Friday, December 2, 2011

Carjacking: Doin' It WRONG

Heh. Reader Kevin sends in this heartwarming tale of a catastrophic failure in the victim selection process*:

HPD: Officer fatally shoots carjacker
An undercover Houston police officer shot and killed a man Wednesday that he said tried to carjack him during a surveillance operation at a northwest-side apartment complex.
...
Chapa was sitting in the driver's seat of the unmarked police car when Garza suddenly walked up and opened the front passenger door. He pointed a semi-automatic pistol at the officer but said nothing, HPD officials said.
The rest of the article is filled with the hand-wringing and "he was a good boy" pablum one would expect in the Boston Globe, but I digress. Sorry folks, your kid sticks a gun in the face of someone over their damn car, they take whatever's coming to them. If that happens to be four or five rounds, well, that's an occupational hazard. Don't point guns at folks if you're not prepared to shoot them or get shot.

How ironic is it, though, that the police officer assigned to patrol the complex because of a high crime rate got carjacked?

That is all.

*Sadly, not a DGC, since it was a police officer doing the righteous shooting...

6 comments:

Wraith said...

Cynthia Rodriguez denied that her son would carjack anyone..."I want justice. I want to know why they shot him seven times."

I'd like to know, too. I'm pretty sure police duty weapons hold more than seven rounds.

;)

On a Wing and a Whim said...

Makes sense, actually - undercover cops often get nice cars, which makes them more likely to get carjacked than the three-color crunched-corners smoke-belcher parked two down.

Why do I think the rate of carjackings just dropped noticeably on that block?

Anonymous said...

Why shouldn't it count towards the DGC? The choir-crook didn't know it was a cop he was carjacking... the thug obviously intended this to be a crime against a private, non-cop, individual, not as a "cop-killer crime," so why not treat it as a clean shoot by a non-cop, since that was how the thug intended it (albeit in reverse)?

Hope that sentence parsed...

Jay G said...

I understand what you're getting at, but the fact is, that was a police officer on duty for the express purpose of catching criminals and/or preventing crime.

Anonymous said...

I know, I was being facetious. :-P

Braden Lynch said...

Wraith is right.

Of course, those high capacity magazines (or is that "clips"?) are only meant for killing a lot of people really fast. That's what our "smart" opponents tell us.

It is interesting to note that the officer had to fire 7 rounds and likely at close range at a single assailant to end the threat, and yet the BC, MAIG and others think we should be limited to 10 to keep us in line!

I have to admire the blind love of this mother who can discount the sad reality of her 19 year old son graduating from earlier "nickel and dime" law-breaking activities up to this carjacking incident. I wonder how she would feel if her son had instead killed the police officer?

Enough with this choir boy stuff.