Most People Wouldn’t Dream Of Asking…

…who the good guy and who the villains are in this story:

A robbery victim overpowered one of four attackers, took her gun and fatally shot her while the other three momentarily left to get food late Tuesday in the South Side’s Bronzeville neighborhood, according to sources.

A woman was found shot dead in an alley behind the 4700 block of South King Drive.

A robbery victim overpowered one of four attackers, took her gun and fatally shot her while the other three momentarily left to get food late Tuesday in the South Side’s Bronzeville neighborhood, according to sources.

The woman was found with multiple gunshot wounds about 11:15 p.m. in an alley behind 4708 S. King Dr., police said.

The four robbers had a gun? Whew. Good thing that the City Of Chicago bans handguns in the hands of the law-abiding. No telling how bad this crime might have been.

The robbery victim was inside a four-door Ford Escort with four suspects inside, including the woman who was killed, according to a law enforcement source.

The woman was told to “guard” the victim while the other three left the car to go get food. While they were gone, the man overpowered the woman, took her gun and shot her with it, and fled the scene on foot, according to the source.

While taking a human life, even in self-defense, is usually a harrowing experience that deeply scars the intended victim, you have to be alive to feel remorse. And so for what it’s worth, I salute the victim-turned-survivor in this case.

Glenn and Holmes [two Chicago Transit workers] were at a restaurant near the scene when they saw two men –allegedly two of the other robbers– come in the restaurant to use an ATM machine, according to Glenn.

When Glenn and Holmes went back to their truck, they heard shots fired. The shooter then emerged from the alley where the shooting happened and said to Glenn and Holmes, “Call the police; four guys just robbed me.” The shooter was hysterical, Glenn said:

It’s worth noting exactly what a bunch of helpless babe-in-the-woods victims we’re talking about here:

About three hours before the woman was shot or about 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, a similar Escort been reported in the area as a “suspicious auto” with four suspects inside who were driving around “yelling at people about how they were going to rob them,” according to the source.

This being Chicago, of course, “self-defense” is no guarantee. According to Chicago’s integrity-sotted government, the law-abiding citizen (as opposed to City Councilcritters in more ways than one) isn’t supposed to need to defend themselves.

It has not been learned whether the man who was robbed will face any charges.

Just a reminder: we’re under three months away from arguments in McDowell Vs. Chicago.

It can’t come soon enough.

Posted

December 23, 2009

Crime and Punishment, Victim Disarmament

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

12 responses to “Most People Wouldn’t Dream Of Asking…”

Scott Hughes

December 23, 2009

Being a violent criminal has occupational hazards; as it should be.

The actors misfortune precludes his ability to have his medical bills paid for under “ObamaCare”.

I am awaiting the arguments in the McDowell Vs. Chicago with much anticipation.
apathyboy

December 23, 2009

Just putting this out there:

A). If I had been kidnapped at gunpoint, robbed, then overpowered my attacker, killed her, and escaped the vehicle, I would claim to have just been robbed.
B) If I were a criminal, and murdered someone in a car (someone who may or may not have been a criminal herself) and fled the seen, I would claim to have just been robbed.

In scenario A it is not likely that I would have shot my assailant four times and also unlikely that I would have fled the scene without calling for help. But, that’s just me and its pure speculation on top of that. Even if the former scenario is more likely it doesn’t mean that the latter scenario is not plausable.
Master of None

December 23, 2009

“it is not likely that I would have shot my assailant four times”

True, but maybe that’s all the bullets that were in the gun.
apathyboy

December 23, 2009

post script: although if the investigation turns up the facts that he is completely innocent and that he was sleeping with the ADA’s wife… then yes, my bleeding heart will go out to the poor guy.
Mitch Berg

December 23, 2009

In scenario A it is not likely that I would have shot my assailant four times and also unlikely that I would have fled the scene without calling for help.

AB, with all due respect, how many moons orbit your home world?

“Call for help…” where? How? Remember, there are three more perps (so the story goes), who may or may not also be armed and are likely alerted (by the shooting), with you holding a piece that might have (depending on the weapon) 2-3 rounds left in it. Not to speak for my carry permit instructor (regular commenter JoelR), but everything I know says “get out of there to a safe place”.

But, that’s just me and its pure speculation on top of that.

You’re doing more than speculating; you’re imposing an unrealistic template of behavior onto your assumptions.

Even if the former scenario is more likely it doesn’t mean that the latter scenario is not plausable.

Possible, perhaps. Plausible?

“I got into a car with my target – the most pathetically-inexperienced member of a gang of small-time hoodlums, along with her three bigger, badder, more menacing accomplices – under the guise of a “Kidnap victim”. I waited until the other three got out, and then shot the woman. Everything went perfectly according to plan”.

See what I mean?
bubbasan

December 23, 2009

ApathyBoy, the psychology of self-defense in fear of death or grievous bodily injury is to keep firing until the reality that the attacker is going to assume room temperature penetrates the fog of adrenaline in the proposed victim. Very often, that means that the cylinder or magazine is empty.

