[BearingArms] Drive-by shootings are something that I’ve never understood. I mean, I get the idea. You roll on by and open up on your target, all while presenting a moving target to him and his buddies.
What I don’t get is that most of the people who take part in drive-by shootings have a hard time hitting the broadside of a barn while standing inside of the damn thing. They can’t shoot, so why add difficulty to something you already suck at?
That’s why the problem with drive-bys are collateral damage. It’s because these guys can’t shoot worth a flip.
Apparently, drive-by gunmen aren’t necessarily up on the "don’t shoot your own driver" protocol either (allegedly).
CHICAGO (Sun-Times Media Wire) ‐ A man has died after he was accidentally shot by his own passenger Sunday in a Park Manor drive-by on the South Side. Uh, you know you aren't supposed to shoot out the other window, don't you?
Matthew Gibson, 26, was pronounced dead Monday at Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, the Cook County medical examiner’s office said. He lived in Hegewisch on the Far South Side.
Jake Lee, the alleged passenger who shot him, has been charged with aggravated battery with a firearm, and is expected to face a murder count, according to Cook County prosecutors. Lee, 27, of Englewood, was denied bail during a hearing on Tuesday. Alleged passenger?
Gibson was driving about 5:40 a.m. in the first block of West 71st Street when he pulled alongside a white SUV waiting to make a left turn, prosecutors said.
Lee, seated in the front passenger seat, began firing at the SUV with a .40-caliber handgun and accidentally shot Gibson in the head, prosecutors said. Even with the gunshot wound, Gibson was able to drive more than two miles to the 6700 block of South Marshfield. A 22-year-old man was also wounded in the shooting.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/30/2019 08:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It was an accident, no crime in that... I wonder if he'll have a problem finding a driver in the future?
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/30/2019 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Uh, you know you aren't supposed to shoot out the other window, don't you?
It's to be expected, DB. Per drive-by protocol, the driver should always make sure the target is on the passenger side of the vehicle. Of course, this starts breaking down if you have more than two passengers in the car doing the shooting . . . .
#4
It's now in the Somali Minneapolis Police Manual as well...
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/30/2019 12:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
has been charged with aggravated battery with a firearm,
Because the bullet absolutely battered the guy's head a millisecond before it punctured it.
Good riddance. I'm guessing, he wasn't even driving for two miles to some hospital. He was just too dumb to realize he was dead. It's funny, like a video game fail. Learn this playing GTAIV, this is what happens.
#8
I've often thought that if we can't stop the shootings, we ought to offer gang members range time to cut down on the collateral damage. It would be like Midnight Basketball but with targets.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/30/2019 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I remember reading some time ago about some turf wars between S. E. Asians and Blacks. The Blacks did their usual drive and spray attacks. The Asians drove up got out of their cars drew their guns and delivered aimed fire and didn't leave any of their targets alive.
#11
My Dad's WW2 Story:
The cooks would man a .50 HMG and blaze away at Jap planes. Unfortunately one had a habit of holding the trigger down and spraying the mast as well. My Dad, radar operator, would then have to climb the mast and rebraid the copper cable the idiot cook had shot up. Dad finally talked a mechanic to weld a big knob on the traversing ring so the cook would have to let off on the triggers long enough to get the gun over the bump.
[Babylon Bee] BALTIMORE, MD‐According to expert biologists working in Guilder's infamous Fire Swamp, millions of R.O.U.S.es---Rodents of Unusual Size---have begun a "great migration" from the deadly thicket to the scenic, idyllic city of Baltimore.
"Due to deforestation by Guilder woodsmen and a sharp increase in tourism prompted by the documentary The Princess Bride, R.O.U.S.es have found their home threatened and are seeking more disgusting pastures," said a wildlife expert in the Fire Swamp. "Many people are trying to build summer homes here as well, as the trees are actually quite lovely."
He then dodged deftly to one side as he heard a popping noise, and just in time, as he narrowly avoided a flame geyser bursting from the ground. "Easy enough to avoid," he said, smiling.
