TWISTED! Philly Man Shoots Thief Stealing Car, Arrested For No Gun Permit. Thief Dies, But Look What The Widow DEMANDS!

There are some stories I read in the news cycle that clearly reveal the mindset of the people involved.

In major cities around the U.S., George Soros-funded District Attorneys have decided to look the other way from the day-to-day crimes that take place in their communities.

In their attempt to advance racial justice these “public servants” do everything they can to help the “disadvantaged” in the society such as offering zero dollar bail, increasing the amount a thief can steal before it’s considered a felony, and ignoring prostitution and other nonviolent crimes on the street.

Criminals and those associated with them have taken this new leniency from law enforcement as permission to steal, at will, and are shocked when the intended victims do not respond with the same tolerance in the process.

In Philadelphia, a Cobbs Creek car owner fatally shot a man who was trying to steal his car or its catalytic converter on Tuesday morning. He has been charged with carrying a gun without a license, Philadelphia police said Wednesday.

Steven Thompson, 54, who shot and killed one of three men who were tampering with his Acura as it was parked in front of his home in the 5800 block of Cobbs Creek Parkway, was charged with two counts of firearms violations.

On Tuesday, police initially said Thompson had a permit to carry the gun he used to shoot the would-be car thief, Satario Natividad, 51, just after 8:15 a.m. But he did not have a permit for the weapon.

What happened? 

Witnesses said three men hooked a car with straps near South 58th Street and Cobbs Creek Parkway just before 8:30 a.m., KYW-TV reported. According to WPVI-TV, there was an attempt to tow away the car.

The car’s owner, however, got a glimpse of what was going on and opened fire; KYW said in its video report that shots were fired from inside the car owner’s residence. Read more

15 thoughts on “TWISTED! Philly Man Shoots Thief Stealing Car, Arrested For No Gun Permit. Thief Dies, But Look What The Widow DEMANDS!”

  1. Well what do expect from the nazi DA! A bunch of unamerican uneducated payoff thugs running the justice system! Democrat plantation slaves run by a old white nazi. They really don’t know history. Listening to Nancy Pelosi, old white woman, Chuck Schumer ,old white man, Joe Biden just a old evil puppet and white who’s the biggest racist. Congrats Philly, your city is a third world city. Lets see if they post this. Truth hurts!

  2. This is another way for the government to take away the rights of the people! Especially! “The Right to Bare Arms”! And it shows how the government is defunding the police! This is why the founding Fathers had the ” BILL of RIGHTS” written! We have the right to “Bare Arms” to defend ourselves from the overreaching government and from other countries! Too disarm the people! They become servents to that government! Just like Russia, China and British! But, look at the communist countries, mostly!

  3. Armed and Dangerous

    Boo hoo, your husband and the father of your children shouldn’t be going around stealing cars. Get a job. If the police can’t protect people and their property it’s up to them to protect themselves. I’m sure the guy will have to go to trial because his life wasn’t being threatened but the perp who was also armed got what he deserved. Did I miss something? I didn’t read what happened to the other 2 suspects.

  4. The only permit you need to bear arms is one you do not have to buy or carry on your person. It is called the US Constitution.

  5. The charges against the shooter have to be based on the law in Pennsylvania. If he needed a license or permit to own a handgun and did not have it, he broke the law. If his permit had to specify the right to carry outside of his home, then I believe he did not commit an additional violation. That is based on the article saying that he shot the crooks from inside his home.

  6. Amendment 2 of the US Constitution states that he did not commit any crime related to having and using the weapon. Amendment 2 could have been written as these two sentences:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.”
    “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    No permits, licenses, special taxes, and so on, can be leveled on the ownership, purchase, or carrying of weapons. The actual English of Amendment 2 is inconvenient to the dictator wanna-bees. From the document I originally wrote in 2009 related to Amendment 2:
    —–
    In order to determine the meaning of the sentence the first thing that must be done is to strip the sentence down to the basic components of its subject or subjects, and the predicate or predicates. Until these two basic components of the sentence are identified one can not properly read or determine what the Amendment means. The procedure to do this is :

    1. First identify and remove the adverb phrases. The adverb phrases in the Amendment are well regulated , being necessary, and be infringed1. The result is this sentence:

    A militia to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not.

