RUSH-HOUR TERROR: 1 dead, 2 wounded in shooting at NYC subway station; police hunting for gunman

BREAKING NEWS: New York City police were hunting for a gunman Monday who shot and killed one person and wounded two others in an attack near Penn Station during the height of the city's morning rush hour.

Related Image

SCENE119.jpgExpand / Contract
Three people were shot near Penn Station on Monday morning. (Teresa Priolo/FOX5NY)
The shooter has not been reported captured, but the NYPD could not confirm that the gunman was still at large. Police are reportedly searching for suspects who fled the scene after the 6:15 a.m. shooting in a dark-colored vehicle, according to Newsday.

One of the wounded was shot in the leg and the other was shot in the stomach, authorities told Fox News. Their injuries were not considered life threatening.

RUSH-HOUR TERROR: 1 dead, 2 wounded in shooting at NYC subway station; police hunting for gunman

Two men who attend a nearby methadone program at the West Midtown Medical Group said they knew two of the victims, one who was killed and one who was injured. They said both victims came to the clinic for years.

Police are reportedly searching for suspects who fled the scene after the 6:15 a.m. shooting in a dark-colored vehicle, according to Newsday.

Drug deal gone wrong? Old grudges? Gang related?

a reply to: DAVID64
I'm sorry for the victims families and for the two who have survived, and I hope they are not crippled, this could be anything, but I wait with bated breath expecting to hear it's a Islamic nutter gone shooter..

From what I have seen it looks like it was some kind of domestic incident. It said in one article I read that they were in McDonalds and were asked to come outside and that is when it spilled out on to the streets. Obviously someone with a grudge, like you said drug related or something. Just fortunate more people weren't injured.a reply to: DAVID64

But aren't guns illegal in NYC?

Im actually surprised this doesnt happen more in places like NY. Sick people will always find a way to do harm no matter what. Thank goodness it did not end up a higher number.

Enough already!

I demand everyone to be armed!

Government give back programs except this involves guns not like all the other "give backs".

originally posted by: Wiz4769
But aren't guns illegal in NYC?

Im actually surprised this doesnt happen more in places like NY. Sick people will always find a way to do harm no matter what. Thank goodness it did not end up a higher number.

Criminals don't respect the law. Hate to be captain obvious. ....

a reply to: DAVID64

Could be all three of the possibilities you mention are the truth. It could also be that none are accurate.

There is far too little information to make any firm assumption about the events in question, although some fantastic questions arise, like who wants to off a bunch of drug addicts part way through a chemical rehabilitation program?

That was sorta the point of the post my friend...Im a Texan so no need to explain to me that bad guys do what they want and law abiding citizens pay the price of doing the right thing.

My heart goes out to the victims and I hope they get to the bottom of this, but I can't help but laugh at the headline.

"RUSH-HOUR TERROR"



Oh, those drama queens at Fox.....so funny.

a reply to: introvert

so what qualifies as "terror" you seem to have advanced knowledge in this area? Yea, all the games on your ps4 do not count but, certainly being shot at does.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: introvert

so what qualifies as "terror" you seem to have advanced knowledge in this area?

What did I say that would make you think I have "advanced knowledge" in that area? Please explain.

I was talking about the journalistic approach to use the term as a vehicle for drama. I'm very confused as to how you came to that conclusion based on my minimal post.

Yea, all the games on your ps4 do not count but, certainly being shot at does.

Well, that's is a very childish thing to say when, as I stated before, I was commenting on the use of the headline, not redefining terror.

a reply to: introvert

What are you objecting to? Rush hour or terror, or the combination of the terms? Is it not an accurate description? Oh, wait I know you are objecting not to the headline but to who uses the headline. It's just political gouging and it's annoying when people have been shot, and quite frankly disrespectful. That my friend is very childish.

a reply to: TechniXcality

What are you objecting to? Rush hour or terror, or the combination of the terms?

I simply find it humorous how the entire term is used as a technique of invoking dramatic feeling in the reader/viewer and how well it works on those that do not recognize the propaganda technique.

Oh, wait I know you are objecting not to the headline but to who uses the headline.

All media outlets use this technique. It is not limited to just Fox. Hell, it's even popular in advertising and marketing.