Unfortunately, he stepped right into a pit of lightning sand and died.
It's a difficult trip the rodents have to make, as they must descend the Cliffs of Insanity, survive a swim across a channel infested with shrieking eels, tiptoe around the Zoo of Death, and finally board a boat for Baltimore. Only a few hundred thousand survive the journey and take up residence on the streets of Baltimore, where "the streets run rampant with trash" and "the feces flow like milk and honey."
Many people don't think the R.O.U.S.es exist, but they are wrong, as you can go to Baltimore and see for yourself.
#1
I suspect they also suffer from high expectations - I gotta have my white kitchen with quartz countertops, a huge island, and matching stainless steel appliances.
I remember having to 'transition' from my parents new color TV to a black and white portable, when I got married. Whadda disappointment!
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/30/2019 7:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Location, location, location:
Got to live within walking distance of the shops and pubs.....
#3
My first home after I got married was large but a horrendous dog house when we moved in. My wife and I were so pleased to be homeowners we didn't care. It took years to "make it right" and I still spent a lot to "make it right" again when I sold it.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/30/2019 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Its because MotherFatherGovernment won't buy them their dream house.
The "people" that are considered millennials expectations are way out of wack. This is a pampered entitled generation (no, not all of them) that expects that their starter home should have a garage for the Beemer and an outlet for the Prius, not to mention the hot tub and Napolean grill and etc. etc.
#8
Generally speaking, there are two factors involved - home prices and buyer's incomes. A reasonable column would have at least mentioned the latter in some fashion, maybe even have taken it into consideration. Nope, not this one.
#11
I know a young married couple who just moved to San Jose and are renting a master bedroom for $1300/month.
Husband just got employment with a tech firm.
#12
Our parents bought small post-war 2-bedroom Cape Cods or bungalows and thought they had it made.
We bought 3-bedroom ranch styles (with a small patio!) and thought we had it made.
Our kids want 'starter castles'.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
07/30/2019 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Agree with Besoeker, but add zoning, building codes, inspections: not only the costs, but the delays caused by each step of the process. Right now it is taking 12-18 months from the time a person/couple want to build in our neighborhood until they move in!
#14
There is plenty of affordable housing. Just not where those who at the drop of a hat will call others racist and white supremacists are interested in homesteading or gentrifying.
#15
Millennials are the generation that were told that any college degree is awesome take out student loans to get one, then reached adulthood after Sept 11 and faced a tepid job market until recently (except for STEM jobs of course).
Those Millennials? Who would have guessed they aren't buying homes.
#16
My niece and her fiance just bought a home. $400,000+ for a renovated 19th century farmhouse in a good neighborhood. Fortunately, they are both young professionals with a combined annual (starting) income of 130,000+.
She's a good responsible kid, and I help her where I can like paying off 1/2 of her student loans.
#17
People love to point out that there is affordable housing for sale. What they don't love to point out is the 1-2 hour commute that comes with it (and I'm in Metro Detroit, not exactly a major city). Of course you could also buy a foreclosed rat hole in the city proper where there's an extra $15,000 in back taxes and gang members to worry about. Neither is a very attractive idea. A lot of young people just stick to apartments and other rentals because of this.
[CNBC] WASHINGTON ‐ Nobody spends money on arms like the United States, and it shows in the bottom lines of the biggest defense contractors.
The Trump administration’s 2019 defense-friendly spending bill increased the Pentagon’s spending power to a grand total of $717 billion. Next week, the Senate will vote on a $1.3 trillion budget deal for fiscal year 2020 that includes $738 billion for defense.
This week, America’s top five defense firms ‐ Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon ‐ posted their second-quarter earnings. While the companies’ quarterly performances remained strong, collectively their stocks were largely unchanged. The iShares U.S. Aerospace and Defense ETF was slightly higher for this week after the companies reported. So far this year the benchmark ETF is up nearly 26%.
