Shoved in Front of a Train in Nuremberg

Here’s yet another incident where someone was shoved on front of a train in Germany. This one was in the subway in Nuremberg on Christmas Eve, and was enricher-on-enricher — that is, perp and victim were both Iraqis.

I wonder if the Germans have yet coined one of their compact compound nouns meaning “shoving-in-front-of-train-crime” to cover this increasingly popular form of culture-enriching entertainment…

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   During a dispute on Christmas Eve in Nuremberg, a 33-year-old man was pushed
00:04   in front of a subway train as it entered the central train station.
00:07   Both the perpetrator and victim are Iraqis.
00:10   The victim was trapped on the train tracks underneath the railcar and was critically injured.
00:15   The man was rescued by the fire brigade and taken to the hospital.
00:19   The 32-year-old perpetrator fled the scene, but after evaluation of surveillance videos
00:23   he was arrested in less than an hour and brought before a judge.
00:26   The reason for the dispute is still unclear.

9 thoughts on “Shoved in Front of a Train in Nuremberg

  1. Who cares what they were fighting over. Likely, it was over a jar of Nutella or who would get to go first raping some drunk german girl. There is no point in recommending deporting them; if one was successfully deported at hideous taxpayer expense, the german fools would just import another half-dozen to take it’s place.

  2. compact compound nouns = zuggeschlachtet

    The Pirated pieces of gold into Germany not only are enriching their culture but their

    Sprache too. [shpraaxe ]

  3. you asked for a compound noun in german? Here it is:
    Vordenzugschubsverbrechen. I have doubts however that it will make it into any dictionnairy.

  4. I’ll offer my opinion.

    They already have imported enough immigrants to make real political action almost impossible.

    I think the best line of attack would be by limiting the voting franchise. Make immigrants and naturalized citizens ineligible to vote. Make welfare recipients ineligible to vote. Limit the vote to net taxpayers, who pay in more than they receive from the government. If I had my way, no government bureaucrat under civil service would have a vote, since they are in the position of voting themselves a salary and benefits.

    Limiting the franchise will allow the authorities the discretion to deal with criminal classes, without having to worry about identity politics.

      • Yeah. In Heinlein, only veterans could vote. But, there is historical precedent for limiting the franchise, and universal suffrage is not necessarily a good thing.

        Logically, the choices in a massive demographic upheaval is to become extinct, leave, wipe out or cleanse the competing ethnicity, or to set political power so as to limit influence to those who will support the present system and deny the vote to those who would destroy it.

        I actually see a peaceful resolution to the massive immigrant influx in Europe or the US if the right to vote is severely restricted.

        • You and I might actually agree on something. I believe most of the problems facing western democracies stem from the extension of the franchise to those who have no business exercising it. The movement to extend it even further to middle school students and invaders demonstrates that those behind such measures know exactly where that will lead to and how destructive universal franchise is.

Comments are closed.