Police: Man Struck in Head by Metal Flashlight Outside BJ's

Police arrested 44-year-old Jorge J. Lopez, of the Bronx, with second-degree assault, a felony, and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor.

  • Editor's Note: The information was provided by the Yorktown Police Department. It does not indicate a conviction. 

A Peekskill man was taken to the hospital on Monday after another man struck him in the head with a metal flashlight, Yorktown police said. 

Police investigation revealed 44-year-old Jorge J. Lopez, of the Bronx, struck the victim several times in the head with a metal flashlight during an altercation outside the main entrance BJ's Wholesale Club at around 8:08 p.m. 

He then fled the scene in a silver Cheyrolet but his vehicle was stopped by police on the Taconic State Parkway at around 8:25 p.m.

Lopez was charged with second-degree assault, a felony, and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a misdemeanor.

The Peekskill male victim was transported to Hudson Valley Hospital by Lake Mohegan Volunteer Ambulance Corps for treatment of head injuries, police said.

Lopez was released him on $2,500 cash bail and was scheduled to appear in Yorktown Town Court on Thursday, Feb. 21. 

claudia jones February 20, 2013 at 12:00 PM
thank goodness he didn't have a gun! men can make a weapon out of anything, including a flashlight!
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 01:26 PM
Let's get Barry and Cuomo going on the flashlight ban- these things are dangerous! I love the title- assigning responsibility to the flashlight and not the PERSON who used it to crack the guy over the head- see a pattern here?
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Imagine if it was a defenseless elderly person or handicapped person- I guess they should just take the beating and hope for the best right?
Jay Miller February 20, 2013 at 03:07 PM
Yes, I see a pattern. Some people just refuse to acknowledge the difference between the destructive power of a flashlight or knife for that matter and a gun. I'm surprised you didn't add that it's too bad the guy who got assaulted didn't have a gun. That way he could've taught the guy who hit him a real lesson! Maybe if we all had guns no one would ever be assaulted, right? Hey, if I think you're going to shoot me I'll behave, right? And I need these guns to protect myself from flashlight wielding criminals and my government, right Paul Revere? The British are coming! The British are coming!
GC February 20, 2013 at 03:08 PM
We need a flashlight registry! Where is the Journal News when you need them!
Buzz351 February 20, 2013 at 04:00 PM
Publish the suspects address. We all have a right to know who is mentally unstable and can use a flashlight as a means of a deadly weapon at any given moment.
Fred Wooding February 20, 2013 at 04:08 PM
Where is a Light Saber when you need one ??
joe February 20, 2013 at 04:11 PM
Need to get the facts right. It was the Yorktown Volunteer Ambulance Corp that transported the individual.
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Oooo, another Constitution hater. Settle down. A gun is certainly one of the acceptable ways to defend ones self.
Jay Miller February 20, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Not a constitution hater. Maybe you should try to stop name-calling and engage in a substantive discussion. It is not as black and white as you think it is. The constitution, including the bill of rights, are not statements of the absolute. Just as you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, likewise, reasonable limits can be placed on the second amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions on the issue have concluded as much. Oops. You don't like the courts, do you? A gun is an acceptable form of self-defense....if you have undergone a rigorous background check and get a gun. Not an automatic or semi-automatic weapon of war with a high volume clip.
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 07:52 PM
Automatic weapons have been banned from civilian ownership since the National Firearms Act of 1934- they include weapons used by the military. So "weapons of war" have already been banned. Semi-automatic firearms are the most widely utilized types of firearms by civilians for sport shooting, defense, competition etc. I'm not sure what you mean about a "high volume clip". Semi-automatic firearms utilize what are known as "magazines"- these, despite being vilified as "killing machines" are pieces of sheet metal that are spot welded together to hold a set number of carttridges. To firearms professionals, STANDARD capacity magazines AR15 type rifles are 20 to 30 rounds. For the typical semiautomatic handgun, STANDARD capacity magazines are anywhere from 8-17 rounds.
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 07:53 PM
But please, don't let facts and proper terminology get your way. Your anti-gun, anti 2nd amendment position is duly noted.
GC February 20, 2013 at 08:48 PM
Actually they are statements in the absolute. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not their reasonability. If the public doesn't like one of the supreme laws of the land, then they need to petition their congressman and senators to put an amendment to a vote and get a 2/3rds majority in both houses. THEN you can place limits on whom, or what, firearms a law abiding citizen can own. What you all don't understand is that the constitution is supposed to be there to protect us. Continue to weaken it by interpreting it for political expediency, and you shall lead our children toward disastrous consequences.
