'White couple' not the only ones hurt in Cincinnati attack? Claims of a third person surface
While police have taken cognizance of the clips and said they are investigating the matter, which left two people injured, now a new video appears to show that there was a third victim.
The incident, where the man and woman were beaten, took place at the intersection of West Fourth Street and Elm Street.
What does the new video show?
The new video, shared by Charlie Kirk – co founder of Turning Point USA – shows a man on the streets of what he claims to be Cincinnati.
This man is attacked from behind by what appears to be another Black person. He is hit in the face and goes to ground immediately. He is then dragged by his legs and dropped in front of a vehicle on the road. The man then manages to get back on his feet.
Sharing the video, Kirk, who is a conservative political activist, said 'I sure hope the police are in the process of arresting all of these criminals so the DA can throw the book at each and every one of them.'
Again, the video does not show the events leading up to the altercation, and it remains unclear if this man is related to the other two white people who were on the receiving end of violence.
What authorities said about the attack
Speaking about the clips where the couple were shown getting beaten, Cincinnati police chief Terri Theetge told WLWT that the incident was in no way related to the music festival. Further, the police chief noted that a verbal altercation had broken out among some of the individuals seen on the video, which eventually escalated to outright violence.
'I am in complete disgust waking up to the viral video many of you have now seen. The behavior displayed is nothing short of cruel and absolutely unacceptable. Our investigative team is working diligently to identify every individual involved in causing harm,' the top cop said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Mamata Banerjee and the debate around the almost Rs 500-crore Durga Puja dole in West Bengal
Eighty-five thousand? Ninety thousand? Ninety-five? One? Ok. One lakh ten! And, with that, the hammer came down on Mamata Banerjee's donation of Rs 1,10,000 to each of the 45,000 pandals where Goddess Durga will be worshipped for officially for five days this September-October across West Bengal, including 3000 in Kolkata. This donation, to be made from the coffers of the West Bengal government, was announced by the Chief Minister at Kolkata's Netaji Indoor Stadium on Thursday and it brought the audience of Durga Puja organisers to their feet, hands in air, clapping and cheering. But the noise drowned out a question that should worry anyone in a secular democracy: can the government directly or indirectly promote or even be associated with religion or a religious event? It is a question that has hung in the air since 2018 when, for the first time, Mamata Banerjee declared a grant to the Durga Pujas. Then, the size of the donation or dole was Rs 10000 to around 2,800 pandals or a total of Rs 28 crore. In the last eight years, the number of pandals has grown and, with that, the size of the largesse, totting up this year to a very handsome Rs 495 crore. There is some debate that the number of pandals is 43,000 and not 45,000 and the payout not Rs 495 crore but 473 crore. But that's just hair-splitting. Can the taxpayers' money be spent quite like this? Problematic but politically smart It is a problematic question but politically brilliant. For Mamata Banerjee, the cost benefits are simple. For Rs 495 crore, she secures the loyalty of the clubs that organise the Durga Pujas. The clubs are powerful and influential in their local neighbourhoods; remember, West Bengal has a long history of para and club culture. Winning their support is a sure shot short cut to winning local and bigger electoral battles. And this year's generous jump in largesse—from Rs 85,000 last year to Rs 1.10 lakh per Durga Puja club—surely has much to do with the fact that West Bengal goes to Assembly polls next year. 2026. BJP's Catch 22 It is also a winner of a move as it puts the BJP in a spot. The Durga Puja donation or largesse—many call it dole—completely demolishes the BJP's biggest ammunition against Mamata Banerjee: the charge of minority appeasement. The move is a thorn in BJP's flesh for yet another reason—the BJP can't oppose the dole to the Durga Pujas because it is, after all, donation to a Hindu religious festival. No wonder BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari fumed, "Let her give Rs 2 lakh or 10 lakh to the Durga Pujas. We are not complaining. But let her also pay DA arrears to government workers that is pending for ages and fill in vacancies in government." West Bengal has around 12 lakh employees including pensioners who are due DA totalling, according to some reports, a payout of Rs 10,000 crore. The court ordered on May that the DA arrears should be paid within three months which means by mid-August. So far, there have been no payments. It's the economy, honey The strongest defence of the dole/donation/largesse by Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress party (TMC) is that the government intervention is meant to boost the local economy that has grown over the decades around the Durga Pujas. According to a study in 2013, the size of the festival economy was about Rs 25,000 crore. In 2019, the British Council conducted a survey on the festival economy which was relabelled "creative economy" that goes on round the year. That survey put the size of the creative economy at Rs 32,377 crore. Mamata Banerjee's argument is, the state government payout is directed not at religious affairs but at improving the economics for thousands of people who make a living from the festival—idol makers, pandal makers, drummers, decorators and dozens others. Economists have backed the model of economic development and given Mamata Banerjee a clean chit. Politically fraught This debate about whether the Durga Puja dole/donation is against secularism or not has been going on since it started being given in 2018. But it is in election years that the issue becomes particularly fraught and explosive. While Mamata Banerjee may have announced the donation and moved on, with the confidence that it will bring her political dividends, the BJP is desperately trying to launch an effective counter offensive. Last heard, BJP's Suvendu Adhikari has appealed to Durga Puja pandal committees to reject the dole as a protest against the rape and murder of the RG Kar doctor last year that had rocked Kolkata, and in fact, communities across the world. Last year, a handful of puja committees had set the example. All eyes are on how many will follow suit this year. But Adhikari's strategy is clear: to enlarge the scope of opposition to Durga Puja donation by the state. But for the last seven years, Mamata Banerjee has reaped huge benefits from this strategic intervention and there are very little signs of that changing in its eighth year or the foreseeable future. In fact, it is hard to imagine that should BJP come to power in the state, it will roll back the dole to the goddess. The political ethics of Durga Puja dole will always be debatable but the West Bengal Chief Minister is not turning a hair, as long as the dole earns her the people's—and perhaps divine—blessings.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Operations Management Project Management Technology Management Data Science Finance Data Analytics Design Thinking Public Policy healthcare others MBA Cybersecurity Leadership MCA Degree Digital Marketing PGDM Healthcare CXO Product Management Others Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Quality Management & Lean Six Sigma Analytical Tools Supply Chain Management & Strategies Service Operations Management Duration: 10 Months IIM Lucknow IIML Executive Programme in Strategic Operations Management & Supply Chain Analytics Starts on Jan 27, 2024 Get Details The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Live Events Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts , up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
Economic Times
16 hours ago
- Economic Times
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
Reuters FILE: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson signs the U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