#2
Yeah, after years under Obama, catch up can be expensive. Same thing happened after the Donks refused to approve new appropriations after Vietnam and made the military live on continuing resolutions. With most lower grade military families qualified and receiving food stamps, Carter lost to Reagan and the catch up was very expensive then as well.
#3
Logistics B Hard. Whether it is the Defense Department, or the place I retired from, the Bean Counters just don't see any point in paying for PreventiveMaintenance™ .
#4
Ref #3: 'Long term' in DoD speak.... one budget cycle to the next. Forget the POM. That's just unicorn meat. Stuff to throw on the wall for the congress.
[WSJ] The Supreme Court said Friday that the Trump Administration can proceed to reallocate some $2.5 billion that Congress had earmarked for the Pentagon to build a border wall. We disagree with the policy, but the good news is that the High Court is finally sending a message about the proliferation of national injunctions by lower-court judges.
The Court voted 5-4 to overturn a national injunction issued by Judge Haywood Gilliam, a Barack Obama appointee, and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The order will let the government start spending the money to build the border barrier while the courts consider the legal merits.
Congress passed the money under Section 8005 of the Defense appropriations bill, and the Sierra Club sued (Sierra Club v. Trump). Judge Gilliam ruled that Congress had expressly refused to appropriate money for the wall and therefore the Pentagon can’t use the money to assist the government’s "counterdrug activities," as the Administration had claimed it has the authority to do.
Judge Gilliam might be right on the merits, and we oppose the precedent of taking scarce resources from the Pentagon to fulfill a campaign promise unrelated to defense. One legal complication, however, is why the Sierra Club has standing to sue. It’s a private party that has shown no clear injury from the wall spending, though other litigants might.
Judge Gilliam’s larger legal offense is his quick trigger to issue a national injunction. These sweeping rules by individual judges have proliferated in the Trump years, with destructive consequences for policy debates and the reputation of the judiciary.
The Justice Department reports that, as of late May, federal district courts had issued 37 nationwide injunctions against executive actions by the Trump Administration. By our count the number is now at least 39. This compares with two such injunctions in the first two years of the Obama Administration, and both of those were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.
Progressives say this is justified by a lawless Trump Administration, but the injunctions are issued before the merits are decided. These legal stays are supposed to be issued only in the most extreme circumstances. Too often these days they are issued as a first resort and on mistaken legal grounds. A good example is the 2017 Trump travel ban, which was enjoined several times by lower courts and the Ninth Circuit but was upheld by the Supreme Court.
"These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system‐preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrence in the travel ban case.
"I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions," the Justice added. "And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this [Supreme] Court must address their legality."
Let’s hope this is the message the High Court is finally sending in the border funding case. The proliferation of national injunctions has inserted judges into policy debates in ways they should avoid and can sometimes pre-empt debate in the political branches where the issues should be settled. That’s precisely what happened when a judge issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order in the DACA immigration case, reducing the incentive for Democrats to negotiate with Mr. Trump.
Lifting the injunction in the border case should also give the district court and Ninth Circuit an incentive to speed up a decision on the merits. Courts have been taking their sweet time on immigration cases, almost as if they hope to push the disputes past the 2020 election. These injunctions aren’t in the public interest, and the High Court needs to police them.
#2
Security the border is a national defense priority. Hell, most of the latter portion of the 19th Century of the Army was spent trying the secure the border against Mexican Apache invaders.
#4
The WSJ says: "We disagree with the policy." On what basis? Just because they don't like Trump? The statement is like the opening statement of a debate but then nothing follows. It's so because we said so? Editorializing in the story?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Babylon Bee] BALTIMORE, MD‐According to expert biologists working in Guilder's infamous Fire Swamp, millions of R.O.U.S.es---Rodents of Unusual Size---have begun a "great migration" from the deadly thicket to the scenic, idyllic city of Baltimore.
A very dangerous business, arms dealing. From the memory hole, the following link and story are provided:
