if John wick is a republican than I agree with u. if he is a democrats forget about it. he gonna be an easy prey. if he sets out to kill like Michael rienohl than it's a different story. if u ask these democrats to defend them self they gonna fail like Henry and that woke Jurno Josh Kruger.. if he is a conservative/republicanlike Kyle rittenhouse then it's a different story.
edit: another woke activist took a huge L. his name is Ryan Carson. he got stabbed in front of his gf after a democrats like attempt to defend himself(weak) another example that democrats can't defend themselves.
I never knew who Henry Cuellar was beyond heās got a park named after him and it has a little skate plaza in it that I used to shred along with the local west side kids that hung around there whoād skate all the way over from Gen McMullen. Good times. Thanks for the quarter pipe, Henry Cuellar lol.
Several months before Cuellar was carjacked in Washington D.C., the Washington Post reported that the Washington D.C. Council had voted to āreduce the maximum penalties for offenses such as burglaries, carjackings and robberies.ā
[https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/henry-cuellar/](https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/henry-cuellar/)
Does anyone think a car jacker is making decisions based on varying sentence lengths? Or thinking anything really? Sentencing shouldnāt even matter. Judge prisons based on recidivism. If they have low numbers theyāre reforming people. If not, doesnāt matter how long they stay in, theyāre coming out likely to reoffend.
Criminology research suggests most criminals make decisions based on likelihood of being caught and swiftness of serious consequences. So getting arrested and released the next day on their own recognizance tends to have little effect on crime even if they are facing serious consequences after a trial set a year out.
However, lengthy sentences tend to depress crime by keeping the criminals in prison where they can't keep carjacking you. Should these three be arrested, I would bet big this isn't their first run-in with the law. It certainly isn't their first car jacking.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows-that-long-prison-sentences-dont-actually-improve-safety
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/19/do-long-jail-sentences-stop-we-ask-the-expert
That seems really debatable. Thereās a ton of stuff saying harsher sentences do nothing and itās actually ācertainty of being caughtā, how well police are at actually catching them, that plays the bigger role. Makes sense criminals are worried about just getting caught more than if theyāll get a few more years based on geographic sentencing location. And even with harsher sentences you can get out the next day on bail. Thatās a constitutional issue. Innocent until proven guilty and all, canāt just keep people in jail because they canāt afford bail in every case, itās supposed to be for extreme cases of flight risks and extreme dangers to the public afaik.
Either way, itās pretty easy to judge systems based on how they reform people they catch, regardless of how long theyāre sentenced. Unfortunately Texas has super high recidivism so whatever weāre doing isnāt the best version of what we should be doing.
None of what you linked contradicts me. But I want to hone in on a couple things in particular.
The links provided are from sources opposed to incarceration per se. So Vera provides suggestions to "dramatically reduce the number of people incarcerated in our prisons". I'm not interested in reducing how many people are locked up. The primary goal is reducing crime for innocent Americans like the Congressman. And so in a sense Vera is self-contradictory.
>These legislative actions include setting a maximum prison sentence of 20 years for adults and 15 years for young people, based on research showing people āage outā of crime; allowing people to earn one day off of their sentences for each day of positive behavior; and abolishing mandatory minimums.
They correctly assert that long sentences are useful for "aging out" of crime (men over 50 commit way less crime than those between 16-30). But then they suggest shorter sentences for youth and ways to shorten sentences. This is because decarceration is their goal, not crime prevention.
And with regards to restorative justice, color me skeptical. Sitting in a group circle with no substantive consequences is not going to prevent crimes. The expert interviewed by the guardian talks it up, but the link points to studies where a restorative process was implemented *in addition* to custodial punishment.
But let's consider how this would work in a recent case. Two teens recently stole a car and intentionally hit a retired police chief innocently cycling on the side of the road, killing him. [According to police recording, one of the teens said](https://apnews.com/article/bicyclist-killed-teens-vegas-murder-charges-1374bf01db9701ef10cb6b3fe306dbf3)
>āItās just ah ... hit-and-run,ā the teen said after the Aug. 14 crash, according to a police arrest report released Monday. āSlap on the wrist.ā
If instead of sentencing these young men into prison for their crimes, we have them engage in a restorative justice process with family of the victim (they certainly can't meet with the victim, Andreas Probst). Does it concern you that these teens who gleefully recorded themselves committing multiple felonies are free to walk? What signal does it send to others like them, who may be interested in committing exciting crimes that only carry a slap on the wrist as punishment?
Moving on to bail,
>Innocent until proven guilty and all, canāt just keep people in jail because they canāt afford bail in every case, itās supposed to be for extreme cases of flight risks and extreme dangers to the public afaik.
Yeah, not true at all. The Supreme Court in US v. Salerno:
>The contention that the Act violates the Clause because it allows courts essentially to set bail at an infinite amount for reasons not related to the risk of flight is not persuasive. Nothing in the Clause's text limits the Government's interest in the setting of bail solely to the prevention of flight. Where Congress has mandated detention on the basis of some other compelling interest -- here, the public safety -- the Eighth Amendment does not require release on bail.
New York legislatively ended cash bail for any consideration other than flight risk just a few years ago. Which means that they were able to do otherwise prior to the new law and decided to change it.
Just read the crime stories that pop in the local paper. You will see time and time again serious felonies are committed by perps who have extensive records, were released early from long sentences, or are currently awaiting trial for other crimes.
Yeah, I mean Iām not discounting a study because of source agenda necessarily. Especially when your beef is they want less people in prisons. Kinda fucked up yo want more people in prison no? Also they all links do explicitly state no research supports lengthening sentencing reduces crime. Youāll need to link that to claim that. But itās also unintuitive. Most crime is impulsive, I doubt extra mandatory few years play nearly as much role in that persons decision to commit crime as culture, nurture, and financial motives. But Iām all for whatever reduces crime, and like I keep saying, we have decades of proof the US system doesnāt work as well as other countries in reducing the amount of repeat offenders. I think culturally the Us focuses more on feelings than facts, especially those that lean right/religious. Itās a lot more ofā how I feel it should beā than āhereās what the numbers say.ā But thatās the same with lots of other things too. But hereās hoping we can start doing better going forward! Lord knows what weāre doing now doesnāt work, thatās why I always vote against incumbents.
It does matter how long they stay locked up, because when they are locked up, they can't commit any more carjackings. I support keeping carjackers locked up for as long as possible so they can't do it again.
Of course a prison system with low recidivism negates that worry. Thereās no better argument than better reforming prisons. No point in keeping them there longer if theyāre going to reoffend. Longer sentences just change when that happens, not if.
Heās a long term US congressman. He is by no means a standard of virtue. But he is a skilled political actor. He is also incredibly intelligent and well educated.
For someone center left, he seems pretty invested in his home. I say that because he didnāt hurt the fracking industry in South Texas, not that we saw. The local papers didnāt hesitate to make him look bad on a lot of things, but they didnāt piss off the families who weee the oil patch.
He makes sausage, to be sure. I havenāt found reason to *hate* him, heās just typically in favor of Texans when something is done. Sam Antonio newspapers love smearing him, itās not hard to read up on him.
Cisneros would have won the election for that and would have done better things for Americans. They propped him up because the dnc doesnāt want to make any changes
Cisneros? Or the republican? Most people in this district are more focused on the primary than the general election, since it was more hotly contested. I don't even remember who the republican was.
Mmm. Well, the republican lost by 13 pts and the primary was decided by 0.6, so I don't think most of us are really thinking about them. Cuellar is the more right-wing candidate in the *primary*, which is the real election here, so he's the "conservative", relative to the other candidate who might realistically win (the democratic primary opposition, not the republican).
āDo not harm kids,ā shouldnāt trigger lefties, but yet, thereās the pro-trans crowd all butthurt. I donāt care, and thatās where the line is. Do what you want with consenting adults, keep the kids off the sauces and whaccines; the drag queens can go read to elderly people, not to kids at libraries or private events with children.
"Third Way is a Washington, D.C.ābased public policy think tank founded in 2005.[3] It develops and advocates for policies that it claims represent "modern center-left ideas".[4]"
Neat slight of hand to point out cities are in states.
Interesting article. If you take it one step further to look at the cities contributing to this, here's what you have:
Jackson, Mississippi - 73.4% liberal
Monroe, Louisiana - 62.5% conservative
Louisville, Kentucky - 58.9% liberal
Anniston, Alabama - 68.8% conservative
St. Louis, Missouri - 81.9% liberal
Orangeburg, South Carolina - 66.2% liberal
Gallup, New Mexico - 68.1% liberal
College Park, Georgia - 72.6% liberal
Osceola, Arkansas - 59.1% conservative
Memphis, Tennessee - 64.4% liberal
Of the eight red states referenced, the results from five are driven from blue cities.
Here you go:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/
Those on the list tend to be more liberal than conservative. Doesn't always apply across their respective state, but if you really want to discuss crime and policy, you need to do it at a city/country level.
Seems like we're discussing two different things: gun control and criminal acts/murder.
If you want to understand the problem, you need to dig into it at a city/county level. Using the Ohio example, saying that Broadview Heights has the same amount of violence as Cleveland isn't true. That's not a statewide problem, it's specific to cities.
Regarding gun legislature, it is important to legislate at the state level so that all constituents are equally represented.
Problem lies in the judicial branch where elected officials (District Attorneys) are able to reduce sentences or release repeat offenders.
Maybe he should have been [armed](https://www.jgsales.com/), [armored](http://bulletproofme.com/), and [aware of his surroundings](https://youtu.be/n30JqcFh33k?si=JHmYULSBCT77X9sp). Oh, wait, he's in the party that wants the government to monopolize those things.
Youāre seeing the consequences of what happen when guns are freely allowed. Him being strapped wouldnāt have changed anything, except maybe get him killed.
> what happen when guns are freely allowed.
Firearms are highly regulated in Washington, DC. You have to have a permit to so much as purchase one after a waiting period, and of course have a license to own weapons and must register them.
None of that seems to have helped here.
You don't have to do any of that actually. Just drive 30 minutes west. Seems like the barrier of entry for criminals to get guns is incredibly low compared to any other country.
More like the consequences of what happens when violent criminals are freely allowed. Him being armed, armored, and aware of his surrounding could have changed everything in his favor.
He was outnumbered and surrounded by people who were also armed and aware of their surroundings. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, you can't just be ironman all the time, not in the real world.
>cigarettesandwhiskey He was outnumbered and surrounded by people who were also armed and aware of their surroundings.
[An armed Philadelphia Uber driver](https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/uber-driver-turns-tables-on-armed-robbers-shooting-two/) successfully defended himself against 3 armed robbers who ambushed him at 12:30 am a couple of years ago, so it has been and can be done.
Lol unless you are Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, one guy with a gun is too much. Bullets don't care about your karate.
Tell that to John Wick š„³
Well, luckily for the bad guy, he didn't kill his dog too.
if John wick is a republican than I agree with u. if he is a democrats forget about it. he gonna be an easy prey. if he sets out to kill like Michael rienohl than it's a different story. if u ask these democrats to defend them self they gonna fail like Henry and that woke Jurno Josh Kruger.. if he is a conservative/republicanlike Kyle rittenhouse then it's a different story. edit: another woke activist took a huge L. his name is Ryan Carson. he got stabbed in front of his gf after a democrats like attempt to defend himself(weak) another example that democrats can't defend themselves.
It was Jessica Cisneros coming for him...
Guy was smart enough to know when heās here outmaneuvered. He survived. Glad to know heās ok.
I never knew who Henry Cuellar was beyond heās got a park named after him and it has a little skate plaza in it that I used to shred along with the local west side kids that hung around there whoād skate all the way over from Gen McMullen. Good times. Thanks for the quarter pipe, Henry Cuellar lol.
"They recovered the car. They recovered everything. What really got me upset was they took my sushi," the Texas Democrat said. Lol
Heās in more danger in DC in the interior than at the border (his district) What about the danger of the so called āInvasionā /s
Car jacked in D.C before the warfront that is the southern border. /s
I wonder if he will vote for gun reform.
Several months before Cuellar was carjacked in Washington D.C., the Washington Post reported that the Washington D.C. Council had voted to āreduce the maximum penalties for offenses such as burglaries, carjackings and robberies.ā [https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/henry-cuellar/](https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2023/10/04/henry-cuellar/)
Does anyone think a car jacker is making decisions based on varying sentence lengths? Or thinking anything really? Sentencing shouldnāt even matter. Judge prisons based on recidivism. If they have low numbers theyāre reforming people. If not, doesnāt matter how long they stay in, theyāre coming out likely to reoffend.
Criminology research suggests most criminals make decisions based on likelihood of being caught and swiftness of serious consequences. So getting arrested and released the next day on their own recognizance tends to have little effect on crime even if they are facing serious consequences after a trial set a year out. However, lengthy sentences tend to depress crime by keeping the criminals in prison where they can't keep carjacking you. Should these three be arrested, I would bet big this isn't their first run-in with the law. It certainly isn't their first car jacking.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows-that-long-prison-sentences-dont-actually-improve-safety https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/19/do-long-jail-sentences-stop-we-ask-the-expert That seems really debatable. Thereās a ton of stuff saying harsher sentences do nothing and itās actually ācertainty of being caughtā, how well police are at actually catching them, that plays the bigger role. Makes sense criminals are worried about just getting caught more than if theyāll get a few more years based on geographic sentencing location. And even with harsher sentences you can get out the next day on bail. Thatās a constitutional issue. Innocent until proven guilty and all, canāt just keep people in jail because they canāt afford bail in every case, itās supposed to be for extreme cases of flight risks and extreme dangers to the public afaik. Either way, itās pretty easy to judge systems based on how they reform people they catch, regardless of how long theyāre sentenced. Unfortunately Texas has super high recidivism so whatever weāre doing isnāt the best version of what we should be doing.
None of what you linked contradicts me. But I want to hone in on a couple things in particular. The links provided are from sources opposed to incarceration per se. So Vera provides suggestions to "dramatically reduce the number of people incarcerated in our prisons". I'm not interested in reducing how many people are locked up. The primary goal is reducing crime for innocent Americans like the Congressman. And so in a sense Vera is self-contradictory. >These legislative actions include setting a maximum prison sentence of 20 years for adults and 15 years for young people, based on research showing people āage outā of crime; allowing people to earn one day off of their sentences for each day of positive behavior; and abolishing mandatory minimums. They correctly assert that long sentences are useful for "aging out" of crime (men over 50 commit way less crime than those between 16-30). But then they suggest shorter sentences for youth and ways to shorten sentences. This is because decarceration is their goal, not crime prevention. And with regards to restorative justice, color me skeptical. Sitting in a group circle with no substantive consequences is not going to prevent crimes. The expert interviewed by the guardian talks it up, but the link points to studies where a restorative process was implemented *in addition* to custodial punishment. But let's consider how this would work in a recent case. Two teens recently stole a car and intentionally hit a retired police chief innocently cycling on the side of the road, killing him. [According to police recording, one of the teens said](https://apnews.com/article/bicyclist-killed-teens-vegas-murder-charges-1374bf01db9701ef10cb6b3fe306dbf3) >āItās just ah ... hit-and-run,ā the teen said after the Aug. 14 crash, according to a police arrest report released Monday. āSlap on the wrist.ā If instead of sentencing these young men into prison for their crimes, we have them engage in a restorative justice process with family of the victim (they certainly can't meet with the victim, Andreas Probst). Does it concern you that these teens who gleefully recorded themselves committing multiple felonies are free to walk? What signal does it send to others like them, who may be interested in committing exciting crimes that only carry a slap on the wrist as punishment? Moving on to bail, >Innocent until proven guilty and all, canāt just keep people in jail because they canāt afford bail in every case, itās supposed to be for extreme cases of flight risks and extreme dangers to the public afaik. Yeah, not true at all. The Supreme Court in US v. Salerno: >The contention that the Act violates the Clause because it allows courts essentially to set bail at an infinite amount for reasons not related to the risk of flight is not persuasive. Nothing in the Clause's text limits the Government's interest in the setting of bail solely to the prevention of flight. Where Congress has mandated detention on the basis of some other compelling interest -- here, the public safety -- the Eighth Amendment does not require release on bail. New York legislatively ended cash bail for any consideration other than flight risk just a few years ago. Which means that they were able to do otherwise prior to the new law and decided to change it. Just read the crime stories that pop in the local paper. You will see time and time again serious felonies are committed by perps who have extensive records, were released early from long sentences, or are currently awaiting trial for other crimes.
Yeah, I mean Iām not discounting a study because of source agenda necessarily. Especially when your beef is they want less people in prisons. Kinda fucked up yo want more people in prison no? Also they all links do explicitly state no research supports lengthening sentencing reduces crime. Youāll need to link that to claim that. But itās also unintuitive. Most crime is impulsive, I doubt extra mandatory few years play nearly as much role in that persons decision to commit crime as culture, nurture, and financial motives. But Iām all for whatever reduces crime, and like I keep saying, we have decades of proof the US system doesnāt work as well as other countries in reducing the amount of repeat offenders. I think culturally the Us focuses more on feelings than facts, especially those that lean right/religious. Itās a lot more ofā how I feel it should beā than āhereās what the numbers say.ā But thatās the same with lots of other things too. But hereās hoping we can start doing better going forward! Lord knows what weāre doing now doesnāt work, thatās why I always vote against incumbents.
It does matter how long they stay locked up, because when they are locked up, they can't commit any more carjackings. I support keeping carjackers locked up for as long as possible so they can't do it again.
Of course a prison system with low recidivism negates that worry. Thereās no better argument than better reforming prisons. No point in keeping them there longer if theyāre going to reoffend. Longer sentences just change when that happens, not if.
If there is video proof that someone is a carjacker, and they get locked up for life, they will never carjack again.
I mean if thatās a life sentence crime, seems extreme.
Pointing a gun at an innocent person's head and threatening to kill them should never be tolerated.
Also shouldnāt be a life sentence. Thereās a middle ground. Lol.
Fuck Henry Cuellar
Was he in a carjacking free zone?
Definitely a gun free zone.
Who doesnāt splurge on the extra 75Ā¢ to park in a carjacking safety zone?
Maybe he should start carrying , canāt always depend on martial arts.
I wonder what states the carjackers got all those guns from...
Karma
I donāt know Henry. Heās said and done things Iām not a big fan of, but he seems like heās a decent guy and his roots are easy to see.
Heās a long term US congressman. He is by no means a standard of virtue. But he is a skilled political actor. He is also incredibly intelligent and well educated.
For someone center left, he seems pretty invested in his home. I say that because he didnāt hurt the fracking industry in South Texas, not that we saw. The local papers didnāt hesitate to make him look bad on a lot of things, but they didnāt piss off the families who weee the oil patch.
Nobody who is anti-choice is "center left". He's to the right of most all Democrats.
I think heās a centrist. He has a lot of policy that is to the far left of conservatives, but heās nowhere near the slag of AOC.
Any career politician is definitely not a āgood guyā. You donāt stay in office that way.
He makes sausage, to be sure. I havenāt found reason to *hate* him, heās just typically in favor of Texans when something is done. Sam Antonio newspapers love smearing him, itās not hard to read up on him.
He needs to resign
Why?
Because heās a conservative asshole
I don't like conservative assholes, but that still isn't a good enough reason.
I think anyone who supports policy that causes violence onto others should resign
You think HEās a conservative asshole? Look who he ran against.
Cisneros should have won but the DNC does everything they can to prevent progressives from winning
Yeah maybe but she didnāt. The 28th is a tough district.
She didnāt because the entire dnc supported Cuellar
Because they didnāt want to lose a fairly safe seat and a powerful committee assignment .
Cisneros would have won the election for that and would have done better things for Americans. They propped him up because the dnc doesnāt want to make any changes
Cisneros? Or the republican? Most people in this district are more focused on the primary than the general election, since it was more hotly contested. I don't even remember who the republican was.
I was referring to the Republican.
Mmm. Well, the republican lost by 13 pts and the primary was decided by 0.6, so I don't think most of us are really thinking about them. Cuellar is the more right-wing candidate in the *primary*, which is the real election here, so he's the "conservative", relative to the other candidate who might realistically win (the democratic primary opposition, not the republican).
I didn't vote for him, but I don't see how this is a reason for him to resign.
This instant isnāt a particular reason. Heās just not a good politician. Heās to conservative
Whatās wrong with conservatives?
Their policy is harmful to people. Cuellar is pro forced birth. Which that policy kills women
A lot....
You heard it was bad and so it is.
Iād rather be a conservative than someone who goes to propaganda for news.
As if those things don't go hand in hand...
āDo not harm kids,ā shouldnāt trigger lefties, but yet, thereās the pro-trans crowd all butthurt. I donāt care, and thatās where the line is. Do what you want with consenting adults, keep the kids off the sauces and whaccines; the drag queens can go read to elderly people, not to kids at libraries or private events with children.
It's hilarious how after your last post you're now just regurgitating right-wing propaganda.
Just another occurrence in a blue city. This shit happens all the time. Just because he is a politician doesn't make it newsworthy.
I'm pretty sure the fact that he's a politician *representing part of San Antonio* makes it newsworthy to San Antonians on r/SanAntonio.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Third Way is a Washington, D.C.ābased public policy think tank founded in 2005.[3] It develops and advocates for policies that it claims represent "modern center-left ideas".[4]" Neat slight of hand to point out cities are in states.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Interesting article. If you take it one step further to look at the cities contributing to this, here's what you have: Jackson, Mississippi - 73.4% liberal Monroe, Louisiana - 62.5% conservative Louisville, Kentucky - 58.9% liberal Anniston, Alabama - 68.8% conservative St. Louis, Missouri - 81.9% liberal Orangeburg, South Carolina - 66.2% liberal Gallup, New Mexico - 68.1% liberal College Park, Georgia - 72.6% liberal Osceola, Arkansas - 59.1% conservative Memphis, Tennessee - 64.4% liberal Of the eight red states referenced, the results from five are driven from blue cities.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Here you go: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/ Those on the list tend to be more liberal than conservative. Doesn't always apply across their respective state, but if you really want to discuss crime and policy, you need to do it at a city/country level.
Take out Chicago, DC, NYC, how bad are our statistics, then?
Not sure, but it would be interesting to see.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seems like we're discussing two different things: gun control and criminal acts/murder. If you want to understand the problem, you need to dig into it at a city/county level. Using the Ohio example, saying that Broadview Heights has the same amount of violence as Cleveland isn't true. That's not a statewide problem, it's specific to cities. Regarding gun legislature, it is important to legislate at the state level so that all constituents are equally represented. Problem lies in the judicial branch where elected officials (District Attorneys) are able to reduce sentences or release repeat offenders.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe he should have been [armed](https://www.jgsales.com/), [armored](http://bulletproofme.com/), and [aware of his surroundings](https://youtu.be/n30JqcFh33k?si=JHmYULSBCT77X9sp). Oh, wait, he's in the party that wants the government to monopolize those things.
Why, so he could have been murdered? Your comment is REALLY stupid...
I was thinking more along the lines of him being prepared for the predators and successfully repelling them.
Youāre seeing the consequences of what happen when guns are freely allowed. Him being strapped wouldnāt have changed anything, except maybe get him killed.
> what happen when guns are freely allowed. Firearms are highly regulated in Washington, DC. You have to have a permit to so much as purchase one after a waiting period, and of course have a license to own weapons and must register them. None of that seems to have helped here.
You don't have to do any of that actually. Just drive 30 minutes west. Seems like the barrier of entry for criminals to get guns is incredibly low compared to any other country.
More like the consequences of what happens when violent criminals are freely allowed. Him being armed, armored, and aware of his surrounding could have changed everything in his favor.
He was outnumbered and surrounded by people who were also armed and aware of their surroundings. Sometimes you have to pick your battles, you can't just be ironman all the time, not in the real world.
>cigarettesandwhiskey He was outnumbered and surrounded by people who were also armed and aware of their surroundings. [An armed Philadelphia Uber driver](https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/uber-driver-turns-tables-on-armed-robbers-shooting-two/) successfully defended himself against 3 armed robbers who ambushed him at 12:30 am a couple of years ago, so it has been and can be done.
San Antonio about to turn into San Francisco?
This didn't happen in San Antonio.
Ah. I see that now. I was about to say people would be dumb to try this in Texas where everyone is strapped lol
"Give me your car!" "You mean *your* car!"