E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Chicago man who was shot in the chest and stuffed into the trunk of his car managed to escape while his captors continued driving, thinking he was still inside, police said.
The motorist was carjacked at gunpoint on Chicago's West Side on Monday evening, police said, according to a report in The Chicago Tribune. He was shot at least three times in the chest, according to officers.
At that point, the attackers, reportedly four men in ski masks, dumped the man in the trunk of his car, a 2000 Nissan sedan. They drove through at least two neighborhoods with him inside; the victim, who was not identified by The Tribune, then managed to get out of the trunk. His kidnappers kept driving, apparently unaware of his escape, police said, according to The Tribune.
The victim was taken to the hospital in critical condition, reported the paper. He was able to speak to police despite the severity of his injuries.
Police later found the victim's car on fire in a garage, but did not find the carjackers, said the paper. The car appeared to have been torched.
Leave a Comment:
they found the car on fire. it appeared to have been torched.
that makes me laugh. that's like something that someone from minnesota would say.
WOW another crime where guns were used against a UNARMED person in Chicago. After all the criminals know the HONEST PEOPLE can't defend themselves LEGALLY IN CHICAGO.
Not just Chicago and not just guns! I live in Denver and almost every day on the news we hear about gangs jumping innocent people and beating them almost to death with baseball bats. And yes, unfortunately there are also shootings and stabbings, some fatal on a daily basis. A close friend of mine was jumped after leaving a club in downtown Denver, and if the cops hadn't showed up.....who knows!! We're just glad he ONLY sustained a concussion, black eyes, cuts and bruises and cracked ribs!
I may have a better idea .
Round up all the gang members . Every last one of them period . The war drums are beating for us to take out Iran . Ok no problem !! Just send over all of the gang members and turn them loose . If they get killed who the hell cares . It is far better to waste their lives then the lives of our troops in that sand box . Down side of that is the gangs might just win that war . If so we created a bigger problem than we had before . But our country will be gang free.
Perps sound like some tourists from Mexico, just doing what comes naturally...
"An armed society is a polite society"
It is true ALL restrictive gun laws favor the perpetrator of a crime and not the citizen/victim. At some point we all must make a decision as to which one we are willing to be, a citizen (armed) or victim. I have already made mine....
Something doesn't add up. I mean, you don't jack a car for a joy ride to set it on fire in the end. It seems pretty clear that they wanted this man dead and set the car on fire to get rid of the body.
I agree Sam. This story sounds odd.
I'm thinking the exact same thing. It sounds like a hit job.
Sam - I agree with you. It is pretty obvious that this was about murdering the guy, not a carjacking. Carjackers do not usually take the driver with them, all they want is the car so that they can sell it. This is yet another example of the poor quality of reporting on MSNBC lately.
What is really amazing is that this guy not only survived, but had the strength to climb out of the trunk after being shot in the chest three times. These criminals must have had really bad aim not to have killed him with three shots to the chest at what was likely close range. I hope that the police have posted a guard at this guys hospital room, since I would suspect that the criminals that shot him might come back and try and finish the job. Too bad that the liberals in Chicago have made it so that this guy can not get a gun to protect himself when he gets out of the hospital. If everyone walked around armed we would probably have far less crime. Like the saying goes - When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
And now the carjackers are gonna get whacked because they didn't the job. This is like a plot from The Sopranos, complete with unlikely escape.
And what makes you think that this guy is not a criminal?
Shot 3 times in the chest and lived? Extremely poor shooting if you ask me. Not a professional whack job but a gangbanger event.
Oh yeah, let's arm everyone with a gun so they can have a shootout in the middle of the street with stray bullets flying everywhere. That would be much better....
OR.... Instead of drinking the right-wing Kool Aid that criminals will have guns no matter what we do, we could start cracking down on gun dealers who sell to criminals. That would drive up the street price, reducing access to firearms for low-level thugs. That would certainly be more effective than just handing the victim a gun. With 4 guys against one and the attackers having the element of surprise, what makes you think he'd be able to go Rambo on their asses and shoot them all without getting shot himself? And what makes you think a bystander wouldn't get hit by one of the stray bullets?
