It Should Have Been a DGU: Chicago Baseball Bat Attack Edition

Screen Shot 2014-05-23 at 9.45.17 PM

“Jurich and the Natasha McShane had known each other only four months but become close friends,” chicagotribune.com reports. “The night of the attack they had been out celebrating their recent accomplishments — McShane had landed an internship that would allow her to extend her stay in Chicago and Jurich had closed a deal at the financial services firm where she worked. The two had left a popular bar at about 3 a .m. on April 23, 2010, and had begun walking to Jurich’s duplex in the Bucktown neighborhood . . . 

They were halfway through a lit viaduct in the 1800 block of North Damen Avenue when Jurich was hit from behind without warning with a wooden Rawlings baseball bat. Viramontes then struck McShane, a petite woman less than 5 feet tall, who fell limp to the sidewalk . . .

“I wish the sounds of the bat breaking my head open would go away, but they won’t,” she said. “He took from us our freedom to walk down a street and enjoy the sunshine without fear.”

Now 28, Jurich [above] said she still suffers from seizures, cannot drive or ride a bike and has lost her job due to the aftereffects of the attack. Her fiance accompanied her to court, consoling her as the sentence was handed down.

McShane’s injuries were more severe. She requires constant care and is a shell of her former lively self. Now 27, she needs a team of 10 caregivers to assist her around the clock. She attends physical therapy five days a week and cannot walk outside her home unassisted.

Heriberto Viramontes is the man – if that’s the right word – who inflicted these injuries on two innocent people to steal their handbags.

On Thursday, Viramontes’ mother, two sisters and a niece tearfully testified at the sentencing hearing about the good he had done in life and pleaded with the judge for mercy. They noted that he was only a year old when his father was murdered.

I don’t know about you but I’d have a hard time pleading for mercy for my child if he’d inflicted so much pain and suffering on others for no good reason. Anyway, a judge sentenced him to 120 years in prison, 77 of which he’ll have to serve before he has a chance of parole.

[h/t ML]

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    The fact that his legs won’t be broken at the knees With the same weapon he used everyday for the rest of his life shows a complete failure of the american justice system.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      That’s because the U.S. has a _legal_ system, not a justice system.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        it’s because we have a “criminal justice system”, instead of a “victims’ justice system”.

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Sorry, no.
          It’s a court system.

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          What Tom said.

        3. avatar Gene says:

          It’s for “rehabilitation” not punishment. Clearly, it’s effective, too.

        4. avatar Aaron says:

          if there was a PROVEN way to rehabilitate criminals, then it would be worth the cost. But since many types of criminals WILL recidivate, they need to be warehouse away from the public forever.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        That would be a revenge system.
        In a justice system, the attacker would spend the rest of his life working to repay his victims.

        1. avatar Matt W says:

          What Jason said. Except that instead of repaying his victims he will be taken care of the rest of his life by the taxpayers that he hurt.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          In a justice system, the attacker would spend the rest of his life working to repay his victims.

          Yeah, as part of their caregiver team.

  2. avatar Denis says:

    Wouldn’t be a dgu even outside of Chicago. They were walking from a bar at 3am. It’s illegal pretty much anywhere to carry while intoxicated. Not likely to change either. Not even sure if I want it to change, really.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Yeah, I picked up on that too.

      3 am after some celebrating = toasted.

      A designated carry person would not hurt though.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        A couple of states allow you to carry and use a gun if your BAC is 0.08% or less; like when you’re driving a car.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          No doubt. But, who is closing down the bar with only .08 BAC ? That is a few beers at most with the average person.

          I mean we can give them the benefit of the doubt, but assuming they were drunk is probably the most logic thing.

      2. avatar NJ Joe says:

        Two words: “Situational Awareness” Two women walking on city streets at 3am have big targets on their backs for the creeps that should be in jail (on parole) or deported. Heck, as a man, I’d be looking over my shoulder, but I guess with age, comes wisdom. This could of been me, after being hit from behind, with no provocation, by a 6’6″ Rutgers football player after attending a frat party in the 80’s. Luckily with his fist and not with a weapon. Never again.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      Where in that phrase does it mention, “Unless they’ve been drinking or in a bar”?