Teleman February 20, 2013 at 08:56 PM
Right on GC
Jay Miller February 21, 2013 at 01:05 AM
Wrong again cowboy. There is no such thing as an unfettered right. Constitutional rights are not unlimited. Depending upon the right, a reasonableness standard, or one that is more demanding than that applies. Who decides what standard to apply in determining whether it is constitutional to limit a particular right? The courts. Who decides whether that standard has been met? The courts. You know, one of the three branches of government and I'm sure your least favorite. Right up there on your list with the press as what's wrong with America. Invest in a law book and read District of Columbia v. Heller. You shouldn't let your understanding of our system of jurisprudence be determined by FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or even Michael Bloomberg for that matter. I will add that Savage and O'Reilly can be interesting.
Tom February 21, 2013 at 01:21 AM
Thomas Jefferson would disagree with GC. TJ felt that the constitution could be likened to a child wearing a coat. As the child grows the coat needs to be changed to accommodate the growing child. He felt that as the country continued to grow the constitution would have to grow accordingly or be strengthened commensurately. There is no possible way TJ or any of the forefathers could have foresaw the weaponry being disseminated to the general population. The other thing the forefathers could never have predicted was that the congress would be infiltrated by a sizeable amount of circus clowns who could not possibly be responsible adults never mind responsible legislators who would have the sensibilities to enhance something as precious as the constitution. For anyone who states the second amendment is being violated by restricting a select few types of weapons, you have not even convinced the rest of us that you have truly convinced yourselves of that notion. We give you more credit than that.
Teleman February 21, 2013 at 02:41 AM
Right from the liberal playbook LOL- I pointed out your previous errors and lack of knowledge on the subject of firearms and you make like it never happened and move onto the next- criticism. May I suggest a basic firearms manual to familiarize yourself with proper firearm terminology? Comical if it wasn't so sad.
Teleman February 21, 2013 at 03:03 AM
I love the whole "constitution is a flexible document" nonsense. Yes, it can be changed and amended through a Constitutional convention and that's not a simple thing- because the founders forsaw that short sighted nutballs would want to add to it and change it on a whim. The truly sad thing here is that innocent lives are being used to push forth a socio-politcal agenda- and those people are either so narrow minded or just plain stupid, that they refuse to look at the REAL root causes of violence- destroyed education system, parentless gang-banging children, the welfare state, children being prescribed antidepressants, violence in the media and video games. These are the common threads that should be looked at for REAL violence reduction results. The anti-gun laws have proven time and again ( look at chicago) to be the LEAST effective. But you don't really want to help solve the problem do you? Lets focu on the inanimate object, not whats behind it.
GC February 21, 2013 at 06:38 PM
Some people, like Teleman, get it. The rest, it’s not that they don’t get it, actually, but that they reject it. For the life of me, I can’t understand why. Is it fear, indoctrination? Or maybe (as has been said) “[Freedom isn’t passed] to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Look up who said it yourself. Either way what Tom is trying to express is that the constitution grants the government both enumerated and implied powers. Yes, yes, yes we all understand that the forefathers couldn’t for see every eventually of the future and expected that, for the government to operate, prudent changes would have to be made. But the liberal mind-set takes that to the extreme, they claim the constitution is a “living breathing document” (it’s not), that should be interpreted as necessary. Sorry, but the goal of the constitution isn’t to empower the government, it’s to limit it.
GC February 21, 2013 at 06:38 PM
Now, are responsible gun owners shouting for the right to own bazookas or machine guns? NO. There are already numerous limits and regulations regarding guns on the books. But what you are proposing goes beyond constitutionality. Again, typical liberal, “if we just have more regulations, give the government more power, more money, we can solve all our problems”. It’s Sad, really. Is society so impotent in the face of aggression? So unable to take responsibility for our individual lives and actions, that we have to punish the law abiders because of the law breakers. All these laws are ineffectual; we can only enforce them on those that live within the law, not on those outside the law. It’s a sure sign that a teacher has lost control of a classroom when he has to give everyone detention because of the actions of a few. By the way, how old are you Tom, since you speak as if you’ve spoken personally to our founders? In the end it’s a waste of time. Like I said, it’s not that you don’t get it, you reject it. Freedom, that is.
Teleman February 22, 2013 at 03:50 PM
Look at where the pathetic anti-gunners are they're telling women to urinate and vomit on themselves to avoid being raped- we are in a new reality of stupidity for sure


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something