View Full Version : In Kenosha, WI: Carjacking victim to be charged with endangering attacker?
Gabriel556
07-19-21, 09:44
I’m hoping more will come from this but the initial reporting doesn’t make Kenosha sound any friendlier than it was last year for Rittenhouse. Does anybody know or have you heard anymore about this?
KENOSHA, Wisconsin - The 13-year-old girl who allegedly tried to carjack someone on Friday night in Kenosha will be facing charges, as will the driver who shot her. The girl was shot while trying to steal a car from a gas station at the corner of Sheridan Road and 50th, police said. She remains hospitalized. Kenosha police said on Sunday that charges will be referred to juvenile court. The driver remains in custody on a single charge of recklessly endangering safety.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/13-year-old-carjacking-suspect-and-person-who-shot-her-will-both-face-charges-kenosha-police-say.amp?taid=60f526794f7e8d0001f2aff9&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
That's messed up. It seems to me, and I am no lawyer, a decent lawyer will take care of this and it'll never see a courtroom.
Pretty thin on the info. My guess is that you can't use deadly force to protect property.
I believed the error to the shooting is that she was driving away. He shot at her from behind. Unless she was driving at him, he is probably going to face charges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In many states it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property. If the carjacker was armed, or tried to take the vehicle by force, then a case for self-defense could be articulated. But if she simply jumped in the car and attempted to drive away while the vehicle's owner was outside, I can see why he was charged if she posed no threat to him directly.
Without details, its hard to say. Did she jump in a running car and attempt to drive away so he blasted her, did she use a weapon to get him out of the car, then try to drive away? Did she present a weapon and get shot? Did he mag dump all over the neighborhood?
Andy
The "Recklessly endangering safety" charge sounds suspiciously like he was just charged for discharging a firearm in a public area.
Without details, its hard to say. Did she jump in a running car and attempt to drive away so he blasted her, did she use a weapon to get him out of the car, then try to drive away? Did she present a weapon and get shot? Did he mag dump all over the neighborhood?
Andy
That's a good point. I was only seeing it from "I feared for my life" point of view. There are definitely things we do not know.
Did the shooter leave his/her car keys in the ignition?
Yes, it was left running unattended.
Last article in the local news quote him as saying he intended to shoot put the tires. He thought it was within his right to do that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sandsunsurf
07-19-21, 18:22
It’s too bad that liberal states give the criminals more rights than the victims. All of these mofos that don’t think it’s morally correct to defend your property using force have probably lived a sheltered life and never felt the loss, fear and intrusion of being victimized. Or they used to be the criminal..
I hate to say “in the gold ole days” but about twenty years ago where I live a guy shot a 19 y/o kid breaking into his car- the kid had a screwdriver and told the victim to F-off when confronted and subsequently got shot. There was some media buzz about shooting to protect a car and whether the screwdriver was a deadly weapon or threat. The DA shut the questions down, saying “when it comes to citizen versus criminal, I’ll side with the citizen every time.”
I believed the error to the shooting is that she was driving away. He shot at her from behind. Unless she was driving at him, he is probably going to face charges.
I don't have a fundamental problem with that. However, legally he's gonna be in a world of shit for the reasons you stated. Good thing the carjacker made it though.....the real victim in this incident would be facing more serious charges and a future cure for cancer or other Nobel-level achievement would never happen. :rolleyes:
Yes, it was left running unattended.
Last article in the local news quote him as saying he intended to shoot put the tires. He thought it was within his right to do that.
Damn, the shooter doesn't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed, given both the key-in-ignition and "shoot the tires out" aspects of this case.
It’s too bad that liberal states give the criminals more rights than the victims. All of these mofos that don’t think it’s morally correct to defend your property using force have probably lived a sheltered life and never felt the loss, fear and intrusion of being victimized. Or they used to be the criminal..
I hate to say “in the gold ole days” but about twenty years ago where I live a guy shot a 19 y/o kid breaking into his car- the kid had a screwdriver and told the victim to F-off when confronted and subsequently got shot. There was some media buzz about shooting to protect a car and whether the screwdriver was a deadly weapon or threat. The DA shut the questions down, saying “when it comes to citizen versus criminal, I’ll side with the citizen every time.”
Not nitpicking but a 19yo is an adult, and should be considered as one. A year younger even and he could join the military and be killing folks before ever turning 19.
Now does a 19yo seems like a "kid" to me at almost 56? Yeah.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shooting-brings-multiple-charges-teen-car-theft-suspect-expected-to-survive/article_f44af613-3e1f-5492-a414-099e84146f9b.html
Details for those asking.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sandsunsurf
07-19-21, 19:22
Thanks for posting the link with more details. I think I will slightly change my opinion. Carjacking (as the news reported) is robbery, what occurred is larceny. There is a significant difference. Though I do think property crimes are a big deal, i also think that there’s got to be some discretion used by the victim, and it appears it was not used in this case..
If more thieves got shot there would be less stealing. You can't claim "all lives are precious" when we have on demand abortion and the death penalty. The crooks decide their life if worth your property when they attempt to steal it.
If more thieves got shot there would be less stealing. You can't claim "all lives are precious" when we have on demand abortion and the death penalty. The crooks decide their life if worth your property when they attempt to steal it.
If they were shunned by the community and in the case of this 13 y/o punished at home there would be less theft.
I guarantee someone will raise money to help with the family's "medical bills" and if the girl had been arrested not shot, Moms would have been more pissed about the time and effort to pick her up at the jail than raising a thief. I know the feeling in the community is that leaving a car unlocked and running means he asked for his car to be stolen.
I would be shocked if they even prosecute the little bandit but guarantee they will the owner. Can't have a black man trying to protect his property with a gun, can we?
Andy
Averageman
07-20-21, 07:05
Two Points,
One; You left the car either running or with the key in the ignition. Dummy.
Two; If you value your life like I value my stuff, leave it alone. It's that simple.
Gabriel556
07-20-21, 08:25
Now that more details have come out, I understand the charges. I can’t imagine leaving keys in a vehicle let alone running (I don’t do that at my own house out in the country), but I also don’t believe it would have gone this calmly if the theft victim was white either. I’d still like to see surveillance footage because I’m sure it’s already evidence.
titsonritz
07-20-21, 22:40
Two Points,
One; You left the car either running or with the key in the ignition. Dummy.
Two; If you value your life like I value my stuff, leave it alone. It's that simple.
I can get behind that.
Let me just leave this here:
A Nation of Cowards
by Jeffrey Snyder
from 1993
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
ViperTwoSix
07-21-21, 07:39
I think this case highlights the need to understand the laws while carrying a firearm. As georgeib said, some states do not allow you to protect property with deadly force. The state I live in is one of those. For example, if someone is burglarizing my car and no one is in it, deadly force would be illegal. However, if the car was occupied then deadly force would be justified. Wether it makes sense or not, that’s the current law and it is in my best interest to understand it.
On another note, I think there are always two standards we have to look at, legal and moral. I know many of you believe protection of property by deadly force is justifiable, and I cannot disagree. But I do believe that, as I think Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it, just because we could doesn’t mean that we should. Would I, if I found myself in the same situation, shoot a 13 year old for stealing my car and only my car? I don’t know. Teenagers do a lot of stupid stuff. I know I did. Some teen making a huge mistake doesn’t always equate to a death sentence morally, even if justified legally. I know it’s all extremely circumstantial, but I know if certain people that I’ve encountered as a teen hadn’t shown considerable restraint then I may not be here today.
All else aside, shooting out the tires would be too Hollywood for me. Personally, I know my capabilities and if my target is the tires of a moving vehicle I know that my chances of actually hitting a tire with a handgun is nil.
Let me just leave this here:
A Nation of Cowards
by Jeffrey Snyder
from 1993
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
I have this book by Jeffrey and consider it a good one, read it multiple times. We have to be careful though, the issue being a lethal force crime being present along with the property crime. In that case, if possible, lethal force is most definitely called for. Don't think Jeffrey would advocate the use of lethal force for strictly property crimes. I certainly don't and neither, for the most part, has modern western society. We don't give people the death penalty for burglary, or grand theft auto.
I have this book by Jeffrey and consider it a good one, read it multiple times. We have to be careful though, the issue being a lethal force crime being present along with the property crime. In that case, if possible, lethal force is most definitely called for. Don't think Jeffrey would advocate the use of lethal force for strictly property crimes. I certainly don't and neither, for the most part, has modern western society. We don't give people the death penalty for burglary, or grand theft auto.
This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.
This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.
I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.
I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.
I can get on board with that, and not for humanitarian issues either. To go downstairs and try to "clear" it could lead to an unhealthy end for you if ambushed. You're safe at the top of the steps, and have the approach covered. As long as no loved ones are downstairs the thief either settles for what's on the first floor, or seals his fate. If he started up the steps I would not issue a warning however. Silence on my part, prior to the BANG, is part of a smart home defense scenario. Voice gives away position; not a wise choice. If the perp is not alone then his buddy now knows how to maneuver (or shoot through the walls/floor up at you).
I don't ever want to pull the trigger on someone either (i.e. it's not a wet dream of mine or anything) but will not hesitate to do so.
This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.
Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?
I don't like the idea but some state/local laws are misguided.
vicious_cb
07-22-21, 04:48
On another note, I think there are always two standards we have to look at, legal and moral. I know many of you believe protection of property by deadly force is justifiable, and I cannot disagree. But I do believe that, as I think Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it, just because we could doesn’t mean that we should. Would I, if I found myself in the same situation, shoot a 13 year old for stealing my car and only my car? I don’t know. Teenagers do a lot of stupid stuff. I know I did. Some teen making a huge mistake doesn’t always equate to a death sentence morally, even if justified legally. I know it’s all extremely circumstantial, but I know if certain people that I’ve encountered as a teen hadn’t shown considerable restraint then I may not be here today.
All else aside, shooting out the tires would be too Hollywood for me. Personally, I know my capabilities and if my target is the tires of a moving vehicle I know that my chances of actually hitting a tire with a handgun is nil.
They're just teens right? Tell that to this dead uber eats driver folded in half on sidewalk.
13 & 15 YO Girls Murder Uber Eats Driver
Evil is among us. Quite disturbing how Marxist "subjects" can kill so easily.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/horror-caught-video-13-15-year-old-girls-murder-driver-dc-walk-past-body-look-cellphone/
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?229341-13-amp-15-YO-Girls-Murder-Uber-Eats-Driver
Go ask the South Africans what the consequences are when you arent allowed to protect your property.
Black_Sheep
07-22-21, 13:40
Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?
I don't like the idea but some state/local laws are misguided.
Minnesota is one of those states, the homeowner has a duty to retreat. Personally I consider a criminal entering an occupied home is enough of a threat to justify the use of lethal force if necessary, but the state says otherwise.
Johnny Rico
07-22-21, 14:41
Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?
A misunderstood aspect of the Duty to Retreat is that you are only required to retreat if you can do so safely.
They're just teens right? Tell that to this dead uber eats driver folded in half on sidewalk.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?229341-13-amp-15-YO-Girls-Murder-Uber-Eats-Driver
Go ask the South Africans what the consequences are when you arent allowed to protect your property.
There is no law that I know of that prevents you from protecting your property with the appropriate force. If a guy is trying to steal my car, as far as I know, I can intervene to stop that. I just can't go to a 12 ga SG with double OO buck from the git go. Maybe I can hold him with the SG? Is your body worth more than your car? Mine is. BUT, if a man or women attacks me with their fists, I can't just whip out my Roscoe and end the assault, unless maybe the guy or gal is 400 lbs of pure muscle (a disparity of force). Looting usually has different laws applied to it, doesn't it?
There is no law that I know of that prevents you from protecting your property with the appropriate force. If a guy is trying to steal my car, as far as I know, I can intervene to stop that. I just can't go to a 12 ga SG with double OO buck from the git go. Maybe I can hold him with the SG? Is your body worth more than your car? Mine is. BUT, if a man or women attacks me with their fists, I can't just whip out my Roscoe and end the assault, unless maybe the guy or gal is 400 lbs of pure muscle (a disparity of force). Looting usually has different laws applied to it, doesn't it?
You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.
Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.
Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.
It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.
You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.
Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.
Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.
It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.
Yeah, I would agree with this whole heartedly.
sandsunsurf
07-22-21, 20:05
I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.
As long as I have the superior position and situation (i.e. not outnumbered or walking into a triangulated position) I’m going downstairs to protect my property and my HOME. You have every moral right to defend your castle, and if a state has a law that prohibits that, then that is a state not worth residing in.
sandsunsurf
07-22-21, 20:06
You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.
Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.
Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.
It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.
I wish there was a simple +1 button… this is accurate and concise.
You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.
Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.
Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.
It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.
