Police: Woman 'Repeatedly' Punched Woman in the Face

The incident occurred on the 200 block of Bridge Street.

A 22-year-old Phoenixville woman was arrested on Bridge Street earlier this month after she allegedly punched another woman in the face, the Daily Local News is reporting.

According to the paper, Christina Marie Bennett stands charged with simple assault, harassment, several counts of disorderly conduct, and public drunkenness stemming from the July 7 incident.

Bennett, who police say was profoundly intoxicated at the time, was in a car on the 200 block of Bridge Street at 12:30 a.m. when she became engaged in a profane shouting match with a passerby. The argument escalate until Bennett got out of her vehicle and proceeding to punch her interlocutor in the face repeatedly; breaking her tooth in the process.

Bennett was subsequently arrested by a Phoenixville bike cop.

Brian McFadden July 24, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Interlocutor? I see someone is putting their word of the day calendar to good use.
karlub July 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM
"Profoundly" intoxicated? Well done.
Lynette Gray July 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Bud Horenci, if it is not your cup of tea, why do you 1) read our Patch, and 2) waste your precious time commenting on a "worthless" site. Personally, I never understood people who spend their day complaining about things they consider "worthless". Wouldn't it be better to find something you consider "worthwhile" instead?
Lynette Gray July 25, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Just a note for the curious - I was having an exchange with Bud Horenci, who apparently did not like the fact that I defended our Phoenixville Patch from his baseless allegations, and pointed out how he spends his day pursuing things he himself calls worthless. Obviously, this is someone who just wants to be miserable. After my post, he must have deleted his comments. A very immature act, if you ask me.
Tom Sunnergren July 25, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Thanks for reading Lynette. In Bud's defense (words I never thought I'd type) I deleted his comments. While I'm, as a general principle, against doing this and so police the comments section pretty loosely, Bud seems to be a special case. To analogize: if I owned a pizza shop, and a customer came in once a week and ordered a slice, ate it quietly, wiped his mouth, then proceeded to rant and rail by the counter for hours on end about how pizza is devoid of nutritional value and that I should just close shop and move out of town, eventually I'd stop serving the guy. I think Phoenixville Patch is nearing this point with Bud.
Daniel Pipes July 25, 2012 at 07:56 PM
In Bud's defense, I think you just took away his First Amendment Right to Free Speech. Good luck with that, Tom.
Tom Sunnergren July 25, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Daniel, you'd be hard pressed to find a single monetized website that doesn't remove comments occasionally. If you think it was a dumb editorial decision to remove Bud's comments, that's one thing, but to suggest that in doing so I violated his First Amendment rights you're betraying a pretty serious misapprehension of what the freedom of speech and press is.
. July 25, 2012 at 08:46 PM
I love when people try to claim First Admendment Rights regarding message board posts. The First Admendment protects you from being arrested, jailed, assaulted, or even killed by the government for your speech. It do NOT protect you from criticism from others, PRIVATE entities (such as this site) sensoring your comments on their message boards or place of business, or people thinking (and calling you) an a$$hole. For the record I think this site is well done. Better then the sorry "Evening Phoenix" ever was. Keep up the good work Tom.
. July 25, 2012 at 08:48 PM
I meant "censoring"....
TheNate July 25, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Actually, Bud can still start his own blog, speak in public, and do as he pleases. He's not suffering a punitive punishment beyond deletion. The fact is, Patch is a business, and businesses can decline privileges to anyone they choose (commenting on a website is a privilege, not a right, otherwise all websites would have to allow anonymous comments). His First Amendments are just fine. There are limits to what is acceptable discourse and a whole field called "Media Law" that addresses these.
MPorchik July 26, 2012 at 02:31 PM
I think Daniel needs to go back to school so he can learn what the First Amendment actually grants.
Ike September 18, 2012 at 01:03 PM


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