moonbattery logo

Jan 22 2013

Car Theft, With and Without Lawful Gun Ownership

Two stories from San Antonio illustrate the choice before us regarding our right to bear arms.

This is what can happen when you are not equipped to defend yourself:

An 18-year-old was shot and killed on Tuesday night after trying to stop a man from stealing his car, police say.

The deceased has been identified as Christopher Hinjos.

The teen allegedly saw the man breaking into his silver Toyota in the 300 block of Allendale Oaks near the UTSA campus around 11 p.m.

Neighbors told officers that they saw the two men fighting in the yard before Hinjos was shot in the hand and the suspect drove away in the vehicle.

Hinjos then ran to a nearby house and banged on the door for help, police said, but the suspect returned and shot him again. He died on the doorstep.

At the mercy of a merciless thug is a lousy way to die.

In contrast, this is what happens when lawful citizens are armed:

A man is dead and another is recovering in the hospital after police say they were shot while trying to steal an SUV from outside a home in an affluent neighborhood.

San Antonio police said the shooter, who was visiting family at a home in the 600 block of Lightstone Drive in Stone Oak, heard the men breaking into his Toyota 4Runner around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.

The 25-year-old man stepped outside with a gun, confronted the men who were rifling through his vehicle and opened fire, according to a police report. …

Officers said the shooter is not expected to face any charges since he was protecting his property.

I love a happy ending. But happy endings are not on the liberal agenda.

On tips from Bill T.

9 Responses to “Car Theft, With and Without Lawful Gun Ownership”

  1. justme says:

    But in any Liberal Utopia this never would have happened as no one would own anything especially a private fossil fuel combustion chamber. See Utopias are really perfect.

    In The Progressive Utopia in Progress of Bloombergistan the victim of the thug would be cited for his blood-spatter and disturbing gurgling as he died. In the second case the armed car owner would be facing a life sentence and his personal property would be seized in a wrongful death suit. In Bloombergistan the only crimes ever committed are by taxpayers who can pay fines and penalties.

  2. Mr Evilwrench says:

    Long as you hit them in the front, man. Can’t very well be in fear for your life when they’re running away.

  3. Maudie N Mandeville says:

    LiberalWatch: Memorial for the dead car thief; disdain for the patriot.

  4. bruce says:

    this is why I never leave home unarmed

  5. Alphamail says:

    Next on the liberal agenda wiil be legal legislation which “fundamentally changes” wealth disparity and the relationship between victim and perp, and which obeys their progressive law of redistribution.

    Call it the: Law Of Armed-Distribution of Collective Rights And Property.

    Or………..L.O.A.D. of C.R.A.P.

    If you own more goodies – in liberal fair-mindedness – you must hand them over to anyone who has less goodies, who might ask you for them.

    Conversely, if you don’t have enough goodies, you have the right to procure them from anyone who has them, even if that requires taking them at gunpoint.

    (excuse me, there will be no more guns – you simply have to make a gun gesture)

    The one asking is only asking for fairness, and thus is the victim – the one unwilling to share their possession is unfair, and is the perpetrator.

    But before that happens they’ll first need a skin-color slide-rule to define criminality:

  6. Ummah Gummah says:


    Liberals prefer to think of Happy Endings the Bill Clinton Way.. Nirvana on a Blue Dress.


  7. Spider says:

    Remember something. Every single living thing on this planet, be it man, animal, inscet, or plantlife, has an “indisputable” right to defend itself from harm or destruction. That doesn’t come from some elected lying crook, or some leftist court, or from our totally corrupt political system. It comes from God.

  8. Son of Taz says:

    Officers said the shooter is not expected to face any charges since he was protecting his property.

    I’d like to see this in Massachusetts. Anyone who did this would likely be facing a firing squad from the state attorney general. Just ask the security guard in this incident. Although he was cleared, it took about six months to do so. Here’s the hero guard.

  9. Bob Roberts says:

    Unfortunately, in the second case, here in CA, the shooter protecting his property would still face severe charges, likely prison time and probably be forced to pay the “victim’s” family some restitution.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy