Chicago Woman Shoots Pellet Gun Wielding Robber, Is Then Arrested for Carrying Without a Permit

Arcelia Diaz

Arcelia Diaz courtesy Chicago Police Department

It’s always a good idea to approach in-person sales transactions with strangers with caution. A Chicago woman found out why when she met with a 14-year-old girl to complete the sale of an item (police didn’t reveal what the item was).

When the two met up, the girl pulled out a pellet gun and hit the woman over the head with it while trying to grab the undisclosed item. That’s when the woman pulled an actual firearm and shot the girl in the chest.

The teen will reportedly survive and both parties are now facing charges.

As fox32chicago.com reports . . .

Maywood resident Araceli Diaz, 21, faces a felony count of aggravated unlawful use of a loaded weapon, and the 14-year-old girl who was seriously wounded in the shooting faces a felony count of attempted robbery with a firearm. Her name was withheld because she’s a minor.

It turns out that Diaz has a valid Illinois Firearms Owner ID card for her gun, but doesn’t have a carry permit. That’s something the city of Chicago frowns upon.

We’re certainly glad that Ms. Diaz was able to defend herself from her attacker. We only wish that Illinois were a constitutional carry state, which would allow her and other citizens to protect themselves from predators like the un-named 14-year-old without first obtaining a permission slip.

But we probably won’t live long enough to see that happen.

comments

  1. If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.–U.S. Supreme Court. [Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.–U.S. Supreme Court, [Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).]

    For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [Page 60 U. S. 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.–Mr. Chief Justice Taney, U.S. Supreme Court, Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Ooooo…I don’t recognize these gems. I’m going to add these references to my ‘go to’ list and study them for confirmation and possible future use.

      Thanks.

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Miranda v. Arizona is the case that spawned the reading of “Miranda rights.” I’m sure you’re familiar with those, if not the case itself.

        Personally I agree with the dissent written by Justice White, which states that the 5A protects only against prosecution, penalty or other harm for an individual’s refusal to self-incriminate (e.g. contempt of court and obstruction of justice for refusing to take the witness stand in your own trial and/or refusing to be sworn in for it and/or refusing to answer truthfully to the question “did you commit this crime?”) rather than it making any speech or testimony inadmissible if one has not been directly informed that they “have the right to remain silent.” Certainly I find the other three dissents agreeable in as far as, if we were to accept the premise that the 5A exists to protect you from anything you say while unaware of its text, they place the burden of proof on the defense that they DIDN’T know that refusing to confess wasn’t a crime, or at the very least that police or prosecutors misrepresented it as such. Frankly, the idea that a perpetrator admitting his crimes while being arrested is inadmissible because the arresting officers -had not yet- finished telling him that he should not do so is patently absurd.

        That said, for that very reason of vague cultural consciousness, “Miranda” is a valuable case for informing the ignorant of the significance of constitutional rights and the role the SCOTUS plays in enforcing (or, as the case may be, not enforcing) them on a legislative level. Here’s hoping you can convince some fence-sitters who support the reading of so-called “Miranda rights” by arresting officers to at least recognize the inconsistency in judicial application between the 5A and the 2A.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I was actually more intrigued by the first one (Shuttlesworth v Birmingham), but you’re correct that Miranda was a landmark case.

      2. You’re most welcome. More can be found on my website: http://www.shall-not-be-infringed.org

    2. avatar enuf says:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney
      Roger Brooke Taney (March 17, 1777 – October 12, 1864) was the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,

      Dred Scott v. Sandford
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

      1. I especially like this one, because it’s a double whammy:

        The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself….

        …The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.

        In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered….

        ‘It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.’–Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709.

        As quoted by Mr. Justice Brewer while delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, [South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]

        Kind of hard for the court to wiggle out of that one.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re quoting the same court that has found it Constitutional to require citizens like this Chicago woman to obtain a carry license from the state government before being able to carry a concealed firearm.

      So is the Supreme Court the determiner or are they not? If not, the quotes you presented are meaningless, as are all general decisions made by the court (that you disagree with, I guess). If they are, then it is the court that decides whether that quote applies and it has, thus far, determined that requiring carry permits is fine.

      1. Quoting the court reminds them and all of America of prior decisions. Rubbing them in their faces if you will.

        1. avatar ERank says:

          The context of the quotes from Taney was actually an attempt to deny the right to bear arms to colored people. I don’t know Ms. Diaz, but judging by her name and appearance, I’d imagine she’s exactly the person judge Taney intended to deny that right to.

        2. Irrelevant at this point and time. What matters is the language the Chief Justice had employed in reference to our right. As he made it clear that it was placed outside the purview of our governments at all levels.

    4. avatar Ton E says:

      The Shuttlesworth case was about Birmingham requiring a permit to peacefully assemble. I agree with you that needing a permit to exercise a right is immoral but I wholeheartedly believe it will take someone actually challenging the practice of needing to obtain a carry permit to carry a gun to get the ball rolling to make the practice go away.

      1. Now, in questions of this sort, precedents ought to go for absolutely nothing. The constitution is a collection of fundamental laws, not to be departed from in practice nor altered by judicial decision, and in the construction of it, nothing would be so alarming as the doctrine of communis error, which offers a ready justification for every usurpation that has not been resisted in limine. Instead, therefore, of resting on the fact, that the right in question has universally been assumed by the American courts, the judge who asserts it ought to be prepared to maintain it on the principles of the constitution.–Chief Justice John Bannister Gibson, in dissent. [Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant and Rawle 330, Pennsylvania 1825.]

        A man has a right to keep whatever arms he pleases in his house, and to introduce men to use them. And he can take them when he pleases, whether he apprehends danger or not. This is a freeman’s privilege. Any man who cannot arrest another in the perpetration of a felony, has a right to take his life, as a measure of necessity.–Chief Justice John Bannister Gibson, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Charge to the Jury [Donoghue v Philadelphia (supra)]

        [Indiana State Sentinel, Indianapolis, January 2, 1845. Volume IV – Number 28. Pg. 4]
        https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015677/1845-01-02/ed-1/seq-4/

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          You’re preaching to the choir man. It’s not the first time I’ve heard the Shuttlesworth case referenced. I abhor permits.

        2. There should be no ‘permits’ to exercise any Constitutionally secured right. As they are specifically put outside of government power. In the true Constitutional sense we can only be punished for abuse or criminal misuse of a right. But the government is specifically forbidden from regulating it – for they have no delegated authority.

    5. avatar Reason says:

      Looks like Shuttlesworth v Birmingham would be relevant to the NY case in the SCOTUS now. Substitute exorcising 2nd amendment out side the home wherever the first is mentioned in that case and it fits pretty good.

      1. All constitutionally secured rights would apply, imho.

  2. avatar The Taxman says:

    There is that pesky 2nd Amendment and the script “shall not be infringed”. If she had the gun legally and had a permit/license for it why would she require any additional documentation that she could use the gun in self defense??? If I were traveling on the streets of anywhere in Illinois, the murder capital of the world, I would want to be armed for self protection. I hope she is represented by competent counsel and the case will be moved out of IL to an appellate Court and perhaps the US Supreme Court. If a person is law abiding, a US Citizen, no violent felony convictions, why can’t they carry their gun on their person in a holster or such and use it to protect themselves? Seems in Chicago you can buy an illegal gun on any street corner and no one cares and probably if you used it to save your butt from a thug the police would just take the illegal gun and tell you to move on!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      While I agree with the sentiment you express here we don’t need to resort to hyperbole.

      For 2018 Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 for murders world wide. Numerous cities have a murder rate of 100+ per 100,000 and even more have quadruple digit actual numbers for homicide, some closing in on 3000/year.

      1. avatar Truckman says:

        we are not worried about worldwide just in the US

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          The OP stated “the murder capital of the world”. He or she did not state “in the United States”.

          So yeah, in the context of his statement, we are worried about the world.

    2. avatar Facetweet says:

      I stopped reading after “Illinois, the murder capital of the world.” Get your facts straight kid.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      If she a license to carry (possible at the age of 21) then I don’t think she would have faced charges. She is not charged with attempted murder but instead “aggravated unlawful use of a loaded weapon” which, in Illinois, means carrying a pistol without a license.

  3. avatar Dennis says:

    With all the fools in the country who choose to be victims and revel in their victimhood, the elite in places like Chirac actually force people to be real “victims” by disarming them. Wonder why people are fleeing by the thousands!?

  4. avatar American Patriot says:

    Get attacked go to jail…….The Socialist way!

    1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

      A fun series of events in Socialistic Finland

      Postal service cuts pay of 700 sorters.

      Strike called 60,000 workers join in solidarity shutting down docks, rails, buses and airlines.

      Postal Service backs down and cancels pay cuts.

      Minister of State Ownership resigns

      Prime Minister Resigns.

      This is the way they do it in civilized Socialist Countries . Compare this to life in Capitavlania U.S.A. were people are all fired for going on strike, even those that only make minimum part time wages.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        None of the supposed benefits of socialism make up for you fascist hi jacking the movement and creating a great human and civil rights devouring monster.

        A woman goes to jail for defending herself and you fascists lay a smoke screen about a strike in Finland. And you wonder why Trump will be re elected.

        Fascinating.

        1. avatar Kendahl says:

          The girl pulled out a pellet gun and hit Diaz over the head with it. That’s armed robbery and aggravated assault with what looked like a real firearm. A reasonable woman would conclude that her life was in danger and react as Diaz did. You might have a point if the girl had only displayed the weapon without using it or pointing it at Diaz. Even then, you’re expecting the victim of a violent crime to trust her life to the criminal victimizing her. In a just society, victims come first while the criminals preying on them come last.

          The only thing Diaz did wrong was not to go to the effort and expense of obtaining a concealed carry permit. (Perhaps, she couldn’t afford it and was too busy earning a living.)

      2. avatar forp says:

        Moreadventure, now do one about China, Russia and Venezuela and how great they treat there citizens. BTW this was all about how a woman who was being assaulted as jwm stated.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Did the Uighur minority in China have “it coming to them”? Or were they being factory farmed for their organs and it is now harvest time?

      3. avatar Dan W says:

        We can try that but first we need a 100% white ethnic Finnish population.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          This.

      4. avatar Someone says:

        Finland is not a socialist country, you little dirty liar, you! Venezuela is.
        Why should we care what happened there after some government employees got their pay cut? Even if we did care, how is it a good thing that some other government employees disrupted the government services to twist some minister’s arm to give them more of the tax money?
        And finally, what does it all have to do with Illinois’ concealed carry permits?

      5. avatar Ironhead says:

        By all means, go find an adventure on another planet. I heard Neptune is nice this time of year.

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          I heard Uranus is warmer this time of year and more spacious.

        2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          My comment was aimed at the Planet adventurer, not Ironhead; just clarifying.

      6. avatar JK says:

        You can’t fire striking workers under current law. You are making up facts.

      7. avatar Excedrine says:

        STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or, should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

        It’s never hard to spot your bigotry and socialist drivel. You could at least try a little bit harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

        Nobody gives a flying fuck what happens in Finland, either, especially being that it’s not socialist — nor is any of the rest of Scandinavia, for that matter. Stop making totally irrelevant comparisons to try and defend the indefensible: socialism is inherently violent. What you described isn’t socialism and didn’t happen in a socialist country. Shut the fuck up.

  5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    I don’t recall who wrote this (several months ago) to illustrate the absurdity of gun control, but I copied it. It may have been a fellow TTAG’er. If this is yours, consider it a compliment that someone liked it enough to keep it:

    *****
    We have incontrovertible proof that our First Amendment rights are directly responsible for murder. Our federal and state governments must immediately regulate Free Speech for our safety and security. I demand the following common sense free-speech safety regulations:

    (1) No one can exercise free speech without a government issued license.

    (2) Only people who are over the age of 21, pass background checks, pass psychological evaluations, pass an interview with their local chief of police (which includes and in-depth evaluation of the petitioner’s social media accounts, including all of their private content), and who can show good cause, can receive free speech licenses.

    (3) Those government licensing authorities are authorized to charge several hundred dollars for free speech licenses and those licenses must be renewed every few years.

    (4) Free speech petitioners must attend and pass 16 hours of government mandated training before they can get their free speech license.

    (5) Free speech licensees cannot exercise free speech in “sensitive locations” such as schools, government buildings, churches, parks, bars, sports stadiums, and large entertainment venues.

    (6) Free speech licensees cannot transmit free speech across state lines unless they first transfer their speech through federally licensed free speech dealers at the state of origin and the destination state, and the speech cannot go through the U.S. Postal Service.

    (7) Before free speech licensees can disseminate their speech, they must first submit their free speech to a federally licensed free speech dealer and then wait for a 10 day “cooling off” period before they can disseminate their speech, in case they were just angry and wish to no longer disseminate their speech.

    (8) Free speech licensees are limited to one published speech per month.

    (9) Free speech licensees cannot use fully-automatic speech dissemination mechanisms. Rather, free speech licensees are limited to semi-automatic speech or fully manual dissemination methods.

    (10) Free speech licensees cannot use dissemination methods that are capable of disseminating more than 10 paragraphs at a time without having to reload the next 10 paragraphs manually.

    We must curtail our free speech rights immediately for safety and security!!! Anyone who opposes these common sense safety regulations is a monster!

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      What? No cut and paste?!!!!

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…yeah. Sorry but if you’re conducting legitimate “bizness” meet up at the local po-leece station. One would think being vetted and spied upon continually after getting the FOID they’d trust you. They don’t. Plenty of FOID holders in Chiraq Dan. You just need $ and transportation. Believe it or not the local corrupt media reported generally POSITIVELY on this gal. Peace out…

  7. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    YAWN.

    There are two take-aways from from this story:

    1. The shooter was NOT charged for shooting the teenage armed robber. (The good news here is that more and more jurisdictions are recognizing that the right of self defense is independent of the means).

    2. If you live in a state that regulates carrying a firearm (as most still do), either get the permit or recognize that you WILL be arrested, tried, and convicted if you use an “illegally carried” gun in self defense. Yes, one day such laws might be overturned (but don’t count on it) and yes, there is a chance that you might manage to fight your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court where it might be set aside (if you can find someone to bankroll the appeals while you rot in jail).

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      the article states she was charged with “unlawful use of a firearm.” Not carrying, using, i.e., shooting someone.

      1. avatar donald quasebarth says:

        Unlawful use of a firearm can be any number of things, but it’s not assault, or attempted murder

      2. avatar Fetuccini says:

        We would have to read their state statute on that one, but simply brandishing a firearm could be considered “unlawful use.” In most agencies, cops have to complete a use of force form if they simply point their gun toward a person, even without firing a shot. The term “use” doesn’t necessarily imply pulling the trigger or knocking somebody in the head with your gun.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Read the statute. It covers carrying a pistol without a license. It does NOT cover shooting someone.

        Takes like 5 seconds to google this stuff.

  8. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Imagine being the pig that arrested her. Scumbags. Jus doin ma job!

    1. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      No shit. Very few people comment on the actual problem this country has; law enforcement. Fucking costumed thug pieces of shit.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Wow, you’re brilliant. You’ve managed to find the exact root of the problem, and it’s law enforcement. Not the law itself, without which there could be no enforcement, but only that second part. Big brain.

        1. avatar Mick Doby says:

          Sovereign citizen wannabes who cannot grow a pair and go tell the cops, so they whine all over the internet every time they see this kind of news.

    2. avatar Go hug a pig says:

      And what are they suppose to do genius? Shot fired, nah no big deal we will do like the good old days, forget the body cam, recorded interview on mic, witness…no big deal, it didn’t happen, have a great day!

  9. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Isn’t diversity wonderful???
    Time to close all the borders for everyone,,, we got enough diversity, we can make our own people,,, let the third world seek their own remedies.

    1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

      It would be more of a wonderful world if we deported people like you. Tell me do you have a picture of Hitler over your bed? Do you have a swastika tattooed on your arm? Since you obviously hate everyone that is not a WASP you are blaspheming and trying to destroy the very foundation this country was founded on. Although we destroyed the Confederate traitors during the civil war we should not have stopped with them. A better cleaning of the house would have got rid of all of your ancestors and left room for much more deserving immigrants both then and now. Tear down that wall Mr. Trumpachev they never work anyway.

      And by the way civilized countries do not shoot 14 year old girls over a consumer item. Trumpster candle marching Nazi’s might think its honorable but sane people do not.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The irony is thick. A nazi calling another a fascist.

        1. avatar donald quasebarth says:

          Wait, are you seriously saying that the desire to deport a known violent criminal regardless of the reasons is worse than pistol whipping and mugging someone?

          The teen wasnt shot for attempted theft, she was shot for pistol whipping someone, it was a short story, try to keep up.

          And since it seems to matter to you, I may be w, but my ancestors subjugated the a’s and the s’s as well as the j’s a long time ago. And I haven’t considered myself p in quite some time.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Donald. You’ve replied to me twice now but it appears you meant to reply to the nazi bastard moresomethingorother.

        3. avatar donald quasebarth says:

          You are correct, for some reason there wasnt a reply button under his name, so I dropped down to the end of the thread. My apologies for the confusion.

      2. avatar forp says:

        More adventures, no one was shot over the theft of a consumer item. A 14yr old girl was shot because she pistol whipped someone with a pellet gun, and if you’ve ever seen a pellet gun they look like the real deal.

        Also, the walls in Germany were there to keep people in, we have walls to keep people out. If the usa was so bad, why do we have hundreds of people showing up at the border every day trying to get in.

        Another thing to add, if you are trying to sway someone to your line of thinking, insulting them is the wrong approach.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          In the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries, the crime was life and so was the sentence.