I agree with most of your post. The vehicle owner could use reasonable force to prevent the theft of his vehicle, such as grabbing the driver or other non-lethal use of force. If the thief takes action that would require a response in which deadly force would be justified, i.e. presented a knife, displayed a firearm or drove away, then steered a course in an attempt to run over the vehicle owner, deadly force would likely be appropriate.
If you create the circumstances that would place you in a position where you are in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death, i.e. jump in front of a moving vehicle to prevent theft, you would likely face criminal charges for applying deadly force. It's been a while since I've seen the Florida courts case cite. I will attempt to find the cite and post a link.
As long as I have the superior position and situation (i.e. not outnumbered or walking into a triangulated position) I’m going downstairs to protect my property and my HOME. You have every moral right to defend your castle, and if a state has a law that prohibits that, then that is a state not worth residing in.
I'm just not interested in killing someone over a TV. In California, you can defend your castle, legally you can do that, but house clearings are pretty dangerous, and, again, I don't want blood on my hands for mere property if I can avoid it. If they were trying to boost the brand new Bronco I have on order...well...that might be different. LOL
Minnesota is one of those states, the homeowner has a duty to retreat. Personally I consider a criminal entering an occupied home is enough of a threat to justify the use of lethal force if necessary, but the state says otherwise.
Did this pass? Minnesota Castle Doctrine Bill - https://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/billsumm/summary_display_from_db.html?ls=91&id=7048
I believe this was previous statute:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions 2 and 3, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:
(i) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(ii) in the execution of legal process; or
(iii) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(iv) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or
(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or
(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or
(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or
(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or
(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or
(9) when used to restrain a person with a mental illness or a person with a developmental disability from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or
(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
Subd. 2.Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
Subd. 3.Limitations on the use of certain restraints.
(a) A peace officer may not use any of the following restraints unless section 609.066 authorizes the use of deadly force to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm:
(1) a choke hold;
(2) tying all of a person's limbs together behind the person's back to render the person immobile; or
(3) securing a person in any way that results in transporting the person face down in a vehicle.
(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, "choke hold" means a method by which a person applies sufficient pressure to a person to make breathing difficult or impossible, and includes but is not limited to any pressure to the neck, throat, or windpipe that may prevent or hinder breathing, or reduce intake of air. Choke hold also means applying pressure to a person's neck on either side of the windpipe, but not to the windpipe itself, to stop the flow of blood to the brain via the carotid arteries.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
History:
1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.065; 1978 c 736 s 1; 1986 c 444
The word is, IMMINENT”, not “EMINENT”.
The word is, IMMINENT”, not “EMINENT”.
Noted, I slept through public school. ;)
There is a difference between vehicular hijacking and motor vehicle theft. Apparently the person involved in the incident referenced in the original post does not know the difference.
C-A-T would apply before taking action to avoid winding up in a trick bag. Circumstances-Assessment-Training.
There is a difference between vehicular hijacking and motor vehicle theft. Apparently the person involved in the incident referenced in the original post does not know the difference.
C-A-T would apply before taking action to avoid winding up in a trick bag. Circumstances-Assessment-Training.
In my state your vehicle is considered an extension of your home and pretty much the same rules apply.
With that said, No freaking way I would shoot at my own truck. :no:
Thanks to the factory tint, The girl (trying to steal the vehicle) in this case would not likely have noticed what was in the back of the truck watching HER and once she got inside it would have been her ass.
https://i.imgur.com/vB6P5yO.jpg
Being self-employed these girls literally go everywhere with me. The back of that truck is their home away from home...
https://i.imgur.com/jihaQLe.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/I1JsWYO.jpg
Did the shooter leave his/her car keys in the ignition?
Only sharing these pictures because it relates to what you said and dog training -
With the keys in the ignition and running, WITH the door wide open:
https://i.imgur.com/Adf0waS.jpg
Teaching them to STAY inside the vehicle when they were still young even if left unattended for a few minutes while I ran inside somewhere to do whatever. Zoomed in with camera and snapped a pic before I ran in and paid my water bill that month.
https://i.imgur.com/h58C7DK.jpg
Easier to teach that concept to the dogs if you start young and with few (or zero) distractions for them. (mostly empty parking lot vs a busy gas station)
Uhmm. Bro, you do not wanna feed shit like that to your dogs. ;)
Uhmm. Bro, you do not wanna feed shit like that to your dogs. ;)
Lol! :)
You got me there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.