Remember, you don't need a gun, because you'll give the robber what he wants.

[Don Gwinn]

This took place, unsurprisingly, in Chicago. Of course, a lot of places that have CCW now didn't have it in 1993.

http://www.concealcarry.org/

FULL story at the Chicago Tribune: 1993 BROWN'S CHICKEN MASSACRE

Video confession tells how robbery got out of control

Juan Luna, one of two men accused of carrying out the 1993 Brown's Chicken massacre, watched stoically from the witness stand Wednesday as prosecutors confronted him with his own videotaped confession, a chilling 43-minute blow-by-blow recounting of the infamous slaying of seven people.

With his hands folded on a table in front of him in the video, Luna coolly described where each employee was killed. The tape includes Luna describing how as "everything got all wild and crazy" he "got caught up in the moment" and cut the throat of one of the restaurant's owners.

The videotape provided the most detailed account yet of what allegedly took place in the Palatine Brown's Chicken and Pasta restaurant on Jan. 8, 1993.

On the tape Luna described how he and co-defendant James Degorski decided to rob the restaurant and ordered and ate chicken there before slipping on latex gloves and herding employees behind the counter. He aimed a gun at some of the employees at one point, he said.

"They were yelling, `Don't shoot us, please don't shoot us,'" Luna said on the tape. "Their hands were shaking too."

They began confronting employees. Luna said he was telling one employee to go to the back, when he heard a shot. It was Degorski showing the group he was serious, Luna said on the tape.

One employee jumped over the counter, and Degorski shot, Luna said. "I heard [the employee] say, `Ah, I've been shot,' and crying in pain," he said.

The first into the freezer was Castro, then an employee Luna said had been mopping when he arrived. Another employee moved toward the door, but Luna said he pushed him back and Degorski hit the worker on the head with the gun.

After that "his feet were wobbly," Luna said, "and he was easy to put in the freezer."

After she opened the safe, Lynn Ehlenfeldt, 49, who owned the restaurant with her husband Richard, 50, was on the floor near Luna. Luna "got caught up in the moment and I cut her throat" with a folding knife Degorski had given him, Luna said on the tape.

Ehlenfeldt was lying on the floor "and she started gurgling and running out of breath," Luna said. He then described how Degorski handed him the gun and dragged the woman into the freezer.

Degorski next told Luna to shoot into the freezer, he said, but Luna said he fired only one shot without aiming because he did not want to hurt anyone else.

Degorski took over from there, Luna said, taking the gun back into the freezer as the employees begged for their lives. "He just started shooting at everybody," Luna said.

Luna said he turned off the restaurant's lights to make it look less suspicious as Degorski finished off the rest of the employees. The shots were rapid, he said.

"Bam, bam, bam, pause," he said. "Bam, bam, bam again."

 

[straightShot]

This just happened in Pontiac, MI. The vehicle was handed over, and the murderers came back to shoot the vehicle owner after the carjacking was over. This is sick.

The "just hand it over" mantra doesn't ring true.

http://www.freep.com/news/locoak/carjack8e_20050708.htm

Pair charged in fatal carjacking in Pontiac
Teens held without bond
July 8, 2005

BY FRANK WITSIL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Two Pontiac teenagers killed David Bingham, a 38-year-old father of two, early Tuesday for a 1993 Chevrolet Silverado pickup, $13 -- and to silence the only witness to their crime, authorities said.

But they apparently did not realize a video camera inside the Sunoco gas station on Perry Street recorded the shooting.

Appearing before Pontiac District Judge Cynthia Walker on Thursday, the teens -- Christopher Jackson, 17, and Cordero Landrum, 18 -- were both charged with one count each of first-degree murder and carjacking, and two counts each of using a gun to commit a felony. Walker ordered them held in the Oakland County Jail without bond pending a preliminary examination July 21.

If convicted, they would be sentenced to life in prison.

Court records show both teens have criminal histories.

Jackson, who police said shot Bingham at close range four times in the chest, was charged as a juvenile with indecent exposure and violating a court order in 2003 and aggravated assault in 2002.

Landrum, also known as Hood, was convicted last month of carrying a concealed weapon, prosecutors said.

As the charges were individually read against them in court Thursday, the pair stood silently -- occasionally looking at their relatives, who sat in the gallery sobbing.

"There's nothing we can say," said a woman who identified herself as Jackson's sister but would not give her name. "How is anyone supposed to feel about it?"

Sam Al-Mugoter, the owner of the Sunoco station, said his 25-year old nephew, Raad Al-Mugoter, was working the day of the shooting. Sam Al-Mugoter said his nephew did not see the carjacking because he was stocking merchandise. He added that his nephew was standing near Bingham, but behind bullet-proof glass, when Bingham was shot.

According to various accounts of what happened:

Jackson and Landrum allegedly went to the gas station at 1144 N. Perry sometime before 5 a.m. Tuesday.

A regular customer at the gas station, Bingham stopped at Pump 4 at 5 a.m. When the teens approached Bingham, they were armed, police said. Jackson had a shotgun; Landrum had a revolver. Police said they forced Bingham to turn over his truck and $13 -- then drove off in the pickup.

Raad Al-Mugoter had returned to the cash register, which is behind thick bullet-proof glass, when Bingham came in. He asked Al-Mugoter if he could use a phone to call police. Al-Mugoter handed him a cordless phone through a small opening in the glass. A few moments later, police said, Jackson walked into the store, with the hood of a white jogging suit pulled over his head.

As Bingham was talking to a police dispatcher, Jackson pointed a .38-caliber revolver at Bingham and fired four times at close range, police said. The shots -- and Bingham's moans and labored breathing -- are audible on the recorded call, police said.

Contact FRANK WITSIL at 248-351-3690 or [email protected].

 

[TMM]

very sad. now what if just *one* of those cooks/dishwashers/busboys/waiters had a CCW...

~TMM

 

[GRB]

Not only do people need guns and other arms to protect themselves, they need the mind set that when the SHTF they need to take action. If all of those seven people had this mind set, chances are they would have overpowered and defeated these slime balls or at least scared them off so that some of the good guys would have survived.

Much the same happened with the madman Colin Ferguson on the Long Island Railroad, strangely enough also in 1993. He killed six people and wounded others in a shooting on the LIRR (I believe he wounded 19 others). He reportedly had actually sat there, on the packed commuter train, while loading magazines with loose bullets in his lap and, not one person said anything to him or went tried to intervene. What were they all thinking he was about to do. Then he got up and started shooting and no one did a thing. He just walked through the car he was in and shot as he passed passengers. He shot some and passed others by. Not until he started to reload (I believe for the third time - reports vary some say the second time) did anyone think of trying to jump him and actually do it. Three passengers jumped him when the engineer stopped the train at a station and as he reloaded.

Can you imagine, it took 6 people being killed and 19 others being shot and, it took this guy's act of reloading for A THIRD TIME before at least one person figured: ‘This is it I had better act’. Then thank the heavens three of them finally took action. There really is something wrong with the mindset of people who would rather fall like animals in a slaughterhouse than take action.

This was all preplanned by Ferguson. As I understand, he had felt slighted by folks of all races during various real or imagined incidents in New York City but; when he reportedly planned his attack he planned to shoot mostly white (I would guess when such is reported they really mean European Americans because they refer to Ferguson as African American) folks and chose suburban Nassau County, Long Island as the attack site. One of the reasons he chose LI instead of NYC was that he did not want to embarrass Mayor David Dinkins who was an African American, another was because of the number of European Americans (or should I say white people) who would likely be on the train (ironically at least one of the fatalities was Asian). He used a legally purchased Ruger P-89 9mm during this massacre.

Now because of that my Congressional district has Carolyn McCarthy as an elected anti-gun official. She was elected on a sympathy vote as her husband was killed and her son wounded in this massacre. She is, in my opinion, ridiculously and emotionally anti-gun. Had her husband and son been armed and, had they been of a mindset to fight back, the outcome would very likely have been different.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Don Gwinn]

You make a very good point, Glenn. These guys didn't just have the only weapons in the room, they were in charge because they took the initiative away from the victims and kept it. They were able to impose their will because nobody could catch up to what was going on in time to do anything about it.

With the right mindset, things would have come out differently. But that's rare in Chicago as well, at least among decent people.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Every time we accede to a criminal's demands, we merely encourage the parasite to enlarge the scope of his predations. Every time we stop a criminal in his tracks, we prevent dozens and hundreds of additional crimes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

On one of the TLC shows about crime, some 13% of strong arm type robberies result in violence to the victim and or immediate patrons (such as bank or convenience store customers not actually getting robbed themselves) AFTER compliance and getting cash. In some cases, the events were apparently sort of after thought warnings to make sure others didn't attempt to pursue. One of the worst I saw was where the robbery was over, the robber left, came back in some 10 seconds later, and then attempted to cap some of the patrons who were still on the floor. He killed one and wounded another. This was AFTER he walked out of the store the first time, cash in hand. The secondary attack seemed to be for no actual $$ gain, just to intimidate.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

St. Louis Post Dispatch (aka Post Disgrace, aka Peking Dispatch)

"Kevin Johnson, the suspect sought in the murder of Kirkwood Police Sgt. William McEntee on Tuesday, was taken into custody early Friday evening, police sources said.

Johnson was the subject of an intense manhunt after the shooting of McEntee, who was responding to a call in Kirkwood's Meachum Park neighborhood just before 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Witnesses said McEntee was speaking to a 13-year-old boy through his driver's side window when a man walked up to the passenger window and shot him several times. McEntee's car travelled down the street and crashed into a tree. The gunman then shot McEntee several more times."

The Post got the story right, early this morning they were spinning that this POS Johnson aka "Rockhead" (tatooed down his arm), was upset because his brother had died.

Walked up to the police car and executed the police officer, also wounded the 13 year old. The Sergeant was there on a "fireworks" call.

 

[GRB]

Acts of illegal violence like this need to be responded to with agressive violence in my opinion. These dirt bags should be executed. I think that a person's life is definitely worth a life in return when the life is taken during the course of a crime (any crime where violence results in death whenever the death is caused by the crimninal or an accomplice). If you kill more than one person during the commision of a crime then you should be tortured first, whipped, maybe lose a few fingers, a foot, some teeth, then after a while of recovery you should be executed. Make it the usual punishment for heinous violent crimes that result in death and it would be quite constitutional. Good life is so sacred to me that the only way to pay for destroying a good life, that of an innocent who wishes to live, is to lose your own.

 

[Missourigunner]

Remember, you don't need a gun because

"Oh those poor, misguided thugs" they probably didn't get enough orange juice in their diet, thus causing an imbalance in their brains causing them to kill people. Or goodness, they were probably spanked as a child and this traumatized them forever. Why their commiting a crime is not their fault, if the victim would have just handed the goods over, they wouldn't have gotten hurt. (Sarcasm intended) I say the gene pool needs a better weeding out.

 

[epijunkie67]

It's coming. I really believe that. As things continue to get worse more and more places will get more and more restrictive, but of course it won't make any difference. Eventually enough people will get pissed off enough and start to fight back. The only question is how many of the people that chose to fight back will go to jail for defending themselves before it becomes an accepted practice.

 

[GRB]

Or goodness, they were probably spanked as a child and this traumatized them forever.

Well that explains eveything, yup it sure does. Now I know why I like guns so much and why I am ready to shoot anyone who would try to threaten me with loss of life or serious bodily harm - its all those darned spankings and ass whoopongs I got when I misbehaved. Must have twisted me into wanting to reward good guys and punish evil doers! What a wonderful life....