It's just political gouging and it's annoying when people have been shot, and quite frankly disrespectful. That my friend is very childish.

Well, I just put that claim to rest. Would you like to make more assumptions and ignorant comments like i had "advanced knowledge" of the area? Which you still have yet to explain where you came up with that bit of silliness.

Perhaps it would be best if you take my words for what they mean and stop tying to assume you know my intent. You know what they say about assuming, right?

a reply to: introvert

No you haven't put any claim to rest. The title is an accurate discription, you didn't answer wether it is or isn't, instead you go on to claim propaganda and how well it works on "those" that cannot recognize it. Yes what a grandiose, little world you live in, and quite pretentious, hence your " advanced knowledge". Are the terms an accurate discription? Yes or no very simple. After answering that you only describe your opinion that's it, which is in fact political gouging, the fact I have to argue this with you when people have been shot is once again and indicator of your mind set however that is just my opinion.

a reply to: TechniXcality

No you haven't put any claim to rest.

Yes, I did. You claimed I said what I did because of the media outlet that used the headline. I Properly refuted that by saying all media uses it and so does marketing/advertising.

It's a well known technique.

you didn't answer wether it is or isn't

Because it's irrelevant. I'm not talking about the act itself. I'm talking about the journalistic approach.

instead you go on to claim propaganda

Because it is.

how well it works on "those" that cannot recognize it

Hmmm. Judging by your comments and how offended you seem to be at my comments, I'd say my comment was correct.

Yes what a grandiose, little world you live in, and quite pretentious, hence your " advanced knowledge".

My, what a pretentious thing to say.

After answering that you only describe your opinion that's it, which is in fact political gouging, the fact I have to argue this with you when people have been shot is once again and indicator of your mind set however that is just my opinion.

Playing off the emotions, huh? I can't make a simple, meaningless comment about the technique, which is completely accurate, without you trying to play the emotion card?

Grow up and find someone else to annoy. You're blowing this way out of proportion. Perhaps you need to get your emotions in check.

a reply to: introvert

haha, and i quote "Because it's irrelevant. I'm not talking about the act itself. I'm talking about the journalistic approach. "

So, its irrelevant whether the title is an accurate description (the journalistic approach being; accurately describing the event! derp derp)?

Interesting, your argument is invalid, its completely relevant because everything that you opine about is just that; your slanted view. The title is an accurate description and you know that, and you will not say that! Because as soon as you do everything else i have said, becomes true. You are political gouging, and you are not logical. Answer the question or we are done with this conversation, IS THE TITLE AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION? YES OR NO

originally posted by: introvert
My heart goes out to the victims and I hope they get to the bottom of this, but I can't help but laugh at the headline.

"RUSH-HOUR TERROR"

Oh, those drama queens at Fox.....so funny.

1. It happened during the morning rush hour.
2. It was terrible for the people involved and those that directly witnessed it.

What would you call it then if not rush-hour terror?

a reply to: opethPA

Evidently he would call it " fox-news propaganda"

I would use the word carnage instead of terror. Many of the uneducated proles now assume middle eastern arabs when reading any single headline with the word terror.

In any cae, here is how I suspect it may have played out. This victim was a frequent customer of the methadone clinic as stated by a witness. Anyone who is a frequent flier of these clinics after years is just using it as a stop gap between their dry days of not having begged or stolen enough money for their hearts true desire.

It is possible this man pissed off a dealer he had an agreement with and owed him money that he has not been quick to payoff. That, or he witnessed or found out about a different crime the dealer did not want having any witnesses. Anyone who has ever known a true junkie will confirm that they can never be trusted to keep their word, or their mouth shut until they are rescued from the darkness, which rarely happens anymore.

So that is my suspicion. It was a regular dealer that took him down for money owed or to kill a witness.

a reply to: TechniXcality

No. I do not believe it was an act of terror. It was probably an act of violence and stupidity. Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".

We haven't even caught the person who did this, as far as I know, so how can we say they had any political goal? The word terrorism is thrown-around too easily. But we can thank the war on terrorism, in which everything is considered terrorism, for that.

So no, it was not an accurate description and that is why I focused on the technique itself. It's used quite often.