    2. Second thing is to identify and remove the prepositional phrases. The prepositional phrases in the Amendment are to the security, of a free State, of the people, and to keep and bear Arms. The result is this sentence:

    A militia, the right, shall not.

    3. What one finds is that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has 2 subjects and a single predicate. When a sentence has multiple subjects separated by commas the sentence can be written in English with the commas replaced by “and”. This results in the following sentence:

    A Militia and the right, shall not.

    4. Under the rules of English when a sentence has multiple subjects separated by the word “and” with a single predicate the sentence can be written with each subject as individual sentences with the predicate. The comma between “right” and “shall” disappears as it a divider. Thus the sentence can be written as these two sentences:

    A Militia shall not.
    The right shall not.

    5. The next step is now adding the adverb and prepositional phrases in to the appropriate sentence that is associated with the subject, or subjects, from the original sentence. This results in the following two sentences:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
    ———-
    Remember, a disarmed population is an enslaved population. Look at what is going in Australia which disarmed their population and dictatorships.

  7. I’m sure the wife knew he was stealing vehicles and/or catalytic converters. Arrest her as an accomplice. Her ignorance of how the law works is the real problem in this country. He had no right to steal from others. He could get a real job just like everyone else and BUY what he wants or needs. He acted stupid and he was shot. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The wife gets no sympathy from me. She is just as guilty as he was. She can also go out and get a job. Already whining for more free money on the backs of hard working Americans. The man has a right to protect his property. A thief has the right to be shot if caught stealing other peoples property.

    1. IF the perpetrator was “Black/Negro/Bro/Blood/whatever” , and to imply he should/could have a job and not steal , would he then be “LABELLED” trying to be “WHITE”? I mean , a black trying to be “WHITE” by having a job? Isn’t that “RACIST”? Or TRUTHFUL. Sadly , there are some who have this mindset and they are “white” . TAKE AWAY welfare and let the party begin.

  8. PathfinderChief

    He got tagged during the commission of a felony, so Tough Shi-! His “wife” knew what he was up to, so hold up on your pity party. She’s just angry that she’s going to have to go back to the corner she used to work on, and get back to work. Since when do you need to have a carry permit to protect your property, from INSIDE your house? Oh, that’s right, YOU DON’T!!!! Your home is your castle, so that permit thing does NOT apply. Whoever keeps appointing these “Pay your fee, get your degree” lawyers in name only, as District Attorneys, needs to get help, removing their heads from their a–es. No state has the authority to require any citizen to get permission to keep and bear arms, as that is a GOD GIVEN right to protect oneself, and others, PERIOD. The Second Amendment doesn’t provide for people to keep and bear arms. What the Second Amendment does, is FORBID ANY GOVERNMENT, from infringing upon a person’s God Given right to keep and bear arms, in ANY way, PERIOD. It is not open to interpretation, or redefining in any way. It is clear, concise, and in terms any layman can understand.

    1. PathfinderChief

      Why would my comment need moderation? Especially by BIASED employees of yours, who take pride in being illiterate politically oriented HACKS. Censorship is illegal, and could cost you a hell of a lot more, than you’re prepared, qualified, or even able to pay!

      1. Armed and Dangerous

        Probably PATHFINDERCHIEF because you’re a liberal sissy. They’re not allowed to spew their liberal venom on some sites. Cancel culture coming back to you.

  9. Citizens shooting criminals should be applauded, Then crime will drop. Or else do to the criminals what Muslim law says. Cut off their hand.

  10. His permit is the 2nd Amendment, so shut up lady. My question is, are you here legally? If not, you and your family should be deported.

  11. I hate to say it, and I am just as 2nd Amend. as the next guy. A good Lawyer will have fun with this one. If someone is stealing your car, or your catalytic converter or whatever, you do not have a right to shoot him. If one is coming home and some perp is walking out of your house with one’s TV set, you can’t shoot him. In order for you to shoot someone, your life has to be threatened. So if the guy is driving away with your car, you can’t run out and shoot him, because your life isn’t threatened, by someone driving away from you with your car. One can be charged. Now if a guy brandishes a weapon on you and says give me your car, yes you can shoot him, your life is threatened, there’s the difference. By rights the owner should be arrested, whether he had a gun legal or otherwise, his life wasn’t threatened.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.