 

[Missashot]

Wow! It amazes me at how ruthless some of these scum of the earth criminals are! I sincerely think that if an innocent victim is killed during the process of a violent crime, the perpetrator should be put to death as standard procedure.
As far as the kid thing goes, maybe if some of these parents kept up with what their kids were doing and give some well needed discipline now and then and also not to allow their kids to run wild at all hours of the day and night, maybe the kids would grow up having respect for themselves and others and hopefully not engage in criminal behavior. I know that there are always going to be some that no matter what happens they are going to take the wrong path, but I really feel that if the parents would step up and be parents, that there would be a lot less crime. These kids who commit crime usually grow up to commit even more crimes.

 

[El Tejon]

Wonder if King Daley will change his tune now? [note: that's sarcasm]

I was in Chicago when the Brown's murders transpired. The very next week Mayor Daley was on television telling us serfs of Chicago that guns were for the police and if robbed we need to give up and give in.

 

[Khaotic]

***?

Way to go, folks - lets see just how *MANY* potential allies we can offend so badly they flee today.

I am all for discipline, but glorifying violence against kids in the name of it (which lemme point out rather brutally to you, is a significant *cause* of these folks you wish to blow away so badly.) is both offensive and ridiculous.

That being said - a "Lifestyle Violent Offender" is flatly incapable of grasping the concept of longterm consequences and therefore a swift and armed defense is in fact the best way to handle it, period.

But you know what *creates* that LVO ?
All them whoopins you just glorified, taken to the extreme degree I see being encouraged here.

Way to go, folks, lets give counterproductive advice that'll result in more of these scum populating our streets.
Think I am kidding ?
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter3/sec2.html
I'm not.

-K

 

[RevDisk]

Oh those poor, misguided thugs" they probably didn't get enough orange juice in their diet, thus causing an imbalance in their brains causing them to kill people. Or goodness, they were probably spanked as a child and this traumatized them forever. Why their commiting a crime is not their fault, if the victim would have just handed the goods over, they wouldn't have gotten hurt. (Sarcasm intended) I say the gene pool needs a better weeding out.

I've personally seen criminals created by abusive parents. From my personal experience, in most cases one can trace the sickest criminals to having major abuse in their history.

This does not excuse their behavior. Indeed, "giving them what they want" does not work. As with pretty much every other poster, CCW'ing is a better recourse. They want something from ya? Give 'em precious metals. Lead and copper will do in a pinch.

 

[pax]

Um.

Consistent, loving correction followed by patient instruction is not abuse -- even if the form it takes is an occasional swat on the butt that the child in later years refers to as "an ass-whupping."

Just thought I'd point out the not so obvious.

pax

 

[Khaotic]

No worries Pax, but the concept that permissive parenting is what creates LVO's needed to be blown out of the water once and for all.

Seeing someone say such a thing is like watching someone reccommend using pyrodex to reload .223 remington.

Salient Points -

#1 Against an LVO, immediate armed defense is the *only* effective method.
#2 Permissive parenting does not cause LVOs, abusive parenting does.

-K

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

#2 Permissive parenting does not cause LVOs, abusive parenting does.

I think that BOTH have the potential to do so.

Don't you?

You don't think that a kid who gets away with anything his rampant little Id desires can grow up sociopathic as a result? "Me me me," with no concern for others, or what is theirs?

-Jeffrey

 

[pax]

Actually, watching folks, I've always thought that permissive parenting causes abusive parenting, in two ways:

1) children of permissive parents tend to have poor impulse control. So when they themselves grow up & become parents, they don't know how to resist the very impulsive desire to knock the snot out of their own misbehaving offspring.

and

2) some permissive parents let their kids get away with doing whatever, right up until the kids do something annoying and the pp can't stand it anymore -- and then the pp snaps and flies off the handle at the kids. They feel guilty about that, so they let the kids get away with murder for awhile, until they can't stand it anymore ... Lather, rinse, repeat.

