A Grindr meet-up in Manhattan took an unexpected turn this week when a man turned a gun on his date and robbed him of $1,000.
The New York Post reports that a 33-year-old man staying at the Sheraton’s Four Points in Manhattan met up with a potential date via the popular gay dating app. When the couple returned to his room, his date pulled a gun on him. The assailant then pistol-whipped the man before robbing him of the aforementioned cash, his cell phone, and a computer tablet.
Related: Awful influencer encourages people to make fake Grindr profiles to out gay men
Police took the beaten man to nearby St. Luke’s Hospital to treat cuts to his head.
The attack is just the latest in an ongoing string of attacks involving the dating app. Last month, a Moroccan influencer encouraged the use of Grindr to out closeted gay men, in the nation where homosexuality is punishable by a prison sentence. That same month, police in Georgia used Grindr to target gay men, offering to sell marijuana or meet for sex. When the men arrived at the designated location, police would arrest them for violating COVID-19 lockdown rules.
Chrisk
At least he met him outside the room. Red flags should’ve been all over that one though. If you prefer the anonymous scene where the less you know about the person the better then those obvious signs will be missed.
Heywood Jablowme
I guess we can assume they’re not black? In that case the NYC cops would have shown up and beat them both senseless for breaking the social distancing rules and not wearing masks!
Vince
I’d say that was the dumbest comment ever but then again I am on queerty.
Kangol2
@Vince, you should read the news more. Cops in NYC are targeting Black (and Latinx) men in particular who “violate” social distancing dictates (70+% of the tickets and arrests over social distancing in Brooklyn have been of Black people), yet politely admonishing or ticketing (in Prospect Park, Manhattan Bridge Park, etc.) White people in Brooklyn and other boroughs, and in some cases not daring to say a word (cf. the recent controversy over de Blasio’s comments about the Hasidic funeral at which hundreds of white people filled the sidewalks, streets, etc.).
edwardnvirginia
Well a brother gotta make a living somehow, right? Why not theft? And stupid horney gay guys are a really easy target? right?
Paulie P
….when the couple returned to his room…. where did they go? If met in the hotel lobby, masturbating with a magazine (nod to Prince) then there is surveillance footage.
Aires the Ram
Well, it’s a shame what happened to this guy, anybody who gets beaten and robbed suffers. BUT, that being said, I believe guys are free do to whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t disturb the horses. But the fact remains, if we put ourselves in ‘potentially’ risky situations, we must be adults and understand that is “we” who have put “ourselves” in said risk. I hope they find the guy that did it and put his ass in jail, but we all need to be responsible for our actions when we put ourselves in risky situations. When something bad happens like this (which it never should), we have to bear some responsibility for it. If you stick your hand in the forbidden cookie jar, and Mommy slaps your ass, who’s responsible for you getting slapped? You, or Mommy?? Think about it.
Heywood Jablowme
First you say “I hope they find the guy that did it and put his ass in jail,” and then you say “but we all need to be responsible for our actions when we put ourselves in risky situations.”
Okay, how “responsible” do you think the victim is? If he put himself in a risky situation, what does it mean in a legal sense that he’s (somewhat) responsible?
Aires the Ram
@H.J.: If you had read my post correctly, it DID NOT say that the victim of this crime is ‘responsible’ for the crime. The perpetrator of the crime is ‘responsible’ for the crime. Get that through your thick skull. What I did say, is that we are RESPONSIBLE for putting ourselves in risky situations. That’s a whole different thing, and you know it. I won’t use the ‘hands in the cookie jar’ reference again, so how about this one; You’re on a long, straight and deserted road, late at night. You decide to open it up and “see what she’ll do”, so you put the hammer down and get up to 110 miles-per-hour. All of a sudden there’s a coyote in the road in front of you, so your reaction is to steer to miss it. Wrong decision, but, this decision sends you cascading and rolling into a ditch at high speed, which leaves you dead.
So who’s responsible for your death in this situation? The coyote for having the audacity of standing in the middle of the road, or your [poor] decision to go 110 miles-per-hour?
And to answer your last question, “what does it mean in a legal sense that he’s (somewhat) responsible?”, the answer is that in a ‘legal sense’, he’s not responsible for being attacked, the guy who attacked him is responsible for committing that crime, and nobody else.
Everyone has their own individual tolerance to risk, no matter the subject matter. Therefore, those who put themselves at higher risk than others, are statistically proven to be more subject to harm.