NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The husband of the woman critically injured by a falling shopping cart in East Harlem last year said he never wants to see the chilling video of the incident.

The revealing surveillance footage was released in the attack that occurred at a Target store last October. The cart was hurled four stories over a parking ledge and landed on top of Marion Hedges, 47, who was shopping for Halloween candy for underprivileged kids with her son.

“I’m quite concerned that my children never see that video, I would never like to see that video,” Michael Hedges told CBS 2’s Kathryn Brown.

The video, obtained by the New York Post, shows 13-year-old Jiovanni Rosario and 12-year-old Raymond Hernandez plotting their prank while struggling with another friend.

Achilles Baskin can be seen in the video trying to stop the two other teens from tossing the cart. Baskin eventually gives up and takes off.

“We knew about the third boy. We’re grateful that he made the effort that he did,” Michael Hedges said.

Moments later, Rosario and Hernandez hoist the cart up and shove it off the ledge before running away. Another camera captured the disturbing scene below, where Hedges, who is seen standing with her own 13-year-old son, never sees what hits her.

Hedges falls to the ground after the cart lands on top of her while her son looks up confused before desperately trying to help his mother.

Other shoppers rush over to see what happened and then minutes later, an ambulance pulls up.

Hedges spent months in a medically-induced coma. Michael Hedges said her recovery has been slow and painful.

“She can walk 5 or 6 blocks before she starts feeling nauseous or dizzy,” he said. “She has issues with memory…our family is under tremendous strain.”

Rosario and Hernandez both pleaded guilty to assault.

Even as Hedges struggled to relearn basic words — like her own name — her husband asked a judge not to sentence the boys to jail, instead arguing they deserved compassion though they showed none.  Despite her injuries, Michael Hedges said his wife is still dedicated to helping others.

“She is working to the degree possible — to identify mechanisms and charities that will do good for inner city youth,” he said. “When she’s — and if she’s — able to do that, and I will try to help her.”

Marion Hedges said she has not spoken to the boys who pushed the cart and called her recovery a work in progress.

Last month, Rosario was sentenced to six to 16 months in a therapy-oriented boarding school.

Earlier this month, a judge sentenced Hernandez to at least six and up to 16 months in a therapeutic foster home.

Michael Hedges has filed a lawsuit on his wife’s behalf against the East River Plaza shopping center for not providing adequate security at the location.

Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below …

Comments (16)
  1. Dan Daily says:

    So in other words, the husband want to let the perps off, but sues the store. This is why this country is in the shape it’s in. Sheesh!

  2. bs says:

    The sentencing of the two mentally handicapped idiots proves the lack of justice, victimizes even more the victim and shows total disregard for her suffering, and sends the wrong message to the criminals. “It is ok to commit crimes! You won’t be punished for it, and we will show plenty of compassion and understanding for your crimes, hopefully you’ll commit again more crimes!.”
    Liberals are a disease!

  3. Leslie says:

    Great, show these criminals compassion and they will do it again and again and again. But let’s sue the Mall operator for not having floor to sky walls and bars and 1000 security guards to stop idiots from throwing a shopping cart over a high enough already wall. If the wall / barrier wasn’t there, then I can see the mall being at fault, but there was a wall that wouldn’t allow a cart fo roll off the edge. The fact it took two mental idiots to pick it up and toss it over, means people will do anything they can to inflict harm on someone else, without remorse without the CARE this act can hurt or kill someone.

    1. Richard says:

      Yes, the question is how much liability can we expect of anyone or any institution or corporation. Theoretically an idiot can throw firecrackers from a movie balcony or a concert hall, so someone is seriously injured while watching SWAN LAKE. Errant children can push a X’mas tree on customers in a department store. The snow from outside a famous department store can be used to make a snowball large enough to injure an elderly person. Are we going to sue that store because there was snow outside and because it has the money for a large payout? We can play a party game here and list all the potential liabilities in life if litigious people are inclined to claim them. Three children play baseball in a vacant lot and one gets an arhythmic heartbeat and they can sue the lot owner for not closing off the lot to children (if the lot were closed the child would not have died of a heart attack). I’m not being facetious with these examples either. It’s hardly far fetched in today’s litigious culture that parents would sue the wealthy corporation that owned the vacant lot if a child somehow suffered a mishap there. Come to think of it, were I a parent I might tell my child, “Go play in that vacant lot owned by that famous franchise food chain. At least if something happens we have someone to sue.” These kids are responsible, plain and simple and, ultimately, their parents, assuming liability is placed anywhere.