      1. avatar Denis says:

        You either never been drunk or really stupid.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m assuming from your tone that you qualify for both.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’ve been really stupid drunk with a loaded machine gun within reach, and really stupid drunk while carrying a concealed handgun. What’s your point? Do you think it will “go off”? Will the gun or the drink cause me to become a demented mass killer? The question was correct, the answer is that nowhere in 2A does it say “unless inebriated”.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        +10,000. You might not like it, but a right is a right.

        1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          “A right is a right” doesn’t trump “All rights carry responsibilities.”

          I’m ok with someone having a drink, or more, in public, and carrying a firearm. I’m ok with someone having a drink, or more, while driving, too. I’m certainly ok with someone being in a bar and not drinking at all, and carrying a firearm.

          However, I will never be ok with someone being in public, drunk, and carrying a firearm, any more than I’d be pro-drunk driving. It’s malum in se because there are just too many variables you cannot control and too many other people who would bear the costs of your actions. When you can’t even control yourself in public, you don’t get full access to your rights, including firearms possession.

        2. avatar SHAWN F. says:

          @Johnathan–Houston,

          So you’re saying that because you are drunk, all your rights are suspended? Speech? Illegal search and seizure? The right to not self incriminate? They are either rights all the time, or none of the time.

    3. avatar JR says:

      Just because they’d been to a bar does not mean they were drunk.

      Just because they were in a bar does not even mean they’d been drinking.

      Each state has its own laws on carry with respect to alcohol. Some states prohibit drinking while others allow for a BAC.

      So, it could have been a DGU a bunch of different ways even though they were leaving a bar.

    4. avatar John Fritz - Commenter says:

      … It’s illegal pretty much anywhere to carry while intoxicated. …

      Fortunately, anywhere does not include the state of Pennsylvania.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        There are places in PA where it’s illegal to be drunk in public, period!

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          Don’t take this as legal advice but to the best of my knowledge WV (apparently due to an oversight) doesn’t have a law regarding drinking or intoxication (or bars) while carrying openly or concealed. Which isn’t to say that if you’re inebriated and shoot someone they aren’t going to at least go for manslaughter, arguing that you couldn’t have formulated a ‘reasonable’ position on the use of lethal force.

          Leaving behind the law and looking solely at self preservation maybe walking around drunk during the hours between midnight and dawn isn’t the best idea for a whole host of reasons.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Well, in some places competitive drinking seems to be the unofficial state sport. “Pursuit of happiness” and all that.

    5. avatar Basil Walls says:

      .08 BAC in Nevada and you can carry. Used to be .10, but it was changed last year.

    6. avatar AMOK! says:

      Law of competing harms.

      Being gravely injured or killed beats using a lethal tool to defend yourself while intoxicated if the situation greenlights the use of legal lethal force to stop the threat. You can still defend yourself with up to and including lethal force from the threat of grave, crippling bodily harm or death.

      Getting drunk is not a self defense death sentence.

  3. avatar neiowa says:

    Very unfortunate but demonstrates reality of stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places.

    Chicago – Bar – 3am – delusional “self-sufficient/self-assured” females. Who could forsee a bad result.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

      And I would add to your original statement:
      stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places at stupid times.

  4. avatar Drew says:

    Dgu? It would have to begin with situational awareness and the will to act. I really don’t want to come across as blaming the victims but the statement about right to feel safe is part of the problem. None of us have a right to feel safe as adults, we have a right to defend our selves and compared to that any sentencing after the fact is cold comfort.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      It’s the progressive “feeling safe is better than being safe” thing….

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Correct!

    2. avatar ihatetrees says:

      +1 regarding situational awareness, especially when mentally clouded for ANY reason – lack of sleep, stress, listening to music/podcasts, or drink.
      In my young and dumb days, I was lightly assaulted by a group while walking home a bit buzzed. I WAS clueless. Never again. There are human predators who will even stalk 6′ tall men.Thank god I only walked away with a shiner and a bruised ego.
      Now, I rarely drink, but take care when I do. That said, there are situations, like when writing and coding in a cafe, where I’m as defenseless as a 2 year old.

      1. avatar TxGal says:

        Living in Dallas as young & dumb 21 yr. old, had a fight with boyfriend and decided to walk home at 1:00 in the morning, during a snow storm along NW Highway. Patrol car pulled up next to me to ask why I was out in a snow storm,
        Told them about argument with boyfriend. One of the cops said “get in the back seat” dropped me off at my apartment with parting advice “always have enough cash with you to call a cab” Dallas cops in that area were older and suspect they had daughters. Serious about that “Protect & Serve” thing back in the early 70’s

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Very sad story. Walking in Bucktown at 3am ARMED is a bad idea. If this lowlife scum of the earth had actually murdered these unfortunate women there is NO death penalty in Illinois. And there was NO legal carry 4 years ago. THIS story is also playing out in Ireland where the poor young woman is an invalid.

