fletcher
Member
Great story - glad to see that there's no typical "Police Chief: We don't recommend that you resist if being robbed." statement in there.
17 year old protects his mother during carjacking
- Thread starter S&W 910
- Start date
- Status
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Someone should tell these thieves that they shouldn't carry guns because they are more likely to be taken away and use on them by their intended victims.
yhtomit
Member
eric_t12 wrote:
A gun for him is a great idea! But I agree with Eric, it must be done properly.
I have an idea: why not have a gun inscribed appropriately to (and given to) his mother? She'd be free to gift it to him if she desired, and surely would eventually if not immediately.
"To commemorate your son's bravery on June 18, 2007. Sic semper carjackae."
If she kept it for more than a few years, that would make him buy his own anyhow, which isn't a bad thing
I'd be in for $5 (sorry, poor student and in debt.) Let's make this work!
timothy
A gun for him is a great idea! But I agree with Eric, it must be done properly.
I have an idea: why not have a gun inscribed appropriately to (and given to) his mother? She'd be free to gift it to him if she desired, and surely would eventually if not immediately.
"To commemorate your son's bravery on June 18, 2007. Sic semper carjackae."
If she kept it for more than a few years, that would make him buy his own anyhow, which isn't a bad thing
I'd be in for $5 (sorry, poor student and in debt.) Let's make this work!
timothy
camslam
Member
When will we read the follow up story about how some scum bag lawyer is helping the criminal sue the 17 year old and his mother for injuring him.
I'm sure the argument will go something like this, "If their car hadn't been there and been accessible, my client would not have had the motivation to attempt to obtain items from them."
Our country and its justice system are in serious need of some help!
Way to go kid, we need more people standing up to this kind of crap.
I'm sure the argument will go something like this, "If their car hadn't been there and been accessible, my client would not have had the motivation to attempt to obtain items from them."
Our country and its justice system are in serious need of some help!
Way to go kid, we need more people standing up to this kind of crap.
yhtomit
Member
Sorry, my conjugatin' is mostly hypothetical. I defer to those who made better Latin grades than I did in 6th grade
timothy
Hmmm...
Give them the money and give them the keys... then hope they don't shoot you anyways... then make an insurance payment on your car... and watch you premium go up... and nobody gets shot... unless they actually do shoot you anyways, in which case the PD will conduct a half-@$$ed investigation and will eventually drop the case.
Thank you, no, I think this young man did the right thing. Too bad his aim wasn't a little better.
Give them the money and give them the keys... then hope they don't shoot you anyways... then make an insurance payment on your car... and watch you premium go up... and nobody gets shot... unless they actually do shoot you anyways, in which case the PD will conduct a half-@$$ed investigation and will eventually drop the case.
Thank you, no, I think this young man did the right thing. Too bad his aim wasn't a little better.
Elza
Member
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, D.C.
jaholder1971
Member
All,
I respectfully submit that there are other thing s a 17 year old needs right now more than a gun.
First, you're making a big assumption that this kid's into guns and his parents would allow him to have one even before this happened. Remember that this kid has shot someone and may be dealing with the trauma of being a victim of a violent crime. Gun ownership may be something he's not interested in, now or ever.
He and his family will, in all likelihood, have to deal with a possible lawsuit over defending himself and his mother. There's going to be some dirtbag lawyer go after them with some BS that there was no reason to shoot the poor carjacker after he was disarmed.
Suggestion: Take donations and set up a defense/scholarship fund for the kid. Use the money to protect him and his family from a lawsuit and anything left over let him use for school. Educate him now and let him decide when to arm himself.
Jon
I respectfully submit that there are other thing s a 17 year old needs right now more than a gun.
First, you're making a big assumption that this kid's into guns and his parents would allow him to have one even before this happened. Remember that this kid has shot someone and may be dealing with the trauma of being a victim of a violent crime. Gun ownership may be something he's not interested in, now or ever.
He and his family will, in all likelihood, have to deal with a possible lawsuit over defending himself and his mother. There's going to be some dirtbag lawyer go after them with some BS that there was no reason to shoot the poor carjacker after he was disarmed.
Suggestion: Take donations and set up a defense/scholarship fund for the kid. Use the money to protect him and his family from a lawsuit and anything left over let him use for school. Educate him now and let him decide when to arm himself.
Jon
Aguila Blanca
Member
Actually, although I had only two years of Latin waaaaaaaay back in high school, I don't think it's conjugated at all, because I don't think it has a verb.