      1. Leslie says:

        and I guess the victim and husband realize they can’t get a dime from these POS criminals, so why would they care what these kids do to someone else when they go out and forget what is right and wrong.

        They only care about MONEY, which is why they are going after the owners of the Mall.

  4. Rodin says:

    Yesterday’s news.

  5. paulielexx says:

    I shed a tear upon listening to this horrific tale. That poor family. Do I think these kid wanted to hit someone with the cart? Not sure. But at 13 years old you should already have a moral compass as to what is right or wrong. These 2 don’t. I don’t believe they ever will. 16 months in a boarding school is a laughable punishment for the egregious injury they caused.

  6. Steven Kopstein says:

    An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. I would hazard a guess that these kids never experienced compassion in a meaningful way. I’d rather see them rehabilitated than warehoused. It costs a lot less and they may actually contribute to society.

    1. Richard says:

      The point of an “eye for an eye” is to make everyone see not make everyone blind. You’re just giving your own spin on that talion code. The point of deterrent rulings is to DETER not to incarcerate; incarceration is merely a necessary but not a sufficient response to a crime. Obviously there are mitigating factors and the law includes (incorporates) those in its rulings. There are no mitigating factors in this case: a brilliant and charitable woman now remains under custodial care; her husband and family are severely impacted as I’m sure are her friends who have lost an able companion who is now disabled. And for what? An act so egregiously wrong as to go way beyond prankish, foolish, etc. but comes close to defining demonic evil. “An eye for an eye makes everyone blind” rolls off the tongue nicely but it doesn’t reflect the real meaning of justice, which includes attenuation anyway (contrary to your implicit claim): if the law were literally an eye for an eye as you imply we would hurl a cart on the top of the head of the child until he ended up in the same condition as his victim. The Law is not doing that; so your implicit reading of the talionic code is wrong. But to ignore the enormity of this child’s actions is equally wrong.

  7. Big People says:

    agree! give these lowlifes no compassion. they have none.

  8. Very conservative says:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    1. Arthur Kinney says:

      so is conservatism, both ideologies are Un-American and Unconstitutional

  9. None Of Your Business says:

    Those thugs who pushed the shopping cart over the ledge should be given the death penalty. Compassion for them? Ha!

  10. Richard says:

    I think the comment here is Monday morning quarterbacking: who the hell imagines some kid dropping a cart on someone? And even if one does imagine that when does imagination stop? One can imagine a naughty kid electrocuting a classmate with Christmas lights too, etc. etc. One can imagine setting fire to a house with a candle inside a pumpkin on Halloween night too. The possibilities go on. The fault is the kid’s, as the child who tried to dissuade him or them indicates. One child had the moral sense to know it was wrong & the other(s) did not. I’m puzzled by the husband’s forgiving attitude: doesn’t make sense to me. Judgment is not merely personal but communal: a sentence is not just a punishment but a deterrent; and a strong deterrent ruling must be made, just like in the Ravi case. It’s the court’s duty to make a public pronouncement about what is tolerable behavior and what is not; and the sole way of doing this is through deterrent sentences.

  11. JWoods says:

    How company the parking operator Central Parking System is NEVER mentioned in these stories. They played a big role (or lack of a role) in what happened. This big corporation trying to save $$$$ eliminated all but one employee at the location. If they had the basis sense to have employees in the structure, this may have never happened.

    1. JWoods_Not says:

      Your a iidiot!
      Those two animals were intent on hurting or killing someone. If not at this parking lot it would of been somewhere else. One of the two animals tried choking a girl classmate in school. The blame clearly rests with these two animals and the feckless parents of these two animals. They should be put away for life where they can never hurt anyone again. If not, it’s only a matter of time before they kill some one.

Leave a Reply