Firefight when CCL-holder tracks stolen car

[Euler]

WGN said:→

...
Liborio Torres said his son's car was stolen from the 5500 block of South Kostner Avenue early Sunday morning. The family called the police to report the theft, but Torres said the car also had a tracker in it. Despite a warning from police not to follow it, he and his son began to track the vehicle.
...
Torres said the three individuals inside the car spotted him and his son and that is when they opened fire.
...
Torres, a CCL holder, said he and his son then returned fire.
...
Police say after fleeing, the car crashed into a storefront near West 87th Street and South Lafayette Avenue. All three men then allegedly fled from the vehicle on foot.

Police say a 23-year-old man who was allegedly inside the stolen vehicle suffered gunshot wounds to his neck and shoulder during the shootout and later took himself to the hospital. Police say he is reportedly in serious condition.

A juvenile who was allegedly inside the vehicle was also taken into custody while trying to flee the scene. Police say the juvenile was taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries sustained in the crash.

Following the crash, officers recovered three weapons from the scene.
...

[max503]

Liborio Torres and his son are in deep do-do.  They attacked someone and shot at them.  You can't do that.  They can and should both go to prison. 

 

Don't go someplace with a gun that you wouldn't go to without a gun.  

 

People like them give concealed carriers a bad name.  I hate to see anyone going to prison, but according to our laws, they deserve it.  

 

This will be used against us.

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:36 AM, max503 said:

Liborio Torres and his son are in deep do-do.  They attacked someone and shot at them.  You can't do that.  They can and should both go to prison. 

 

Don't go someplace with a gun that you wouldn't go to without a gun.  

 

People like them give concealed carriers a bad name.  I hope they rot in Statesville for their stupidity.  

 

Well they have been given the power of citizen arrest by the laws of Illinois. The model citizens inside the car had no right to possess it. There is nothing saying the father and son attacked the criminals, only that they approached them and were shot at. That sounds more like the father and son were "attacked" first. And most importantly, the father and son were shot at first. The father returned fire. I would say a clear cut of self defense. 

[max503]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:50 AM, mikeyk101 said:

 

Well they have been given the power of citizen arrest by the laws of Illinois. The model citizens inside the car had no right to possess it. There is nothing saying the father and son attacked the criminals, only that they approached them and were shot at. That sounds more like the father and son were "attacked" first. And most importantly, the father and son were shot at first. The father returned fire. I would say a clear cut of self defense. 

 

Don't go someplace with a gun that you wouldn't go to without a gun.  They went on an attack and destroy mission.  That's different than citizens standing up for themselves.

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:52 AM, max503 said:

 

Don't go someplace with a gun that you wouldn't go to without a gun.  

Well those are good words to live by but you should be able to go anywhere you want. And why have concealed carry anyway then if you only go somewhere where a gun isnt needed? The whole point of concealed carry is to have the ability to protect and defend yourself from aggression and surprisingly this can happen just about anywhere 

[max503]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:56 AM, mikeyk101 said:

Well those are good words to live by but you should be able to go anywhere you want. And why have concealed carry anyway then if you only go somewhere where a gun isnt needed? The whole point of concealed carry is to have the ability to protect and defend yourself from aggression and surprisingly this can happen just about anywhere 

 

But they became the aggressors and that's all I got to say about it.  Good day.

[Jeffrey]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:52 AM, max503 said:

 

Don't go someplace with a gun that you wouldn't go to without a gun.  

What if your gun goes everywhere with you?

 

This is all a result of police not being able to do the work they should.  And the judges not doing the work they should.

[Jeffrey]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:58 AM, max503 said:

 

But they became the aggressors and that's all I got to say about it.  Good day.

Wut?

 

They were looking for their car that they owned.  When some bad guys shot at them they defended them selves.  Are you assuming they went there to shoot somebody?

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:58 AM, max503 said:

 

But they became the aggressors and that's all I got to say about it.  Good day.

Well you are interpreting something that didn't happen. They were not the aggressors, they were victims based upon reading the same information that you did. And you are trying to turn these victims into criminals. That's the exact thing that Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois continues to do time and time again in things like this. These different governments want the citizens to be sheeple and try to demonize them if they dare to do otherwise.

 

You do you and leave your concealed carry firearm at home all the time and only go to places where it's not needed (although where that is, I really don't know). I will continue to make sure I am protected as well as my family if they are with me.

[Euler]

I believe the father and son went to the location of the tracker to retrieve the car, not to find and confront the perpetrators. (So this case isn't one of citizen's arrest -- or vigilantism, if anyone suggests it.) The cops certainly aren't going to return the car. At best, it would get impounded from wherever it would have been eventually found, then probably auctioned by the sheriff.