Typical of members of the NRA cult not to actually think things out logically beyond what the pamphlet tells them to think.
At least members of the NRA cult, as some like to refer , have the brains to understand that criminals will always have guns. I truly hope that you need protection some day, and only then realize that the police are only minites away, but the thugs will have you dead in seconds.
Kris There are laws now that prevent a dealer from selling to criminals. They seem to have worked well in this case. Maybe we should have gun control like in Mexico? Sure works well there doesn't it? What makes you think that criminals BUY guns? The data indicates that theft is their perfered method and if that fails they can get them from the Department of Justice. In answer to your inane statement about shoot outs in the street, crime and shootings go down when the population is armed. In the real old west (not the movies) shoot outs in the streets were very rare and much more common the Eastern US. last but not least, if they even thought he might have been armed it is doubful they would have even bothered him as gang bangers are cowards and only prey on the weak and defenseless. Go have another glass of the Brady Kool-aid and go back to your stupor. Also the Supreme Courts have ruled for the past 150 years that the police have no obligation for your protection, that is your responsibility, no one else's.
Actually, what you're referring to is a lack of brains. Why, exactly, must criminals "always have guns"? Because the NRA told you so? There are countless other countries around the world, particularly in Europe, that disprove this myth. Yes, there will always be the occasional exception, but you can prevent about 95% of criminals from having a gun if you have good laws and good enforcement.
The laws you refer to don't work because they're often not followed and not enforced. Besides, when you have NRA-supported loopholes that allow thugs to just bypass the law by going to a gun show, then they'll simply follow the path of least resistance.
As for Mexico, you really don't want to be using them as an example if you want to help your argument. Why? Because most illegal guns in Mexico are smuggled from the United States, where it's easy to get your hands on a gun if you're a crook. Countries with strict laws and enforcement that don't share a border with us have a very different track record.
Because that's how most criminals get their guns. Some are stolen, but most are purchased either legally from gun shows or illegally on the black market (in which most of the guns originated from gun shows and not thefts).
I hate to break it to ya, but this is 2012. And yes, there were plenty of shoot-outs back in those days.
Also, your information about gang-bangers is wrong. Most gangbangers actually do engage in shoot-outs with people (typically rival gang members) who are armed. Innocent people end up getting shot not because they were targetted, but typically just because they were hit by a stray bullet.
Imagine if everyone at Virginia Tech was armed. That psychopath who opened fire would not have cared if anyone else was armed; he was far too gone for any such rational thought. He'd have the element of surprise and would probably have been able to take a few people out from behind. Eventually, another student would take out his gun and they'd engage in a fire fight. Three more armed students hear gunshots and see two students shooting at one another. Whom would you suggest they open fire on? Unlike police officers, they have not undergone extensive training to be able to make that determination in a live-fire situation. So they'd either stand back not knowing who the bad guy is (assuming it's not both), or they'd make an arbitrary decision to back one of the gunmen up (50% chance it would be the wrong one). Add to that the stray bullets that would be ricocheting through the halls and you get a very nasty, very messy situation with far more casualties.
That's a myth with no basis in reality. The Supreme Court (not plural, btw) has consistently ruled that police should be given the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but they have never gone so far as to say that police are under no obligation to do their jobs. That paranoid crap won't get you anywhere here. So take that, along with your theories about Obama's secret Muslim upbringing and how the moon landing was filmed in a TV studio, somewhere else. Foxnews.com, perhaps?
Kris, it was the left wing Obama Administration that told gun dealers to sell guns to folks they new would get them into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. And one of those weapons was used to kill one of our own law enfocement officers. God knows how many Mexican citizens were killed by those weapons. Your bias and fear of guns only plays into the hands of the bad guys. And this man was shot in Chicago, where it is illegal for most citizens to own a gun and second only to New York City for the quantity of murder by gunshot.
And?
Obama has done a lot of things I don't agree with. Mentioning one of them doesn't do anything to bolster your argument.
I fear guns when they're in the hands of people who are mentally unstable or not trained in their proper use. In other words, I fear guns when they're in the hands of most gun owners in America. That idiot right here in WA the other day is a perfect example. Former military guy with PTSD goes to a "gun party" where he and his buddies effectively masturbate over who has the biggest, baddest guns. That is, until they get into an argument regarding which of them a particular gun belongs to. Next thing you know, they're all shooting at one another. The guy with PTSD gets away, with his guns, and drives up to the mountians where he fatally shoots a park ranger.
Incidents like that would be far less common if we had sensible gun laws in this country. I'm sure that idiot who shot the park ranger didn't fear guns, either. Unfortunately for him, he also apparently didn't fear the cold. He died of hypothermia in the mountains while on the run. His assault rifles lay on the ice near his body. A fitting end, I'd say.
Kris, I have no argument, just an opinion. I'll keep my rights based on our Constitution, thank you. You can do as you wish. But please, quit giving yourself a vote everytime you type your point of view.
Yes, one of the only true freedoms we have is to make up our own mind. Offering an opinion is as common as breath, and as valuable to most. In Sweden where almost (would like to say all but probably only 98% of population) every man, women, and child is raised and with and taught (like every True gun owner has and will) respect for the finality and usage of their weapon. If you are interested in what happens when all of society owns, respects, and Knows how to safely operate and shoot a weapon, look up the crime rate in Sweden. I do Not say this in a vain attempt to change your mind as i have already seen by your repeated attempts to Convince all readers that NRA is Bad, being gun free is Good . Again, i appreciate your right to believe what you want. However, i offer you this challenge: If you truly believe what you say, then put this sign right on your front lawn to back up your claim- reads as follows: The Home owner at this residence does Not support gun ownership! - No silly backtalk, no psycho-babble, just put the sign up to show your support for a Gun-Free-America, where only the military and (soon to be) military police can have them. Sounds a little too much like a fine speakers dream from the 30's and 40's who almost plunged the world into chaos. You may have heard of him, his name was Adolph...
@KRIS
@Lanikai...LMMFAO...Right!?
oh left wingers? Spend your money on security gaurds. They will tell the ones who are paying them a few more dollars, who the unarmed are. That's you. prepare to be the next victem. I got robbed once... And for some reason they stopped coming around. Oh yeah that's right. They figured out that they wanted to live... I love my guns. That's why I carry too. GA. Oh BTW, thanks for voting... It just shows how stupid you are. Your's truely, Republican.
I would voted independant, but you screw that up too.
@ Christopher - Why don't you look up the population size of Sweden. It smaller in population than most US states.... horrible example, yet gun lovers point it out all the time. I'm "pro" gun, but don't own one. I simply have no use for it. Nor do I live my life in fear or being mugged. Japan has extremely tight gun/weapon laws and has almost no crime as well. Yet for other reasons, it not a great example either.
Bottom line, it comes down to the culture. Americans love guns, no problem with that, its just we also love to use them against each other. You might handle your guns properly but how fast to do you draw them out? I'm willing to be that if you got in a fist fight and had the gun on you, it would get un-holstered. Americans need to learn how to just go back to fighting but not killing each other. I know that's a funny statement to make. America is a culture of violence, and were defiantly not the worst country, but we do need to chill out a bit. It seems like nobody is satisfied until they kill the other person.
Paranoid ramblings about an NWO police state aside, who exactly is this "Adolph" you're referring to? Adolph Godwin, perhaps? I wonder what his brother, Mike, would think of your argument....
Oh and @Lanikai, I haven't up-voted any posts on here. As far as the Constitution goes, I assume you're not claiming that it's some sort of sacred document that should never be updated to adapt to changing times, are you? If so, then I can only imagine what your position on the three-fifths rule would be....
