Jump to content

Chicago Permit Holder Shoots Criminal Stealing Car


obfd13

Recommended Posts

 

I think the canisters on newer cars are more protected. Topping off is when you try to put more gas in your car after the initial shutoff - assuming that the auto shutoff operated properly and really did shut off after your tank was "full" Topping off means continuing to trickle gas into the tank until it is so full that no more gas can be put in the tank. In order to do that you have to back the nozzle out and trickle gas in right at the opening. A lot of people end up overflowing their tank when they try this.
The fuel filler necks on newer cars don't accommodate that additional amount of fuel. Not overflowing the tank, that's closed off. There filling the neck with gas, which isn't designed to accommodate gas. Only fuel vapor. All of that additional fuel soaks the charcoal canister and...peace out, evap system. Whenever someone "tops off" after the pump shuts off, a lot of the gas goes right back into the pump through the vapor recovery system, so they're paying for gas yet not receiving any (more).I lectured my girlfriend on the danger of topping off her tank after she wrecked the canister by adding 25 cents in additional gas, which is (thank God) mounted in an accessible location without having to drop the tank to get at it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, just turn off the ignition when gassing up. It's gonna cost, what, three whopping seconds of "precious time" to do that rather than risk having some punk hop in the car and take off. This crap happens on a daily basis up in Davenport, IA, and the kids who steal the car will simply take it for a joyride. Multiple times per day, some idiot leaves the keys in the car or leaves the ignition on and poof, where'd my car go?

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, how does an article on a guy shooting a car thief turn into a argument about topping off gas tanks. Jeez, don't you old ladies need to fold some laundry or something? Good lord.

+1 for mrmagloo. These guys do need something constructive to do, besides massive analysis of how to put gas in your damn car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself it's a good question what I'd do, for one thing it's my only vehicle, cost me $28,000 I can't afford to buy another new one, someone taking it from me is no different than someone breaking and entering into my HOUSE, so both can be viewed in a way as the same, I need my only vehicle, the robber could have done without. I could get it back wrecked or in another state and my own costs to get it back. I likely may have to take the option to protect my own property as same as it is if someone broke in your own house, if a punk chooses to do the crime he also has to assume ANY of the consequences of his actions, whether legal or not what we do as we DO have the right to act, so comes down to how it's viewed in the courts but self defense is that too, coming at me with the car to run over me is the same as him pointing a gun at me too, will hold up in court no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably would be difficult for the shooter if he was not at risk of being run over but not impossible. It could be argued that the thief was in the middle of a crime spree and everyone in the vicinity was in danger. It could also be argued that he was attempting to affect a citizen's arrest. The shooter lucky that the thief tried to run him over making it a clear case of self defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I applaud cases like this. The concept of not being able to use force to stop the theft of one's property is truly asinine. Is someone supposed to just stand there as the thief walks or drives away with your hard earned property? Maybe if enough cases occur, without prosecution of the shooter, the concept of using force to protect property will become more secure, as it should be. If that takes stretching one's interpretation of feeling under threat as the justification for the shoot so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scenario I have often thought about is that you come home and see a criminal carrying out a piece of your property, such as a TV, a jewelry box, etc. and you confront him. He does nothing threatening but starts to back away from you, property in hand toward his waiting accomplice in the pickup truck. You order him at gunpoint to stop and get on the ground and he totally ignores you and continues backing away with, or even without your property. Can you shoot? Do you have to just stand there with your gun in your hand and watch as he drives off with your valuables? Do you risk being arrested yourself if you use your gun since it is obvious you are not in danger of harm or death by the burglar? In a sane world there would be no question that you would have the right to use force to keep your own property and/or to keep a felon from fleeing the scene, but this is not necessarily a sane world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scenario I have often thought about is that you come home and see a criminal carrying out a piece of your property, such as a TV, a jewelry box, etc. and you confront him. He does nothing threatening but starts to back away from you, property in hand toward his waiting accomplice in the pickup truck. You order him at gunpoint to stop and get on the ground and he totally ignores you and continues backing away with, or even without your property. Can you shoot? Do you have to just stand there with your gun in your hand and watch as he drives off with your valuables? Do you risk being arrested yourself if you use your gun since it is obvious you are not in danger of harm or death by the burglar? In a sane world there would be no question that you would have the right to use force to keep your own property and/or to keep a felon from fleeing the scene, but this is not necessarily a sane world.

 

An appropriate use of force for such a scenario would be to use a Taser which is why we should be able to legally carry a Tasers or other less lethal devices rather than being only allowed lethal handgun only carry options for scenarios in which lethal force would be excessive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scenario I have often thought about is that you come home and see a criminal carrying out a piece of your property, such as a TV, a jewelry box, etc. and you confront him. He does nothing threatening but starts to back away from you, property in hand toward his waiting accomplice in the pickup truck. You order him at gunpoint to stop and get on the ground and he totally ignores you and continues backing away with, or even without your property. Can you shoot? Do you have to just stand there with your gun in your hand and watch as he drives off with your valuables? Do you risk being arrested yourself if you use your gun since it is obvious you are not in danger of harm or death by the burglar? In a sane world there would be no question that you would have the right to use force to keep your own property and/or to keep a felon from fleeing the scene, but this is not necessarily a sane world.

 

Residential burglary is a forcible felony in Illinois. Technically, that makes it a crime for which deadly force is authorized. HOWEVER...I'm not sure I'm willing to kill someone over a $200 television set. You will certainly spend far more than that in legal defense fees even if you aren't charged with a crime. A TV can be replaced.

 

Now, if the life, health, or safety of myself or a family member or someone under my care is at risk by the actions of a criminal...I will have no choice to shoot them down and I'm fully willing to deal with the consequences of that. A life can not be replaced. I'd willingly sacrifice everything I have to save a loved one. I'd even die for them. So, that's an easy choice. Go ahead and charge me with a crime if you think I'm guilty of one, fellas. I've made my peace with my maker over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much the point of the TV being worth $200, it's the fact he FORCED his way on your property, FORCED his way in your home to steal it, then is confronted, so if ordered to drop it and he doesn't, justifiable to what I do next, no need to explain, who heard of him having the right to walk away with it free and clear? IF the threat of a lawsuit and attorney costs are the concern then it comes down to do a clean head shot, no one talks, no witnesses, so who is the courts going to believe? The facts of the crime is all it takes to show what's up, NO ONE should question our decisions what we do. Crime is bad enough that it happens as we read it in all daily newspapers and our own areas but all be darned if it's going to happen to me and make ME a victim, that's what CCL is all about, no one's going to waste all day worrying about who's to get sued or what, the criminal has to be dealt with all the same, or you're just giving them a pass to do more later and get away, not going to let it happen on MY end, I have the right to protect what's MINE so that's as simple as it goes, debate here is 100% unnecessary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck convincing anyone the guy was a threat when he's lying on the floor, tv on top of him, no weapon, and a gunshot wound in his forehead. No one talks? Evidence and crime scenes talk. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

Alternately, you can run up on him with your firearm out and side-kick him in the knee while he is carrying the television set, with the intent of interfering with his mobility in an attempt to prevent him from fleeing the scene of the crime. What ensues next would be an interesting situation, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residential burglary is a forcible felony in Illinois. Technically, that makes it a crime for which deadly force is authorized. HOWEVER...I'm not sure I'm willing to kill someone over a $200 television set. You will certainly spend far more than that in legal defense fees even if you aren't charged with a crime. A TV can be replaced.

Now, if the life, health, or safety of myself or a family member or someone under my care is at risk by the actions of a criminal...I will have no choice to shoot them down and I'm fully willing to deal with the consequences of that. A life can not be replaced. I'd willingly sacrifice everything I have to save a loved one. I'd even die for them. So, that's an easy choice. Go ahead and charge me with a crime if you think I'm guilty of one, fellas. I've made my peace with my maker over it.

 

You read my mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I fill up I, I make sure its safe to even put the nozzle in the tank, then I set it to automatic and step back so I have a clear field of vision of everything thats surrounding me, and I have both hands free.

 

When the auto-shutoff clicks, I look around again, make sure its safe to put the nozzle back in the cradle and off I go - my head's on a swivel all the time.

Tactical gas pumping. Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen this mentioned, but most modern cars have pressurized fuels systems, which includes the tank. If you leave the car running while filling up, you could trip a trouble code and get a CEL light on your dashboard.

And then there's another opportunity for someone with malicious intent. While you're studying the new light on your dash...BAM! Bushwhacked by a ne'er do well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet is forever, y'all. Blustery talk abut bad guys and justice will be found by lawyers of the opposition if you happen to unfortunately be involved in a self-defense shooting. Don't say things that could weaken your innocent self-defense plea. If one aspect of the plea is weak or falls apart, the whole thing falls apart and suddenly you are a criminal on trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...