Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OFADAN,
Thanks for the links. From what I am reading I am betting there is nothing random about this attack at all. I know my investigative skills are rusty, it has been awhile since my CID days, but this smells a bit fishy to me. This case would definitely set off all the red flags for anyone investigating it. For this to be random, it would have to be a very rare thing.
Side note: I always carry my CCW. At least as close to always as possible. I have left the house and forgotten it one or two times. I even left the house with an unloaded gun in my holster one time. Every time someone does a poll on how many people always carry their weapon the number of people that say they do comes in very high, but I always wonder how realistic those numbers really are.
Well, to be honest, my first focus in the investigation would be to determine the involvement of the victims in the organized illegal drug business. Having past CIA connections really increases the likelihood of him being involved in drug trafficing or other fencing related aspects of organized crime.If there is gang activity close to the area I would guess it could possibly be a gang initiation or something similar. Not sure what the extant of his job with the CIA was but my other guess would be that he knew too much about something but that's farfetched for a lot of people to believe, like JFK. (even though he was offed 2wks after his tell all speech)
regardless, thanks for posting up the story. I prefer the refresher in vigilance.
Gang initiations do not usually involve such random target s in such remote areas. They tend to play out on bigger stages, so as to involve more risk and exposure, or involve very specific targets.
maybe and maybe not. If, as I suspect, this was a very specific attack they would probably still be dead. Once someone with any skill decides you are going to be dead, you usually have very little say in the matter. You cannot watch the back of your head at all times.True for the most part but I was thinking along the lines of a gang wanting to hurt someone of good standing or atleast that appears to be thus they could be trolling the nicer neighborhoods looking for victims and the they came across these poor folks.
Either way, they would still be alive had they been carrying and that's the point...
Well, to be honest, my first focus in the investigation would be to determine the involvement of the victims in the organized illegal drug business.
+1 please don't take this as an attack on your credibility, but these things should always be linked to a main stream news article. I know that you did post one afterwords but it will take some of the internet credibility doubt out of your readers minds.What is the source of this story again? What information do we have to back it up? It kind of seems like an internet fairy tale to me until I see some colaberating evidence.
No, not at all. In fact it might be very hard to find the people that did commit the crime so the first thing you would do is establish motive. The fact that the attackers were in a van and that the victims were on foot would almost instantly rule out car jacking.Your first focus?
Perhaps the victims had a nice car they drove to the location with on a regular basis, and these guys scoped them out for a few weeks beforehand.
Still, though, that wouldn't be my first focus. I think you should figure that out after you capture the people who have already committed a crime, not the reverse, don't you think?
No, not at all. In fact it might be very hard to find the people that did commit the crime so the first thing you would do is establish motive. The fact that the attackers were in a van and that the victims were on foot would almost instantly rule out car jacking.
Cases of random attacks of this nature are so rare as to be almost non-existent. One thing that always exists is motive. You have to determine what the attackers had to gain from the attack. It is almost always one of two things...items of monetary value or revenge.
Since the victims were not in their home, not driving a car, and probably not loaded down with cash or jewelry (since they were jogging) the most likely motive is revenge. Revenge can include everything from an angry family member to a criminal connection.
The white panel van indicates that it is most likely the later...or a very meticulous friend or relative that has been planning this for awhile (but even that is unlikely since there is most likely more than one assailant). Who owns white panel vans for personal use? It is most likely a rental procured with a fake ID and credit card. That is if the reports of the van are accurate. This could just be a case of witnesses seeing too many episodes of CSI or mistaking a work van that was in the area for being involved when it was not.
Isn't each and every case individual and specific? How can a bunch of guys who only got a wiff of the facts be talking with this much authority on the matter? How many people in here are detectives? criminal psyc's? crime ring hit men?
So true.Isn't each and every case individual and specific? How can a bunch of guys who only got a wiff of the facts be talking with this much authority on the matter? How many people in here are detectives? criminal psyc's? crime ring hit men?
Actually, drug dealers do just that. One of the big problems in Texas was drug dealers renting cars with fake ID's and stolen credit card information and then deserting the cars after shipments were made. That is one of the reasons my first guess would be that the victims had dealings with the attackers and that the attackers are not random hoods.CSI is right, and someones watching too much of it! Criminals don't obtain false ID's and credit cards to rent vehicles to commit crimes, if they were that sophisticated they would spend there efforts on making money with identification theft crimes, not murder. If A thief needs an untraceable vehicle it will be stolen.
Isn't each and every case individual and specific? How can a bunch of guys who only got a wiff of the facts be talking with this much authority on the matter? How many people in here are detectives? criminal psyc's? crime ring hit men?
That answer is subjective not objective.Actually, drug dealers do just that. One of the big problems in Texas was drug dealers renting cars with fake ID's and stolen credit card information and then deserting the cars after shipments were made. That is one of the reasons my first guess would be that the victims had dealings with the attackers and that the attackers are not random hoods.
The fact of whether the attacks were random or not is actually quite relevant. Fact is, most people are going to be perfectly safe (as safe as anyone really can be) during there daily activities. If these two were attacked because of their involvement in something then the attack has no bearing on the safety of the every day individual going about their every day lives. If it is not random they placed themselves willingly into greater jeopardy through their own behavior.you guys are focusing on the trees and missing the forest..whether the attack was random or planned is irrelavent. The point of Mr Farnum's e-mail is:
Don't arbitrarily divide your life into "safe" and "dangerous" parts, places, nor activities. Fate may neglect to celebrate your dear fantasy!
you cannot control the time or place you might need a firearm to save your or someone elses life...you can only control whether or not you have one when the time comes.