This seems like a combination of the luckiest man on the planet and couple of blithering idiot car-jackers.
Ya know, Kris; A recent scientific study of the "studies" shows that neither side has a compelling statistical argument in RE: to guns and crime. And there's plenty of violent crime in the UK where guns are nearly banned. Criminals have simply used other lethal weapons.
Chicago apparently doesn't report it's violent crime to the FBI, most of the tables on the UCR for Chicago list N/A for Chicago... Yet there's plenty of it.
Can you prove that someone went to a gun show and bought a weapon illegally?
Why is it that Chicago (which controls the lack of a right to carry law throughout the state of Illinois through it's corrupt political machine, and makes it impossible for a law abiding citizen to carry a gun for protection, and extremely cumbersome to even purchase firearms legally in Cook county and somewhat inconvenient anywhere else in the state) has such a high gun violence rate?
Why is it NYC, with similar bans on weapons suffers the same fate? Why is it not the case in other states with more lax laws regarding legal weapons carry... Why was it that DC was the murder capital of the US when you couldn't even have a working, assembled firearm, in your home... let alone use it?
1 in five households in this country (probably higher in Chicago) will fall victim to home invasion.
Your odds of dying in this country (probably MUCH higher in Chicago) from firearms assault are 1 in 314 (2007) according to the national safety council.
61 of the 439 homicides in the Chicagoland area in 2011 were not caused by gunfire, as amassed by Redeye, a Tribune company... So, explain how that's possible in a gun where guns cannot be carried by anyone but criminals.
Most weapons have traceable serial numbers. So yes, you can prove, at least in most cases, that a gun was purchased at a gun show.
Man, you really don't like Chicago all that much, do ya? ;P
Also, those odds are pretty damn high if you think about it. That's also up slightly from 2004. In fact, the trend has gone upwards ever since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire a few years ago.
In contrast, your odds of dying in a war are 134,631 to 1. Your odds of dying in any act of nature (earthquake, hurricane, tornado, etc) are 3,421 to 1. In fact, being shot to death is the 8th most common cause of death in the United States, beat out only by the likes of cancer, heart disease, and car accidents. The next runner-up, in 9th place, is death by fire and/or smoke inhalation. According to these statistics, you're more likely to die from a gunshot wound than from electrocution, drowning, any kind of natural disaster or environmental cause (temperature, etc), fireworks discharge, animal attack, and medical complications combined.
These statistics are from a 2004 report; the same one I referenced earlier with regard to the death by firearms upward trend. http://www.v1news.com/page4/1/odds_of_dying/odds_of_dying.htm (they cite their source as the National Safety Council).
Love Chicago... It's my hometown... when I lived there, you could go shoot trap or skeet on the lake at the gun club on the north side. Back then, my uncle in Texas sent me a shotgun through the US Postal Service, so that I might partake in the sport.
Spoken by someone who has not been to a gun show to attempt to purchase a firearm.
Fact is, you haven't answered any of the facts regarding firearms violence in Chicago, where legal guns (carried on the hips of law abiding citizens) are effectively banned. Nor the fact that the previous murder capital of the US banned assembled weapons in the home for self defense.
Violent gun crime is committed by criminals. Laws like those in Chicago, NYC, and previously D.C., attempt to criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens who are exercising (or attempting to) their natural (some would say God given) right to self defense.
As to changing the Constitution, the three fifths rule was not a part of the Bill of Rights. And, changing it (the constitution) is as simple, or as difficult, as it has always been. With >= 50% of the populace owning firearms, changing the second amendment would be nearly impossible.
Was it you who suggested that the victim in this crime might have been a criminal himself? While that is possible, he was wearing a Pepsico uniform... Probably just a guy trying to earn a living and get out of "the hood" that victimized him (hard to make enough money in any large city to do that).
The CDC determined that of all the studies of both gun CONTROL laws and the laws RELAXING gun control did not prove either way that any gun laws (pro or anti) were effective.
So, why not give the average citizen a fighting chance? The odds of having a reportable house fire are about the same as being killed in a firearms assault. We don't ban fire extinguishers... Not all uses of fire extinguishers are effective in preventing a reportable house fire... But they, like a responsibly owned, and legally carried firearm, do give the owner a fighting chance.
If you choose not to carry, that is fine and understandable, Carrying a weapon for defense is not for everyone. But do not infringe on my right to legally do so (or anyone else's).
There goes Kris with his gun paranoia again. Why don't you just move to Chicago Kris where it's illegal for most citizens to own guns and leave our Constitution alone. Chicago, the second most murderous (most murders commited with guns) city in the nation, is an example of Kris' gun free Utopia.
That statement, or rather the inferred statement that most gun owners are mentally unstable or are untrained, is a falsehood of the highest order. Please don't resort to misinformation to make your point, Kris. It makes you look foolish to everyone involved, regardless of which side of the debate they fall into.
Huh, that's weird. The FBI has reported that violent crime has dropped!
From: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011
Further, the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the early 90's. Weird huh? Isn't that when that ban expired?
To be fair, we had a plateau effect in 2000 where the violent crime did not drop, but that was the only year where we did not see a decrease since 1992. This might help:
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-30/us/2000.crime.stats_1_violent-crime-crime-rate-property-crimes?_s=PM:US
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-19/justice/justice_fbi-crime-report_1_violent-crime-fbi-statistics-property-crime?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Try this: research. Your position will benefit from an accurate basis.
@Sam comment 1.6:
Not necessarily-- although the fact they shot him was troubling-- carjacking often ends with the car being destroyed after a "joyride." They burn the car to eliminate prints and other potential evidence that would link them to the crime. In this case, they had an added incentive because of the shooting. I wonder if they noticed the guy wasn't in the trunk and panicked, or if they were planning on torching the car either way.
Anecdote: My aunt had her car stolen about 10 years ago and they found it burned to the hull out on a rural desert road. Never caught anyone for the crime, but the investigator said that it fit the profile of a gang-related "joyride."
Best reason in the world to have a conceal/carry permit and not be afraid to use it!
It's Chicago-- only the criminals have firearms due to absurd restrictions on legal ownership.
The shame of it is, you are probably correct!
a concealed gun would not have helped this guy. He was hijacked, blindsided, he would not have had time to get his gun out. Also, if he did have a gun, now the bad guys would have one more gun. Be realistic!
The article does not say he was blind sided just out numbered. It is amazing what an equalizer a Smith and Wesson can be. But my question now is, what other factors were involved if there were four of them and they burned the car. This could not have been a typical car jacking! I think there is a lot more to this story than is being reported here.
So I should always drive with one hand on the steering wheel and the other on the trigger. Brilliant idea!
My point was simply that it is rediculous that in a lot of states the laws favor the criminals. Honest citizens are not afforded the legal right to defend themselves.
WOW. It appears they took the time to where ski masks, so the victim could not identify them, BUT somehow said to themselves "let's kill him anyway"? To call them pigs is an insult to pigs.....
Retired:
You can't explain it to the left they just want us unarmed so they can steal the working man's money!
I'm pretty sure if I saw 4 men walking toward my car wearing ski masks my legally carried Glock .45 would have greeted them before they had a chance to car jack me.
Carrying a gun is not enough, you have to use your senses and learn to read the signs of trouble. Very rarely does a crime victim say they never saw anything coming. They usually say something didn't seem right about him/her, or the situation didn't look right. Once you learn to recognize the danger signs, you are more ready to defend yourself.
I will NEVER live in a state where only the criminal and police have the ability to defend themselves.
Todd: I live in Pennsylvania where we have the Castle Doctrine. It gives a criminal reason to wonder is this person carrying a concealed weapon and if so how likely are they going to be to use it ?
AKRandy - That's odd. I didn't know I was stealing the working man's money. I'm one of "the left" and utterly surprised. I haven't been unemployed since I was 14 (yes, that was legal back then) and I've put myself through college for a Bachelor's and a Master's degree all while working full time. Please tell me the names of those I stole from. I'm quite shocked. While I did use half of my GI bill monies (is that stealing?), for which the US Army withheld a monthly amount from my paycheck, I now pay more taxes per year than some people earn and I have no debts, no mortgage, no car payments. I must have been sleep walking when I was stealing from this "working man" you refer to. I'd like to get more details on this. Please enlighten me. And before you accuse me of being anti-gun, I have no issues with weapons-trained citizens carrying as long as the police sees them fit to do so. I don't want people who don't know what they're doing with guns endangering others with them.
@Ak - Its the RIGHT that wants to steal the working mans money.... As much as you want to sugar coat gun ownership, the more people with guns will increase the percent of nut jobs with guns.
Sam: Bear in mind that for every nut with a gun there are probably ten with bats or clubs or knives or any of a number of other potentially lethal weapons at their disposal. You think this lack of gun ownership will stop them from using them?
Ski masks = criminals in your armed mind? WOW you do realize it is winter and cold as hell in Chicago right now. Funny thing about car hijackers, they come out of nowhere. No matter all your macho BS. You would not even have time to react. Chicago has a lot of panhandlers on the streets. Thugs use them to distract you. Hijacking isn't a solo crime anymore they use distractors and lookouts. A hijacking isn't like the western movies you grew up watching where both sides have their guns holstered. Their gun is out and aimed at you before you know you are in trouble. So unless you drive with your gun in your hand. You move you die.
Has it possibly not occured to anyone, lock your car doors when you get into the vehicle. It might not stop someone but it just might afford you the time to start the engine and drive away!!!!!!!
Of course a gun wouldn't have helped him here. He was in a car, for God's sake. If he'd seen trouble coming far enough in advance to get his gun out, he'd have seen it far enough in advance to hit the accelerator and drive away from, over, or through his attackers.
I'm not opposed to the legal carrying of guns. I just think most people have some pretty silly notions of what carrying a gun will do for you.
@Bosch - Exactly. At most he would have gotten one maybe two of them before he was shot down.
@ SAM
Rethink your statement . It takes less then 3/10 of a second from the time a shot is fired to hit the target . I spent many a time walking point in NAM . The point mans life and the flank mans life expectancies were 3/10 of a second . Not a hell of a lot of time to get a round off .
bob
I've been uncertain about gun control for a long time. God knows, I'm tired of reading stories about children shooting themselves and each other. I'm tired of every punk with an IQ of 60 having an automatic weapon. And the moron packing on her hip at her kid's soccer game just needs to have the crap beat out of her.
On the other hand, it's become very dangerous to live in America.
I think we need VERY strong gun control laws which provide for the right to own guns IF you are licensed, and the license should require x hours of training. I think you should go to jail for 20 years without parole if you are found with a gun without a license, or if a child gets access to your gun. And automatic weapons, (by that I mean something like machine guns, forgive my ignorance), should be illegal. If you really think you can go one-on-one with the U.S. government, you are too demented to own a cap pistol.
Jerry-1
Please remember that fire arms courses teach the new gun owner to carry their weapon DEFENSIVELY . Just like law enforcement officers do . That teaches you to stop and think first , these thugs shoot first and ask questions later . If the law biding citizen shoots first they are toast . If they shoot second they are still toast . The dead persons family will suit the living hell out of them . Guns are a no win situation .
bob
bob1/28: This is why all states need to enact a law similar to Pennsylvanias Castle Doctrine. This law gives a law abiding citizen the right to defend himself to include the use of deadly force. A justified shooting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under this law frees the person from the liability of a law suit perpetuated by the criminals family. I do support mandatory gun training. This training would include live fire training on a range with certified instructors. All persons applying for a conceal/carry permit should be interviewed to insure they have the mental capacity to be trusted to carry a concealed weapon. I have only needed outside of the military to draw a weapon on three occasions. Of those three occasions none resulted in either injury or death as the person attempting to rob me brought a knife literally to a gun fight. I convinced them it was in their best interest to give up and wait for the police to arrive. The people attempting to rob the pharmacy I walked into were attempting to do so under threat of physical viloence to the clerk. Most people with conceal/carry permits will most likely never have reason to use them. But isn't it better to have and not need than need and not have?
RETIRED SFC
I see your point and it is a valid one . But as for me . I have seen more blood shed that I care to remember . On the other hand I would not have a problem carringa 12 gage shot gun out in the open . DOUBLE 00 BUCK works for me !!!
bob
Actually to get a Conceal Carry Weapon permit you must go through a detailed background check, where you cannot have any pending criminal cases or be convicted and even if you have a DWI/DUI you will be denied. Also you must pass an 8hr course on gun safety and handling.
But even if there were stricter gun laws the CRIMINAL who doesn't give a crap about breaking the law will still try to find a way to get a gun vs. the law abiding citizen who would not break the law but would in turn be a victim of the law and the crime being committed against them.
This is why the penalties for straw buyers needs to be toughened up. The same should be said about gun shows and related events. Where anyone with money can make a purchase.
Actually, @KNW, it depends on the state. Each state has their own requirements for CHL. Some have no requirements at all, any citizen of at least a certain age (I think it's 18) can carry in (I think) Vermont (don't quote me, I don't have time to verify).
On the denial reasons, here in Texas, you can't even have a defaulted student loan. But, we do have the Castle doctrine, and your vehicle is considered an extension of your home. So even if you don't have a CHL, you can still have a firearm in your vehicle and can use it to defend yourself and your vehicle if necessary. Assuming you are legally permitted to own a firearm (i.e. not a convicted felon).
I don't have a problem with shooting criminals. I think I could do it myself, even though I would probably be sick at heart the rest of my life. Sick or not -- better him than me.
I'm also not an hysteric about evil guns. I was taught to shoot a gun as a child. My father carefully taught me how to do many dangerous things safely. But that's just it -- my dad was a responsible and intelligent man.
But too many people today are stupid, irresponsible, and immature. I see grown-ups acting like teenagers almost every day. I wouldn't give them a water balloon, let alone a deadly weapon.
Well, I hope this man pulls through! What a horrible and scary situation to be in. And I freaking hope these 4 guys are caught and served with the most severe sentence. For someone to treat a person like this would take a beast of a person.
There is a lot more to this story... Doesn't sound typical at all.
As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster. . . (I know I've gone from raaaags to riches!)
A true american classic. Gotta love that suit.
Very lucky, quick-thinking man, as he could have ended up torched along with his vehicle had he not gotten out.
A friend of mine was almost car jacked. He did have a conceal permit and they guy got a surprise when he was staring down the barrel of a 9mm. He had no idea that it wasn't even loaded and chose not to find out. He ran away with his knife.
Looks more like attempted murder than a car jacking.
T'was a hit not a carjacking.
That is what happens when you get comeuppers doin' hits instead of seasoned gangstas but I guess they gotta learn somewhere.
Remember kids, one in the chest and one in the head, 'tis called the double tap. Also, duct tape around the mouth and nose is a nice precaution to take as well, go ahead and duct tape their hands behind their backs and the ankles together as well. Never hurts to be safe.
You need to get a lfe and stop watching CSI.
David-2394626, How much $$$ is a hit these days. You sound very experienced.
Really, it's two to the chest and one to the head that makes a wannabe thug bloody and dead.
Ray, refer back to Ursa's post. David can only give you "TV hit rates"!
Double tap...I thought that only works on zombies.
jchoney, X, X, Up, Left, B, B works best!
sounds more like a Wire fan then CSI - Indeed.
It sounds like a hit. They lit off the car because they thought he was still in the trunk. Bet they get hit next for screwing up.
Sounds like the Sopranos with the Russian in the trunk.
Most trunks these days come with an emergency release I believe.
I suggest all states enact a law similar to Pennsylvanias Castle Doctrine. This law gives a person the right to protect and defend himself and his family with whatever force is needed. Up to and including the use of deadly force. If justified the person is protected from the liability of being sued by the family of the criminal. Not that it would have helped in this case. But it might have made the hijackers stop and think, is this person armed, will he be able to defend himself? I am still forced to ask myself, if this were a simple car jacking, why did they burn the car?
The secret here is, when they lean in to your window, you grab whatever is handy, or roll them up in the window so they can't escape, and floor it. They'll hang on for a while, even threaten you, but by the time you hit 55 MPH they'll beg you to stop. By the time you reach 70 MPH that arm is likely to dislocate and end up in your lap, while the poor fool who trying to jack you will be left on the road, disarmed, so to say.
Justice is then served.
Ummm, ya think?
Two New York cases come to mind, apropos of everyone carrying and using guns: both when the victim used a gun and shot a. an intruder; and b. two muggers on the subway. Both could-have-been victims were prosecuted by the criminals in question, and convicted...go figure! I've often wondered if would-be parents should have to qualify to have children and raised them. Seems to me that such a law would squelch the plethora of criminals that abound.
I may be a pessimist, but it seems to me there's something wrong with this story. The victim escaped from the trunk, but the drivers/shooters didn't notice? If my trunk doesn't get latched fully, it pops open and you can see it clearly in the rear-view mirror. I've had to stop a couple of times to re-close it. Either it didn't happen the way the victim says it did, or the carjackers (or whatever they are or intended to be) were totally wasted on something or stupid. And yes, I probably watched "Law and Order" too much !! LOL !! Still sounds fishy to me.
I like the MSNBC *Lock Up* segment where that big aryan-brotherhood inmate talks about *proper gangsters* ... although he was now doing about 80 years on attempted-murder on 5 police officers and drug & gun-running, he was a proper gangster because his *code-of-conduct* is that women, children and innocent bystanders are off-limits ... as opposed to to punks & thugs who will turn a carjacking into a death-penalty case ...
So I guess for John Q. Public this is good to know ...
Well damn ...
Ray, sorry buddy. No idea how much they charge for hits, lol.
I got a real job years ago and stopped hangin' out with scumbag hood rats.
I quit using drugs and thus have no reason to be around them anymore.
Here in Corpus, it was about 500 USD as of 5 or so years ago. 800 USD if you actually want the body buried and or otherwise never found, that includes tattoo, fingers, teeth, and other identifiable marks removal.
It is odd that 4 carjackers in ski masks are used? Since when do you need 4 car jackers for a sedan, all in ski masks? Sounds like much more to the story. Either they were running from another hit, or this guy did something. Pre planned garage torch? Just saying.
Complaining that only criminals are able to defend themselves with guns is kinda like complaining that you can't make any money dealing drugs. People who don't abide by laws have it "easier" in many ways. All you're really saying is that only criminals can commit crimes, which is circular logic.
Only doofuses get to justify their opinions with unreasoned arguments. Why can't I do that?
I would say you just did!
Once again people,when are you going to wake up and start voting and making the laws tougher on all criminals. Once caught and found guilty. Kill the bastards within two weeks and stop this BS of giving them appeal after appeal and in most cases they get out of prison only serving a short time. And then they wind up committing another crime and that is why we have so may victims and so many criminals on the streets. Start killing the bastards and this will stop. Too many damn liberals are in the United States. Change the damn laws!!!!
I would say you just did!
Amateurs. They'll get caught or taught from one of their own.
I see you used to hang with the hood rats too?
What was your reason? Cheap or easy access to quality drugs like me? Me thinks so.
This whole story sounds more like a hit than a carjacking.
Give four Gorillas some guns and they think they are something special.
Only if you give them some Newports too!