  6. avatar Aaron says:

    no one deserves to be victimized, but two females walking home from a bar in Chicago at 0300 are not really using their reasoning skills.

    Just because you don’t deserve to be beaten with a bat doesn’t mean you you should put yourself in a situation where you are likely to be victimized.

    Just because you have the right to walk home from a bar at 0300 doesn’t mean you should do it.

    Now, if I could propose one change to the wording of the constitution, it would be to REQUIRE cruel and unusual punishment for human garbage such as the bat-wielding assailant.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Yeah, I thought crimes like his are why wood-chippers were invented.

    2. avatar Stuart Anderson says:

      Your mindset is off.

      They shouldn’t have to expect to be victimized, even at 3AM. They should feel safe, because they should BE safe, because they scum that did this should have been dead after his first assault on some seemed-to-be-but-wasn’t defenseless person and the rest of the would-be scum would either think twice then go find a legit way to earn a living instead or would join him six-feet-deep.

      But maybe I’m an idealist. If 10% of the punks who play “play” the “knock-out game” “won” a gunshot wound to the chest, the rest would stop real quick. An armed society is a polite society *only* after the ones who refuse to learn get buried.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      In an Ideal world yes but this is a major US city and a neighborhood that is not the safest. Reality trumps idealism everyday. You don’t walk in that part city at zero dark thirty.

  7. This is a good reminder that a) humans are generally pretty fragile — and while bodies take a lot of abuse from sugar-glass and balsa wood furniture in the movies — real life is different. b) Someone who might be called “unarmed” — whether with ham size fists or a bat — can be very lethal without a gun.

  8. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I don’t understand the family of this POS sticking up for him. It baffles me.

    I have drug addict and low life family members and I wouldn’t piss of them of they were on fire.

    I have no sympathy for crap like this. And would show none to my own blood.

    1. avatar Bob Wall says:

      That’s what POS’s family members are conditioned to do. You can thank LBJ’s Great Society for making (entitlement) society what it is today.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        That’s right. Their “child” was a special little snowflake whose poop was scented like roses, even after he brutally bashed two defenseless women in the head. The Prez and AG say so at the drop of a hat. Just ask Rev. Al.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m sure that Viramontes is a really good boy who was turning his life around. Now burn the bastard.

  10. avatar Mike says:

    I have a friend who lived a few blocks from there, I’ve walked under that same viaduct dozens of times. The 32 year old guy who was beaten to death in the Wrigleyville/Lincoln Park area a few weeks ago, he was a friend of some friends, I didn’t know him but did meet him once. On top of that, myself and several friends were jumped right across the street from Wrigleyville Field about 8 years ago, I took 40 stitches to my head from being hit with an extendable baton. I mention these things when people ask why I got my CCL as soon as I was able.

    1. avatar ihatetrees says:

      An effective police department would have, in areas with high robbery & assault rates, undercover officers posing as vulnerable victims (with appropriate backup). THAT would be heroic and effective policing. Of course, you’d need a political establishment willing to prosecute any thuggish actions aggressively, which is unlikely in places like Chicago.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        AND you’d need a functional city government.

  11. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    The most infuriating thing about this story to me is that the monster’s family is attempting to defend him, claiming his father was murdered and his childhood was hard (always the first attempt at a “get out of responsibility free” card), and that he was a “good boy”. As far as I’m concerned, the fact that they are actually defending him means they are just as awful as he is. Subhuman scum who deserve to be treated with as much dignity and respect as I treated the fly that was bothering me earlier (hint: I smashed it into my desk, without so much as a second thought).

  12. avatar cubby123 says:

    First off it happenef in Stupidville Central..dumbass Chicago.Secondly li should have been a DGU and the Perp or should I sayTWERP should be DEAD and his family should be crying at the semitary and the two ladys should be on a speaking engagement on armed self defense.Mayor Emanual and superintendent Mc whats his face of Chicago should be paying attention In the audience!