      3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Yawn. Yet another idiot afraid of being called names by communists. Defending your nation is not wrong. We should have slammed the borders shut in 1790. America would be a better place if we had.

      4. avatar Someone says:

        “Although we destroyed the Confederate traitors during the civil war we should not have stopped with them.”
        The only things you destroyed is your credibility and your underware.

        The girl was not shot by a nation, civilized or not. She was shot by her victim in act of self defense against armed robbery and assault with deadly weapon. Civilized people don’t beat others over their heads with handguns to rob them of consumer items.

        It doesn’t surprise me that you are on the violent criminal’s side. Sick, dark, twisted minds the leftists have.

        1. avatar SOMEBODY says:

          The victim also became a criminal when the police found she was packing a gun without a license, and no, this isn’t 1960 anymore, they have body cams and mics recording interactions with the public and probably people recording with their phones. The cops are not going to let the victim walk away.
          Anyone who wants a gun has the responsibility to know the laws, the necessity or not to obtain a permit to carry, laws regarding use of lethal force, where you can legally carry and not, stand your ground, castle doctrine…When you are carrying a gun without the required permit, you are asking for trouble, and Murphy’s law might get you. It surely is better to be judged by 6….but don’t be stupid, do it the right way.

        2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          SOMEBODY: “The victim also became a criminal when the police found she was packing a gun without a license, and no, this isn’t 1960 anymore, they have body cams and mics recording interactions with the public and probably people recording with their phones. The cops are not going to let the victim walk away.”

          The Chicago police have a very low clearance rate for murders in spite of all the surveillance cameras, body cams, and people recording with cellphones. Oh, the police let walk a lot of guilty people, but not a innocent defending herself with an “illegal” weapon.

        3. avatar Someone says:

          SOMEBODY, which other basic, inalienable, constitutionally protected human rights should require a license before they can be exercised?
          The Constitution forbids the government from infringing on our right to keep and BEAR arms. 150 dollars fee and 16 hours of school (for which you have to pay extra) requirements seems to me as an infringement.

      5. avatar Southern Cross says:

        There’s an interesting YouTube video about an Obama era ICE director having to explain to Democrat senators that entering the USA illegally is a crime and was quoting the actual statute to them. Even then the Democrat senators refused to believe it.

      6. avatar Sam Hill says:

        The report I read said it was a dog the 21 years old was selling. Don’t matter better 12 than 6. Chicago may not be the capital of stupid. But, it close runner up.

      7. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        “Tell me do you have a picture of Hitler over your bed? Do you have a swastika tattooed on your arm? Since you obviously hate everyone that is not a WASP you are blaspheming and trying to destroy the very foundation this country was founded on.”

        Tell me do you Strawman and Ad Hominem much?

      8. avatar Excedrine says:

        STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or, should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

        It’s never hard to spot your bigotry and socialist drivel. You could at least try a little bit harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

        Since youquite clearly hate everyone that is a WASP, we should actually start by deporting demonstrated racist socialists you. Assuming you even live here, anyway, which I rightly doubt. We beat you fascist assholes in 2016 and we’re going to beat you again in 2020. Nothing can be done to stop it, either, so quit crying — and shut the fuck up.

  10. avatar Mark N. says:

    By the way, the undisclosed item was a dog, according to an article I read days ago.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So, effective self-defense is a crime in Illinois — and many other states for that matter.

    Why are we supposed to respect and support police who will arrest someone for effective self-defense? The people who would ruin my life for effective self-defense sound like my enemies, not my allies.

    1. avatar forp says:

      uncommon sense, you’re supposed to call the police while you’re being assaulted and wait until the police arrive or the assaulting stops, whichever comes first.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        It’s worse in Europe. When a big branch fell across the road, my neighbor got out and cut it and moved it. Their German houseguests said “You can do that? We have to call the authorities and they take care of it.” They were impressed that Americans are such “take-charge-fix-it” people. I thought it was a sad day for European civilization.

        1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          When you think about it the German way makes more sense. If your neighbor had got seriously hurt he would have had to pay for his hospital bills when in reality a well trained competent street crew would have had better equipment, more men to help out and no innocent bystanders would of or could have been accidentally hurt because they would have been kept away from the danger. Remember trees also can be in contact with live electrical wires as well. If anything it shows how primitive and incompetent our system is compared to the well organized Germans. They think ahead in regards to all the consequences on “taking charge yourself. Its not to bright when you think things through thoroughly.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Well of course a nazi would praise ‘well organized Germans.” Made the cattle cars run on time, your heroes did.

        3. avatar Your story bro, lmfao says:

          I know people in France, which is pretty similar to Germany in term of government control, and folks take care of this kind of business. I think the Germans in question are lazy and/or retarded, has nothing to do with government. I am pretty confident saying you won’t get in trouble for doing that in Germany, they have issues and a certain lack of freedom but it isn’t Orwell’s 1984 either.

        4. avatar Kendahl says:

          The German way only works if the government workers show up within a few minutes. Depending on where you are in the US, it might be a lot longer. I’ve read elsewhere about European tourists’ astonishment at Americans’ willingness to help in an emergency without the direction of a government official.

          A few days ago, on the way home from town, I and some other motorists came across some furniture that must have fallen out of a truck. The ones closest, in both directions, jumped out and carried the pieces off the road. The road was cleared in less than five minutes and no one was hurt. That’s better than tying up a busy highway for an hour waiting for a cop to arrive.

          Have you seen the film, Falling Down, starring Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas? Duvall plays a Los Angeles police detective on his last shift before retiring. In one scene, he comes across an abandoned car blocking traffic on an interstate highway during rush hour. A uniformed cop is guarding the car while waiting for a tow truck to remove it. He tells Duvall to get out of the “high speed traffic” that’s not moving. Duvall shows him his own badge and gets him to help push the car onto the shoulder “so all these people can go home.”

        5. avatar Excedrine says:

          STFU crisco kid, the unrepentant liar. Or, should I say vlad tepes, the racist?

          It’s never hard to spot your bigotry and socialist drivel. You could at least try a little bit harder to not be so obvious. It’s embarrassing.

          You don’t shit about Germany, either, otherwise you wouldn’t be a goose-stepping fascist clambering for complete civil disarmament and the systematic culling of tens of millions of citizens for merely thinking differently than you. Shut the fuck up.

    2. avatar Whaaaaaat??? says:

      You got it wrong, the crime is carrying without a permit/license, which is also a crime in most states including more pro 2A states such as Florida, and it usually is a felony. There are too many people who get a gun and have ZERO clue about the laws, then they cry when they get in trouble. It is YOUR responsibility to know the laws in your state/county/city, if you’re too lazy to get the info then carry a nerf gun instead you should be okay.
      The Constitution doesn’t state you cannot shoot someone who steals property, so you should be just fine if you shoot a thug trying to burglarize your car, some idiotic gun owners actually believe it, they play Dirty Harry then they cry in court.

      1. avatar AD says:

        Such laws violate the 2A and many state constitutions. Furtermore there is no victim in these “crimes.” They are wholly unjust and I could never vote to convict at trial, especially in the absence of some real crime.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      She was only charged with carrying a pistol illegally if the news article is complete (even though it sounds different based on the name of the charge alone). Many people have successfully defended themselves in chicago with a firearm in the past few years and faced no charges as one can get a carry permit.

  12. avatar Ark says:

    She’ll be in prison longer than the armed robber.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Vigilantism is not tolerated. Call the police. Do not shoot people over property. It’s not worth the risk and the criminal’s life is more valuable than your replaceable item. Just file an insurance claim. She would have never been in trouble if she just followed the law and didn’t become a vigilante.

      Follow all the laws in your area. Eventually the supreme court will rule them illegal and restore the constitution. It’s only a matter of time. You can wait for Trump’s judges to do the right thing. When Trump is reelected he will get rid of all the gun control laws. Make sure to cast your vote for Republicans and Trump. Don’t forget to support law enforcement because they too don’t like the laws stopping you from carrying guns everywhere.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        OK Vlad.

      2. avatar Pap says:

        “Do not shoot people over property.”
        I do not know a single state that allows you to use deadly force to defend property, did I miss something?
        When you get threatened with a pellet gun (which usually resemble real guns) and hit in the face, this is an assault (the term battery is used in some states), and it can be aggravated as it is committed with the use of said object. She didn’t pop a round to defend property if that’s what you implied, she got attacked.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Pap, well then yay, you get to learn something new today.
          It is completely legal to use deadly force to protect or recovery property in the state of Texas, as long as conditions are met.
          https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

          Under Texas Penal Code 9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
          Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
          (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
          (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
          (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
          (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
          (3) he reasonably believes that:
          (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

      3. avatar Kendahl says:

        This was self defense, not vigilantism. The wounded girl is guilty of armed robbery and aggravated assault. For either one, it is reasonable for the victim to believe her life was in danger and to defend herself with deadly force.

      4. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Just to be sure you do have a reasonable level of reading comprehension correct?

      5. avatar Sam Hill says:

        Smack me over the head with any thing in whatever state, you will never see the outcome of my trial. Matter of fact you won’t be seeing anything ever again if you don’t knock me out and leave before I come too, and then only if I don’t know where you live.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      You are certainly correct as the robbery suspect is a juvenile of 14.

  13. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    My understanding of the Chicago Justice System is that of a revolving door. So, it was still better for our heroine to be judged by 6 than carried by 12. As far as the perpetrator goes – I bet she’ll think twice before pulling that stunt again…or she’ll obtain her own real gun.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      She’ll never get a FOID card now. She’ll buy it on the street.

  14. avatar Shire-man says:

    Sorry, you don’t have the proper paperwork filed with the state to defend your life.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      She’ll get that great insurance policy that the California blogger/celebrity has. That thing repels bullets, remember?

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Not just proper paperwork. She didn’t spend 16 hours in class, she didn’t pay hundreds of dollars and she didn’t ask the almighty state “Pretty please, may I? I have been a good girl.”.

  15. avatar Model 31 says:

    I hope Trump parades Ms. Diaz around for the next 11 months and tells her story over and over as she has become another victim of the swamp and big government. This kind of thing will play well during the campaign and is likely the most effective way to pressure the DA to drop all this asshatery.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      He can have her as soon as she gets released from prison.

  16. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

    When they come to violate your civil rights you kill them stupid or you can go i to thier cages wake up

  17. avatar Chief Censor says:

    It’s the law! Law and order is the most important. Lock her up with a minimum mandatory sentence and take her human rights away forever. She should be forced to work in prison without pay. She should have followed the law by begging for permission to exercise her right to carry.

    The last time I saw a Chicago gun owner carry without a permission slip he refused to be oppressed by the police. He was shot dead for not complying and attempting to fight back as law enforcement tried to check if he was carrying without a permit.

    There is no reason to not follow the law that your government and voting citizens have decided to pass. As good citizens we must follow all the rules. Ignorance and contempt of the law should not be tolerated. We can’t let brown and black people do whatever they want; they shouldn’t be allowed to break the law without being punished to the fullest extent.

    Leave your guns at home ladies until you can get permission from the man. Otherwise you will be shot dead or charged with a crime by the police.

    Good job by the police making sure a minority doesn’t get to do what they want while other people are treated differently. She should be deported and a wall built to stop her from coming back.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      OK Vlad.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Are you with Antifa or Black Lives Matter?

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          OK Vlad.

  18. avatar Mercutio says:

    so Chicago considers pellet guns to be firearms?

    1. avatar Kendahl says:

      If it’s used against you in a violent crime, you have no duty to distinguish between it and a real firearm before defending yourself with force appropriate for a real firearm. To be facetious, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and sounds like a duck, you are entitled to conclude that it’s a duck even if it turns out to be a rabbit dressed up in a duck suit.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      CA does if it’s used in the commission of a crime.

  19. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I haz, Miranda was the most important landmark in the justice system since 1900.

  20. avatar Build the wall, around California. says:

    Are you going to purposely carry without a license just because the Constitution said you could? If that’s your best defense they’re going to have a good time in court. She shot her assailant, even if she was 100% right to do so there is no way the cops and prosecutor can close their eyes on the fact she was carrying without a permit.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Yes, they can. Prosecutorial discretion is very much a real thing.

  21. avatar Vlad says:

    Too many of you are like liberals in a way, you are quick to disregard the fact and go based on your feelings.
    She was right to defend herself, I am glad she did, I surely won’t cry for the little turd who pulled the stunt. However, there are laws, and the victim wasn’t too sharp to carry a gun without a permit, particularly in a fairly anti 2A state. You will most likely get in trouble (court, attorney fees…) if you follow all the laws and if your use of deadly force appears to be 100% justified, you can count on it, so why increasing your odds of getting in trouble? Do it the right way, I don’t care how much the fee costs, what the Constitution says and doesn’t say, and how many hours you have to spend in a classroom to get your permit. If you want to “fight the system” then don’t whine when you get charged with a crime.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Perhaps, but dead victims don’t get charged with anything. They just get hauled away in a body bag to the coroner’s office.

      1st rule of self defense is “survive”.

  22. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    My question is will the ISRA or GSL stand up for her and push her case through the courts? Depending on what she bought this would be a great way to get CC Permits declared as a poll tax.

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    Well, here is the real test of “it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Although the suspect didn’t have a real gun, but that’s impossible to know at the time. This case certainly calls for prosecutorial discretion, although such a thing is a luck of the draw. In the future, when going to a sale with a stranger that makes you think “hmm… maybe I should bring a gun” the thought should be followed by “hmm… maybe I should do this swap somewhere very public, like at a police station or city hall.”

  24. avatar Warlocc says:

    The more frustrated types would say “If they try to arrest you for defending yourself… Well, keep right on defending yourself. Enough people do this enough times, they’ll stop trying to arrest people for defending themselves.”

  25. avatar Unicorn Fart says:

    1/ this kind of transaction are known to be dangerous, a ton of people have been mugged
    2/ Educate yourself regarding your local laws THEN carry the gun lawfully, you’re the only one to blame if you’re too stupid or lazy to care.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Or poor. It’s your fault if you’re poor. Poor “people” don’t deserve rights. Right?

  26. avatar I am Sancho says:

    Some points to consider, when Illinois was crafting its concealed carry law after getting their asses handed to them in the courts, many lawmakers did their best to neuter CCW as much as possible and its hard to shop with all the signage banning concealed carry holders from entering buildings, but are blind to the fact criminals who don’t follow laws just walk on it and rob the stores blind at gunpoint/

    The Chicago Transit Authority President, Forrest Claypool said in 2013 concealed carry on mass transit would be “a recipe for disaster.”

    If you can’t carry a gun on airplane, he argues, why should you be allowed to carry one on a city bus?

    “The number of people confined to such a small space and a weapon discharging – the capacity for multiple injuries and fatalities is enormous,” said Claypool.

    https://abc7chicago.com/archive/9048648/

    So its illegal to carry concealed on Illinois mass transit.

    Compare and contrast to September 2019 with the Chicago Tribune reporting ‘Serious crime has doubled on Chicago’s ‘L’ system, despite the CTA adding thousands of security cameras’

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cta-l-crime-up-arrests-down-20190919-lu2n2mc2i5akhdrhatuexp72oy-story.html

    It is easy to see, Illinois criminals have a fertile gun-free zone to bash people’s skulls in and not have to worry about getting shot and/or killed in the process.

    Also worth noting, Chicago’s major news stations don’t like to rock the boat for fear of losing tourism and convention traffic so violent crime reports in the Loop and tourist areas are very limited unless its broadcast on Facebook Live, but there is one outlet that should be a daily read and the operators are tired of the revolving door of gun violence in Chicago. https://cwbchicago.com/

  27. avatar Elliot Ness says:

    Could have been a good test case. Wise Latina defends herself from armed robbery. Too bad the Perp is a child. Oh well we will just have to keep looking. I hope she has a good lawyer, she is going to need in a city as crooked as Chicago. That’s the Chicago way!

  28. avatar Ben says:

    I work down the street from where this shooting happened. the item that was trying to be sold was a dog according to the news report I saw and the dog died but they didn’t explain how. my whole thing is why are u meeting up with strangers and feel like you have to carry gun then DONT meet up with them carry everywhere of course but don’t put yourself in danger IF you could avoid it.

  29. avatar southof16 says:

    Where’s the go Fund Me for this case? I hope GSL does take up advocacy for her case. This is a perfect example of how Illinois’ CCL law was written to disarm the people who need it the most. To all you guys saying she should just pay up and take the classes etc etc: Fuck you, you elitist pricks. I live in Illinois and even though I have the money and an 8 hr. exemption on the classes, I refuse to pay this state 1 more cent of my money for infringing on my rights. I carry when and where I want just like she did but for a completely different reason. (Only time I disarm is when I go to the IGOLD every year at the state capital) I would much rather pay into a defense fund for this gal to get the law knocked down.

  30. avatar ronno says:

    In essence you do not have the right to defend yourself with a firearm according to their laws even if the aggressor has one. FU Chicago!

  31. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    Ms. Diaz did have a FOID. At least she passed the background checks. Odds are she has a good record. Which would be helpful.

    2nd, if GSL, ISRA or others would help in her case, her social media needs gone thru. The anti freedom crowd will do it and bring up anything, whether in context or not to show her to be a bad person.

    3rd, the 14 year old will be released and back on the streets quickly. Her and her friends will be looking for retribution. Ms Diaz and her family need to be situationally aware. They are targets now.

    I wish Ms Diaz well. She was the victim of a crime upon her person and is now a victim of the State for self defense.

  32. avatar David Keith says:

    The trash that runs Chicago needes to eat shit and die.

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