Meanwhile, they were not prohibited from being wherever these events took place. Based on the police report, they have committed no crime. We can debate whether what they did was smart, but it wasn't illegal.

[davel501]

These guys probably did not act in the most intelligent manner but what kind of bizzarro world are we living in where the police can't be bothered to do their job and solve a case given to them on a silver platter? Some command staff at CPD need to be fired over this one.

[soundguy]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:52 AM, max503 said:

They went on an attack and destroy mission.

 

The article does not indicate this.

 

Years ago I recovered my own stolen car after a week. No thieves were present. I called police and waited. It took hours/

 

If that car had a tracking device, I would have notified the police, grabbed a buddy with a car and gone for a drive.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Jeffrey]

The last few summers we've experienced burning, looting, murders, etc.  All of those protests they'd always chant for social justice.  Why they complaining now?

[John Q Public]

Maybe not smart, but if the perps opened fire first, then there is no violation. I just install a manual kill switch on all my vehicles. If they get around the anti-theft on the car it will not start anyway. A simple $5 switch in a hidden spot is all it takes. I have found someone who stole my car, before the switch trick, I just followed at a distance until the cops took over. This was years and years ago, when we had enough of them and they were aggressive about enforcement. 

 

heck, a lot of the time now, they just tell you to come in and fill out report and get a case ID. They don't even roll out.

[max503]

Sounds like they shot up their own car.

[Jeffrey]

On 1/29/2024 at 2:06 PM, max503 said:

Sounds like they shot up their own car.

Compared to many horror stories I've listened to about stolen cars that were repo'ed, a couple holes is an easy fix.  Glad they got back what should have never been taken to begin with.

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 3:59 PM, Jeffrey said:

Compared to many horror stories I've listened to about stolen cars that were repo'ed, a couple holes is an easy fix.  Glad they got back what should have never been taken to begin with.

 

It looks like it's probably going to be more than just a few bullet holes unfortunately...

 

"Police say after fleeing, the car crashed into a storefront near West 87th Street and South Lafayette Avenue"

[max503]

I wonder if the insurance company will cover this little incident?  

 

Hey.  I ain't trying to argue with anyone.  But I get this image of two guys grabbing guns and piling into the car to "get those guys who stole my ride".  It doesn't sound like a good scenario, (unless your name is Ray Epps).

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 6:12 PM, max503 said:

I wonder if the insurance company will cover this little incident?  

 

Hey.  I ain't trying to argue with anyone.  But I get this image of two guys grabbing guns and piling into the car to "get those guys who stole my ride".  It doesn't sound like a good scenario, (unless your name is Ray Epps).

Pretty straight forward. Car was stolen and then crashed into a storefront. There is no reason possible that insurance wouldn't cover this. The fact that the owner and criminal offenders got into a shootout is completely relevant.

 

I don't understand why you seem to keep sympathizing with these criminals. The victims did absolutely nothing wrong in this case. 

[davel501]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:31 PM, mikeyk101 said:

Pretty straight forward. Car was stolen and then crashed into a storefront. There is no reason possible that insurance wouldn't cover this. The fact that the owner and criminal offenders got into a shootout is completely relevant.

 

I don't understand why you seem to keep sympathizing with these criminals. The victims did absolutely nothing wrong in this case. 

 

It's actually a valid question. The insurance company could take the position that the accident was the result of the intentional act of the insured and nope out. The insurance for the storefront that was damaged could come after them too. Chasing the perps may have cost them their mantle of innocence. 

[mikeyk101]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:53 PM, davel501 said:

 

It's actually a valid question. The insurance company could take the position that the accident was the result of the intentional act of the insured and nope out. The insurance for the storefront that was damaged could come after them too. Chasing the perps may have cost them their mantle of innocence. 

Except the criminals unlawfully took the car in the first place. Victims tracked, not chased vehicle where the confrontation and shootout occurred. Then the criminals fled from the victims continuing to use that stolen vehicle and crashed it obviously driving recklessly. The criminals had been confronted but I have seen no evidence that the victims pursued the criminals after the shootout  It's no different than an owner coming out of his house to see criminals in the act of stealing the owners car and then driving a stolen car recklessly and crashing it. 

[mikeyk101]

And it actually doesn't say that the victim and his son confronted the criminals, only that the criminals SAW the victim and his son and opened fire. Nothing shows that the victim and his son had firearms exposed and/or pointed firearms at the criminals. Only that they were shot at and returned fire. They would not be the first victims in Chicago to be shot at by criminals unprovoked.

[davel501]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:20 PM, mikeyk101 said:

And it actually doesn't say that the victim and his son confronted the criminals, only that the criminals SAW the victim and his son and opened fire. Nothing shows that the victim and his son had firearms exposed and/or pointed firearms at the criminals. Only that they were shot at and returned fire. They would not be the first victims in Chicago to be shot at by criminals unprovoked.

 

On 1/29/2024 at 2:54 AM, Euler said:

Police say a 23-year-old man who was allegedly inside the stolen vehicle suffered gunshot wounds to his neck and shoulder during the shootout and later took himself to the hospital. Police say he is reportedly in serious condition.

 

If they shot at the guys, they had to expose and point their firearms. It costs an insurance company nothing to deny a claim. With likely no money to be recouped from the suspects, the victims could end up being the deep pockets here as far as the insurance for the business is concerned. Going to depend on who the insurance companies are, how the police report is written and the size of the payouts. 

 

I think there's a 90% chance nothing more comes of this but people need to think about outcomes like this before they get too carried away in their mall ninja fantasies.

[mikeyk101]

On 1/30/2024 at 12:46 AM, davel501 said:

If they shot at the guys, they had to expose and point their firearms.

Correct. But it doesn't say that they were intentionally approaching the criminals with guns raised. Only that they returned fire after being shot at. So I stand by what I said. Yes, once they were shot at, obviously their guns would have to come out and get pointed at the criminals to return fire. This is textbook self defense all day long.

 

I'm not saying what they did by trying to track down the car was a smart move and they are both probably lucky to not have gotten seriously hurt or even killed. But I can fully understand the frustration that the father must have been feeling when he found out he had been violated by his car being stolen. For some, the car may be rather important and a means of being able to make a living or not. There are a lot of unknowns in this and people have different motivations on why they do what they do. So what's done is done. 

[davel501]

On 1/30/2024 at 1:26 AM, mikeyk101 said:

Correct. But it doesn't say that they were intentionally approaching the criminals with guns raised. Only that they returned fire after being shot at. So I stand by what I said. Yes, once they were shot at, obviously their guns would have to come out and get pointed at the criminals to return fire. This is textbook self defense all day long.

 

I'm not saying what they did by trying to track down the car was a smart move and they are both probably lucky to not have gotten seriously hurt or even killed. But I can fully understand the frustration that the father must have been feeling when he found out he had been violated by his car being stolen. For some, the car may be rather important and a means of being able to make a living or not. There are a lot of unknowns in this and people have different motivations on why they do what they do. So what's done is done. 

 

You seem to be adding a lot of facts about what happened to this thread. Were you there? Was someone you know there?

[soundguy]

On 1/29/2024 at 7:31 PM, mikeyk101 said:

There is no reason possible that insurance wouldn't cover this.

 

Not having coverage for theft, having only the state required insurance, would be one good reason insurance would not cover the loss of the stolen vehicle or damage to it.

 

There are clues in the article that might lead one to suppose the stolen car may not have had full coverage. This may lead foolish men of action to attempt to locate the car and do something about it. I might have been in constant contact with a police dispatcher had I embarked upon such a path...

 

I was only days away from a new car when I just happened to find my stolen car while driving in a rental provided by my insurer. But there was my car, undamaged. I had fairly good full coverage and did not receive a new car!

 

Hope it all works out for the owner.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Euler]

On January 30, 2024 at 12:24 PM CST, soundguy said:→

...
There are clues in the article that might lead one to suppose the stolen car may not have had full coverage. ...

In Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > Carjacking victim executes citizen arrest, the car in question also apparently was not insured. The cops charged the carjacker with driving an uninsured motor vehicle. (I was amused.) Maybe it can happen in this case, too.

[Tip]

On 1/30/2024 at 7:14 PM, Euler said:

In Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > Carjacking victim executes citizen arrest, the car in question also apparently was not insured. The cops charged the carjacker with driving an uninsured motor vehicle. (I was amused.) Maybe it can happen in this case, too.

Whether the owner had insurance or not is irrelevant.
Carjackers always drive without insurance.
Since the owner didn’t grant permission their insurance doesn’t cover the carjacker, unless the carjacker had insurance to specifically cover him driving any other car regardless of whether he had permission or not (absolutely unlikely - even if he has good insurance it’d only cover him driving a car WITH permission) then said carjacker would be driving without insurance. 

[mikeyk101]

On 1/30/2024 at 10:55 AM, davel501 said:

 

You seem to be adding a lot of facts about what happened to this thread. Were you there? Was someone you know there?

No, no relation to anyone there and was not there. Merely reading the same information provided to everyone else. I don't believe I added any facts either. 

[mikeyk101]

On 1/30/2024 at 12:24 PM, soundguy said:

Not having coverage for theft, having only the state required insurance, would be one good reason insurance would not cover the loss of the stolen vehicle or damage to it.

Very valid point.