  13. avatar J- says:

    For all intents and purposes, concealed carry in the Chicagoland area is still banned. I know, I live here, I have an IL CCL. The 430 ILCS 66/65 “no guns allowed” stickers are EVERYWHERE. Looking at all the places around me that prohibit concealed carry, if I were carrying I could not go grocery shopping, go to the mall, buy clothes, go to the home improvement store, or get hair cut. I might be able to get a sandwich, cup of coffee, or prescription refilled, if I use the drive-thru. Concealed carry on public transportation is illegal. Even public parks ban concealed carry. In downtown Chicago it is even worse, I’ve been on blocks in which every singe business has a “no guns allowed” sticker on the door.

    Illinois technically has concealed carry, but don’t expect to be able to carry a gun and go anywhere or do anything. It wouldn’t have mattered if these girls were stone cold sober and had CCL’s. If there were in or had just come out of, a business/private establishment in the downtown Chicago area, they would have been disarmed by the stickers anyway.

    1. avatar AMOK! says:

      Chicago: Fighting Tooth and Nail for Its Liberal Right to Be a Passive Victim

    2. avatar JeffR says:

      I work in downtown Chicago and, unfortunately, in a building that has posted. I am actually surprised at how few buildings have posted the sign. Whenever I go to meetings at other buildings, I am usually shaking my head in dismay that I am in yet another building that does not ban carry while mine does.

    3. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “…disarmed by the stickers…”

      Unless those are sentient robot stickers with gun detectors built into them, well… concealed means concealed.

      1. avatar J- says:

        Let me tell you how it works in Chicago. The superintendent of police, Garry McCarthy, has instructed the anti-gunners to call the police every time they suspect someone of carrying a gun in a gun free zone. So the whole Chicago area is filled with… informants who are willing to call 911 on you for the slightest extra bulge in your waistband.

        If you are caught carrying in a gun free zone, 1st time is a misdemeanor and you loose your CCL temporarily, 2nd is a felony and you lose your CCL and your FOID. That means the state comes and confiscates all your guns and you get to go to jail.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          I understand how it works. I grew up in Illinois, so I get it that you’re in hostile territory, gun-rights-wise. There are ways of carrying other than strong-side IWB that are pretty much impossible to detect visually. It might mean you carry an LCP in a pocket holster instead of a full-size 1911 on your belt, but there are options. It’s an individual choice, but I think I’d prefer to risk the misdemeanor vs. being beaten brain-dead with a baseball bat.

  14. avatar Will says:

    How do people who commit crimes like these not end up on death row?!

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      They and their relatives (living and dead) vote the bastards in time after time. Just amazing…

  15. avatar KenW says:

    If they were to make these government bodies and establishments liable for injuries or death to people they prevented from defending themselves perhaps things would change. Places that serve alcohol are liable for what the drinker does, this has been proven in court cases over and over.
    Lets say you go to the mall, the mall does not allow firearms. While you are there you go to the restroom and some lowlife decided he needs your wallet more than you do, and for good measure decides to eliminate the witness. Luckily for you you survive. You should be allowed to have a case against the mall for depriving you of the right to defend yourself and they should be liable.

  16. avatar Ardent says:

    While it would have been infinitely better that these two victims had defended themselves (each other?) from the miscreant who attacked them. At least, in this case, the legal system seems to have worked; said miscreant will surely die in prison.

  17. avatar tdiinva says:

    A couple of observations:

    (1) It is very likely that the two victims, to the extent that they think about these things probably are still gun control supporters. They also probably support the entire progressive and faux Libertarian social agenda.

    (2) I suspect that many posters, generally the ones who misuse the the term statist, believe that you have a right to walk down the street in safety just Like the feminist harpies think they can dress like a slut and walk through the worst neighborhood in town without so much as suggestive comment. What you have is the right to defend yourself with the appropriate tool but you don’t have a right to be safe.

    What makes a community safer is a strong civil society, Again something that those who cry statist at every opportunity seek to undermine. What made the old west safe was not the guns that people carried but the strength of civil society. The reason that Chicago and similar places are unsafe is that there are vast parts of the landscape where civil society doesn not exist and it is weak in the rest of the community. Without a strong civil society safety can only come from the all powerful state.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Absolutely correct.

      Unfortunately, even a proactive police state cannot protect everyone everywhere at all times (See: USSR; Cuba: Venezuela; Iran; China; et. al.).

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      you are correct that what makes a society, city, or country “good” is whether the people are “good”.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        It is unfortunate that there are many people who good only because civil society requires it.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email