Of course, every parent has a different threshold between acceptable & unacceptable behavior in their own offspring, and parents who fall within that normal variance aren't the pps I'm talking about. I'm talking about the extremely permissive, and I figure that extremes in parenting, whatever form the extremism takes, are generally bad.

Just a theory.

****

Oh~! The original topic? I've always thought it depressingly disingenuous and a bit humorous. Those who preach to give the robber what he wants have simply never realized that sometimes what he wants is to make you suffer, rape you, maim you, and then murder you.

pax

 

[Khaotic]

I take it no one actually read those posted links.

Extreme permissiveness generally leads to trouble, yes - but the drive that causes "people" to be violent and aggressive enough to *effectively* do such things as to classify them as LVO is not present in them, you see ?

The violent atmosphere which breeds an LVO isn't there, and while they may be criminals, may be bad, or even very bad people, darwin's likely to get em before they get too far in life.

Also, since no one bothered to read the links in light of statement #1... understand this. - especially since it absolutely supports our case here.

An LVO has no concept *WHATSOEVER* beyond the next few hours, not only can they not think that far ahead, even the very concept, it just does not exist to them, see ?

No "down-the-road" eventual consequences will affect their behavior one iota because they don't have enough concept of "future" to even grasp that much cause and effect.

What they DO understand is that pistol in your hand is a direct, in-the-moment, immediate threat to THEM, and that kind of consequences they very well do understand, and will often simply bolt and look for softer targets.

I really do reccommend you read those links, as it completely confirms the case that only a swift and immediate ARMED defense is any kind of deterrent to these people, who commit an extremely disproportionate amount of our crime - it's worth knowing the mindset of one in case you are ever accosted, you can make the most affective deterrence or response.

-K

 

[pax]

Khaotic ~

I read the links the first time.

So let me try this step by step, explaining my post above so we're on the same page.

Step 1: permissive parenting in one generation leads to abusive parenting in the next.

Step 2: abusive parenting is one (important) causal factor in producing LVOs.

Better?

Oh, incidentally. One reason abusive parenting causes poor impulse control (and hence some kids become LVOs) is because an abusive parent actually trains their child(ren) that cause & effect do not exist, esp. long term cause & effect. Whatever the kid does is unrelated to the "punishment" the parent metes out. So the kid grows up believing in his guts that when bad things happen to him, it is never his own fault. How could it be? His whole life has had a fundamental disconnect between his behavior (good or bad), and what happens to him (mostly bad).

pax

 

[Khaotic]

Better?

Much.

Same concept, different frequencies, it seems.
I was reacting mostly to typical knee-jerk, unthinking reactions of the same type that the "guns r baaad, k?" crowd tends to come up with.

There's also other factors, check PMs, when you have a chance.

-K

 

[foghornl]

[With tongue firmly planted in cheek]

Actually, I DO NEED a gun to give the robber(s) what he (they) want. If they are robbing folks, what they really want is a lot of small pieces of lead alloy, coming to them in multiple hundreds of feet per second

 

[carebear]

It doesn't even have to be planned in advance. The perp in the first crime might not have been dissembling when he said he "got caught up" in the event. Power can affect people quickly.

I now wonder if I read this thread before I posted my Barry Eisler thread (below). He has his protagonist directly address this a couple times in "Rain Storm".

A guy breaks into your apartment, lies in wait, knocks you out, ties you up, but-no problem!-you're willing to trust him to keep his word after that. At least you are if you desperately want to believe that you can trust him, glittering hope triumphing, as it often does, over the paler hues of common sense and gut instinct.

The psychology of a criminal who suddenly realizes his total dominion over another human life is rarely stable. His ambitions grow, his original aims change. A nervous armed robber, seeing his victims cowering before him realizes that not only can he rob these people, he can do anything to them, and what started as a simple armed robbery escalates to sadism, often to rape.