In other words, firing only four rounds means that this is how many were in the gun, or possibly the man showed remarkable restraint and composure in the situation.

And yes, the ordinary response of a victim is to get away, especially if he knows there are three other attackers in the area.

I’m pretty sure here that, given that even journalists are pretty clear that it was a robbery thrwarted, I’m guessing the police have some pretty clear evidence–say the man’s wallet and jewelry found in the car–that it was indeed a robbery.

I love stories with a happy ending. I just wish that all four thugettes had gotten a deep injection of copper clad lead, not just one.
Mitch Berg

December 23, 2009

ApathyBoy, the psychology of self-defense in fear of death or grievous bodily injury is to keep firing until the reality that the attacker is going to assume room temperature penetrates the fog of adrenaline in the proposed victim. Very often, that means that the cylinder or magazine is empty.

Also, one is normally trained to fire until the target is no longer a threat. Which can, indeed, be used against the self-defense shooter. The prosecutor CAN try to get self-defense rejected because the shooter used “excessive force”. Then it’s a crap shoot, up to the jury.

After the Treptow case, I’m deeply suspicious of government’s motives in these cases.
joelr

December 23, 2009

Speak my name, and I appear . . .

Sure; many things are possible. apathyboy’s scenario is possible. Preposterous, but possible.

It’s only barely possible is that a robbery victim, in the situation that the guy described, would stay around in the car waiting for the other three to come back, or leave behind the gun for them (or for the woman, if he thought she might still be alive) to use on him. That’s pretty preposterous.

Then the shooter would have to know about or guess the remarkable coincidence about the four people in the at-least-similar car, and have the presence of mind to repeat it as an improvisation, while under the stress of just having murdered somebody (I don’t have any experience with that, but I understand that it’s pretty stressful for most folks). How’d he hear about that or figure it out?

Occam’s Razor suggests that the shooter’s story is the most likely explanation, unless the facts are wildly different from what was reported. (By other people; let’s assume that the guy might lie to avoid being prosecuted or convicted.) I can’t see how it’s wrong for the authorities to investigate — it’s unlikely, but not impossible that, say, the shooter kidnapped a stranger for bad purposes and then murdered her, and that his (credible, from this remove) story about self-defense during a robbery is just a story — but Mitch’s implied concern (that somebody — in Chicago or elsewhere — who engages in self-defense ends up being unfairly prosecuted) is utterly reasonable.

Alas.
DiscordianStooj

December 24, 2009

“The actors misfortune precludes his ability to have his medical bills paid for under “ObamaCare”.”

Yep. Just paid for by whatever county ER she ended up at instead.

Of course, it would be nice to seize some of her property to pay off those bills.

Good for the victim on this one. And AB, if you’re ever taken hostage by 4 people, and you manage to shoot one of them while the others are away, in the name of the Ceiling Cat get the hell out of wherever you are and call for help later.
nate

December 24, 2009

I think it’s likely that Apathy Boy’s thinking is similar to schoolteachers in Shoreview and retirees in Highland Park – in other words, similar to the likely jury pool when you’re charged with Murder for killing that woman, firing a gun in a car (Drive By Shooting), carrying a gun without a permit, disturbing the peace, littering, and God knows what else.

Now you know why I keep flogging the Stand Your Ground idea. Before the prosecution can arrest me, jail me, demand I mortgage my house for a bail bond, defame me by publishing my mug shot, and drag me through a year of hearings and lawyer’s fees . . . somebody ought to have decided that I deserve it. Somebody ought to have decided there is no way that I acted in self-defense.

Leaving it up to the likes of AP is simply too risky. That’s why guys like Martin Treptow cave. We absolutely must fix that flaw in the system.

.
joelr

December 25, 2009

And, just to add on: if the guy had had the presence of mind — or sufficient education on the matter — to know that ASAP after the shooting, he should have called it in, he at least would be able to have his lawyer point out (that’s the second call) to the prosecutor and/or the police that, generally speaking, that’s not something that murderers do after shooting somebody. Not saying, at all, that he wouldn’t be at risk of being prosecuted — here or elsewhere — but it could easily have lowered his risk.

As it is, he apparently did luck out; the latest report is that one of the accomplices has been arrested, and the police say that his story has checked out. Not all good deeds — like, say, fighting off a robber — go punished.

That said, Nate’s right; some surely do.
joelr

December 25, 2009

Fuller account here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-abducted-man-shoots-robberdec24,0,3571517.story — turns out that, apparently, there was a lot missing from the original story: at least one more robber; only one of the robbers had left the car; the distraction that the victim used to act was the woman robber shooting her own finger off, and the victim did flag down the cops after running away; and what he was doing in the restaurant was yelling for the folks there to call the police — not likely something a murderer would do. Turns out that his “warning shot” while she was chasing him is what killed her. (How he managed to get the gun to fire when it wouldn’t fire at the driver suggests to me that it was a revolver, with a bad round or empty chamber.) That, combined with his missing wallet, seemed pretty conclusive to the cops, and they turned him loose.