"Sic" means "thus" (as in "Sic transit gloria mundi")
"Semper" means "always" (as in the USMC "Semper Fidelis")
And "carjackae" appears to be the feminine plural of the singular noun for "carjacker"
Perhaps a more complete phony Latin phrase would be "Sic transit [or is it "transtulit?] carjackii" ("Thus passeth carjackers")
RevolvingCylinder
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 782
Some people on THR would want victims to be charged because "no minor should have unsupervised access to firearms". A carjacking is not proper supervision nor is it a "sporting purpose/event" as such laws usually require.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=283783
silverlance
Member
IM IN TOO.
oh, i hope they didnt lose too much hearing.. i sure as heck would not want to fire a gun even ONCE inside a car.
oh, i hope they didnt lose too much hearing.. i sure as heck would not want to fire a gun even ONCE inside a car.
yongxingfreesty
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,396
kid has done well. A+
jakemccoy
Member
Congratulations to the kid on a job well done. We're all so happy for the kid, his mom and good guys generally.
However, many of us have failed to recognize that, given these facts, the kid's actions are unadvisable to an "average person". An average person should have gotten out of the car and let the guy have the car. It's just property that car jackers want. Otherwise, they'd shoot immediately. This particular car jacker was clearly not experienced with the tactical use of handguns. I'm unwilling to bet another person's life that all carjackers are as lame as this particular criminal.
Out of 10 times of this crime happening, what do you think the outcome would be? I'm guessing 7 out of 10 times, the resister (kid in this case) will get shot. Make up your own odds and imagine betting a loved one's life on those odds.
This car jacker was 44. There are plenty of car jackers who are around 21, straight-up athletes, quick as cats and strapped with 9's. We should be prepared for the latter.
This ain't the movies or a video game, folks. You don't get more lives.
(If the kid were armed beforehand, my thoughts would be different.)
However, many of us have failed to recognize that, given these facts, the kid's actions are unadvisable to an "average person". An average person should have gotten out of the car and let the guy have the car. It's just property that car jackers want. Otherwise, they'd shoot immediately. This particular car jacker was clearly not experienced with the tactical use of handguns. I'm unwilling to bet another person's life that all carjackers are as lame as this particular criminal.
Out of 10 times of this crime happening, what do you think the outcome would be? I'm guessing 7 out of 10 times, the resister (kid in this case) will get shot. Make up your own odds and imagine betting a loved one's life on those odds.
This car jacker was 44. There are plenty of car jackers who are around 21, straight-up athletes, quick as cats and strapped with 9's. We should be prepared for the latter.
This ain't the movies or a video game, folks. You don't get more lives.
(If the kid were armed beforehand, my thoughts would be different.)
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
Sorry Jakemccoy, I call BS.
How do you know all he wanted was the car and the money? Or is this gonna be another Kelsey Smith? Her killer didn't "shoot immediately", so I guess he just wanted the car, right?
Dead wrong. My advise is, especially to women, NEVER let them control you, NEVER let them get into the car with you, NEVER let them take you anywhere. Fight and keep fighting. Too many people become statistics because they trust their assailants to keep their word. Even if all he wanted was the car and money, how do you know he's not going to shoot them to avoid witnesses?
Your kind of attitude is exactly why people end up dead.
How do you know all he wanted was the car and the money? Or is this gonna be another Kelsey Smith? Her killer didn't "shoot immediately", so I guess he just wanted the car, right?
Dead wrong. My advise is, especially to women, NEVER let them control you, NEVER let them get into the car with you, NEVER let them take you anywhere. Fight and keep fighting. Too many people become statistics because they trust their assailants to keep their word. Even if all he wanted was the car and money, how do you know he's not going to shoot them to avoid witnesses?
Your kind of attitude is exactly why people end up dead.
jakemccoy
Member
^Really? The kid in this case is exceptional. He, by no means, is an example of what all people are capable of. Further, the criminal is uncommonly lame. Accordingly, we have a fact pattern that should not be used as a universal example of what to do.
Read the facts again. You went off on some hypotheticals (NEVER...) that have little to do with this particular scenario. Start another thread if you want a different scenario. In this case, the criminal said that he wanted the car and money; then he proceeded to pull the woman out of the car after she refused. She should not have refused to exit the car if she was not prepared to counter his threat with force that would stop him. She opted to put her son's life on the line as well as hers. A criminal interested in doing harm to the individuals would have found a way into the back seat and forced them to drive away, or he would have shot somebody for not cooperating.
You can call my analysis BS if you want. My instincts tell me that most people on this thread are choosing the "hero in the movie" option instead of the "just trying to stay alive" option. Being an Internet hero is one thing. Betting your life on the probable outcome is another.
Read the facts again. You went off on some hypotheticals (NEVER...) that have little to do with this particular scenario. Start another thread if you want a different scenario. In this case, the criminal said that he wanted the car and money; then he proceeded to pull the woman out of the car after she refused. She should not have refused to exit the car if she was not prepared to counter his threat with force that would stop him. She opted to put her son's life on the line as well as hers. A criminal interested in doing harm to the individuals would have found a way into the back seat and forced them to drive away, or he would have shot somebody for not cooperating.
You can call my analysis BS if you want. My instincts tell me that most people on this thread are choosing the "hero in the movie" option instead of the "just trying to stay alive" option. Being an Internet hero is one thing. Betting your life on the probable outcome is another.
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
My problem with your "method" of dealing with similar scenarios is that it appears that modern society is all too ready to follow your advice, in any and all circumstances. And people die because of it.
If more people were taught to react like this kid, in general, we would have less of the "Kelsey Smith" kind of results. Surely you aren't suggesting that our children are being taught to be too aggressive, and to respond with force when necessary? The classrooms in VT certainly come to mind.
If more people were taught to react like this kid, in general, we would have less of the "Kelsey Smith" kind of results. Surely you aren't suggesting that our children are being taught to be too aggressive, and to respond with force when necessary? The classrooms in VT certainly come to mind.
jakemccoy
Member
^ I undersand your concern, and I don't want folks to be passive either. At the same time, I would not generally advise people to do all the things that are within my capabilities. I don't think I'm a good example. I don't think this kid is a good example.
I'm suggesting that all people should be armed beforehand (gun, knife, pepper spray, etc.). If not, use the best tactical approach to stay alive. These folks were unarmed apparently. In this case, the mother made an irresponsible decision given that she was not prepared to counter the gunman herself. She thereby gambled with her son's life. I believe that we don't have the moral right to gamble other people's lives, unless absolutely necessary. In this case, gambling her son's life was unnecessary. She gambled to save her car and money. The son had little choice but to risk his own life to help his mother. That gun shot that went off in the car could have more easily found its way to the kid's torso. Thus, I’m scrutinizing the mother more than the son.
Yeah, I’m playing armchair quarterback, but that’s why these forums are here. The more we think through scenarios beforehand, the better.
VT was a completely different scenario. The tactical differences are too numerous to try to mention briefly. Let's not go there.
I'm suggesting that all people should be armed beforehand (gun, knife, pepper spray, etc.). If not, use the best tactical approach to stay alive. These folks were unarmed apparently. In this case, the mother made an irresponsible decision given that she was not prepared to counter the gunman herself. She thereby gambled with her son's life. I believe that we don't have the moral right to gamble other people's lives, unless absolutely necessary. In this case, gambling her son's life was unnecessary. She gambled to save her car and money. The son had little choice but to risk his own life to help his mother. That gun shot that went off in the car could have more easily found its way to the kid's torso. Thus, I’m scrutinizing the mother more than the son.
Yeah, I’m playing armchair quarterback, but that’s why these forums are here. The more we think through scenarios beforehand, the better.
VT was a completely different scenario. The tactical differences are too numerous to try to mention briefly. Let's not go there.
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
The VT is mentionable from one point only, and its not tactical:
The mentality of acting, surviving, fighting, doing whatever it takes, needs to be returned to our culture. I didn't bring up VT because of its tactical nature, but because of the mentality of the people involved. I could have as easily mentioned the man in the news here this winter who ran to dial 9-1-1 after his brother fell through the ice, rather than having the intestinal fortitude to do something about the situation himself.
The mentality of acting, surviving, fighting, doing whatever it takes, needs to be returned to our culture. I didn't bring up VT because of its tactical nature, but because of the mentality of the people involved. I could have as easily mentioned the man in the news here this winter who ran to dial 9-1-1 after his brother fell through the ice, rather than having the intestinal fortitude to do something about the situation himself.
jakemccoy
Member
^ From a bigger picture perspective, I see your point, and I agree.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked