Sep 09

Four In Urumqi Indicted Over Needling Pedestrian

Written by Charles Liu on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Filed under:-guest-posts, -mini-posts, General, News | Tags:, ,
Add comments

Four In Urumqi Indicted Over Needling Pedestrian:

According to Xinhua News on 9/7, prosecutors in Urumqi indicted 4 people over Shaoximen needling case on 9/3. This is the second case of needling the Urumqi prosecutors have filed.

Suspects Abdul-Rusuli Abdul-Kedl, Abdul-Rahman Abdul-Razzaq, Abdul-Keyoumu Abdul-Aufu, Abdul-mithi Mamati, around 9/3 10:30 followed a woman (surname Lee) into pedestrian underpass in Urumqi’s Shaoximen area. When they passed Lee, Abdul-Rusuli Abdul-Kedl with help of three others, stabbed Lee’s neck with a hyperdermic needle.

Withe the help of the crowd, the four were caught at the scene. On the 3rd they were detained by Urumqi police on the charge of endangering public safety. On the 7th, the case was moved to the prosecutors, and the four were offcially arrested. Urumqi police carried out the order on the 7th.

Urumqi prosecutors said, these four suspect ignored established laws, needling women in the public, severely distrupted social order with serious consquences. A crime has clearly taken place, with concrete evidence.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

7 Responses to “Four In Urumqi Indicted Over Needling Pedestrian”

  1. S.K. Cheung Says:

    Sounds like these 4 were definitely endangering Ms. Lee’s safety. As for public safety…. It seems Xinhua also dispenses with niceties like “allegedly” when describing the purported acts of those not yet convicted.

    One woman gets stabbed, and social order is disrupted? Such a fragile thing it seems to be. Better start taking orders for 4 last meals, cuz this shouldn’t take long.

  2. FOARP Says:

    On the 3rd of September – that is to say, the day of the demonstrations, by which time the rumour of these acts had spread far and wide. No eye-witness report (even though, judging from the report, this would have been easy to come by and no law prevents it), no indication as to why exactly it took four men to stab one woman with a needle, and, as SKC pointed out, no presumption of innocence.

    Oh, and if you want an example of why we in England were right to get rid of indictments via grand juries and so forth this is as good as any: most people simply assume that once you’re indicted, you already half-way proved guilty.

  3. Charles Liu Says:

    Please read it more carefuly – this is the 2nd set of indictments. There have been other incidents of needling. With the insinuation they are AIDS tainted dirty needles, acts like this spread terror among the public.

    As to what is being reported, they are simply quoting the prosecutors. There were numerous witness, as the article reported they were arrested with the crowd’s help. The reporter refered to the assilants as “suspects”.

  4. FOARP Says:

    @Charles – Yes, I saw that. Now please write carefully – what exactly does it mean? As far as I am aware the initial arrests were announced at the demonstrations to placate the crowds. And since when do legal authorities make ‘insinuations’ about suspects awaiting trial in a criminal case? At least in any system in which innocence is presumed before proof of guilt?

    Yes, ‘suspects’, but it also portrays them as having actually carried out the act, and only the charges are quoted from the prosecutors, the supposed stabbings are quoted as confirmed fact, and the witnesses are simply referred to as ‘the masses’ – if so many people saw the act then why are there no eye-witness reports?

  5. Charles Liu Says:

    Foarp, “initial arrests were announced at the demonstrations to placate the crowds.”

    Prove it. The 9/3 arrests were the 2nd batch of indictments per the report, proving there were arrests before the demonstration. Now can you show me where you got the facts prompting your claim?

    All prosecutors claim they can prove guilt. I read stuff like this by US prosecutor all the time. Would you like me to provide some citation to show this?

    How do you know ther are no eye-witness reports? What would you say if I go to Baidu and find such reporting?

  6. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Charles:
    “All prosecutors claim they can prove guilt.”
    —but of course. If they felt they couldn’t, then they shouldn’t be proceeding with the charges. That said, the last paragraph of your post seems to show the prosecutor taking a more publicly prejudicial position than the average bear, at least one who lives around here.

  7. Charles Liu Says:

    Not more so than what I’ve read in US, such as claiming ample witness to the crime or sufficient evidence to convict, bring justice, take danger off the street, etc.

    BTW, here’s a report on the 1st set of needling indictment issued on 9/2, proving police investigations, arrests occured prior 9/2, and indictmet occured prior to the 9/5 protest – thus refuting Foarp’s claim these arrests occured after the protest.

    Foarp what else are you wrong?

Leave a Reply