lost or stolen merchandise – as one of the reasons for the 'conscious uncoupling,' according to trade publication Retail Dive. Another industry insider suggested Ulta wanted to distance itself from Target's toxic reputation after the chain was hit by repeated boycotts over Pride merchandise and its decision to scale back controversial DEI policies, Fortune reported. The partnership's unraveling became public in April when Ulta CEO Kecia Steelman revealed the company would 'pause' expanding the mini-stores to 'leverage the learnings.' 4 One Target employee took to Reddit and described thieves walking in with trash bags to fill with Ulta merchandise — a single heist totaling $8,000 in losses. MKPhoto – Rick Gomez, Target's executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the retailer is 'proud of our shared success' with Ulta. Target 'remains committed to offering the beauty experience consumers have come to expect,' he added. The retailer launched 2,000 new beauty products and 50 brands in February. It also added cosmetics to its Bullseye's Playground discount section.

Eager single woman matches with ‘cute' guy on dating app— but was shocked to discover who he was
Eager single woman matches with ‘cute' guy on dating app— but was shocked to discover who he was

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

Eager single woman matches with ‘cute' guy on dating app— but was shocked to discover who he was

What is he doing here? A single gal matched with a potential suitor on a dating app, only to soon realize the sleazy guy was not only in a relationship — but he was dating her friend. The shocked dater posted her story to the r/TwoHotTakes forum on Reddit — which has since been deleted — sharing this jaw-dropping story that began with her matching with a guy who caught her eye. After swiping right on each other, he immediately messaged her and the two started chatting. She explained why she was initially drawn to him: he was 'cute' and had a 'funny bio' — yet something about him 'seemed familiar,' although she couldn't put her finger on it. After mentioning the very minor detail of what his favorite coffee shop is — which coincidentally is the same cafe she and her friend frequent — the suspicious woman started to put two and two together. It suddenly dawned on her that she not only knew who this guy was — she had previously been on 'double dates with this man.' Of course, she called him out, and his reply was eye-roll-inducing: 'He says, 'Oh, haha, yeah… but this is just for fun, don't tell her,'' the OP wrote in her post. 'Like he was asking me to keep his little 'oops' secret.' Thankfully, she was more rational than this liar of a guy and quickly unmatched him. Now the question at hand is whether she should tell her friend about this betraying interaction, or keep it to herself. Obviously, the many Reddit users in the post's thread didn't hold back with their thoughts and opinions on the situation — and rightfully so, this story is wild. 'You're not the one blowing up a relationship by being honest.' 'He did that by stepping outside of their relationship. By his own admission, it doesn't seem like they're poly or otherwise open, so this is totally on him.' 'Tell her and take a screenshot as proof that you can. You won't be the only person he's talking to.' While this two-timing guy should be banned from dating apps — other men are being told to lower their expectations when it comes to online dating. According to new research, fellas are aiming too high when swiping for their perfect match. 'Men tended to express interest in women who were more desirable than themselves, while women typically pursued men of more similar desirability,' a team of international researchers discovered, according to the PLOS One journal. Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store