Skip to main content

KHALID RAHMAN HAS BEEN INDICTED FOR THE MURDER OF MATT SHAW

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment of KHALID RAHMAN, 20, on charges of Murder in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, and Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree.[1] In the early morning hours of July 5, 2012, the defendant is charged with firing a shot that killed Matt Shaw, 21, a recent college graduate, near the AK Houses in East Harlem.

“This young man had a bright future ahead of him – instead, he will be remembered as a tragic victim,” said District Attorney Vance. “Matt Shaw was among more than a dozen victims of deadly shootings citywide over the Fourth of July holiday weekend. We will continue to fight back against gun violence in our communities.”

According to the charging documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court, at approximately 1:30 a.m. on July 5, 2012, RAHMAN was walking toward a group of people gathered in front of the AK Houses at East 128th Street and Lexington Avenue when he fired in the general direction of the victim, striking a parked car. When Shaw began to run from the scene, he was struck in the back by a second bullet from the gun the defendant is charged with firing. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital. As the defendant was being pursued by another group of people, he is charged with once again firing his gun back toward the crowd. NYPD officers arrested RAHMAN more than a week later, on July 13, 2012.

Assistant District Attorneys Harrison Schweiloch and Emily Ching are prosecuting the case under the supervision of William Mahoney, Chief of Trial Bureau 60, and Charles Whitt and Frank Fogarty, Deputy Chiefs of Trial Bureau 60. Trial Preparation Assistant John Everett is assisting with the case.

District Attorney Vance thanked members of the NYPD, including Detectives Joseph Sanatore and Anthony Kahn of the NYPD 25th Detective Squad, and Detective Gerard Dimuro of Manhattan North Homicide.


Defendant Information:

KHALID RAHMAN, D.O.B. 03/03/92
New York, NY

Charges:
• Murder in the Second Degree, a class A felony, one count
• Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a class C felony, two counts
• Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree, a class D felony, one count
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more