Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Wild Shooting in Fort Wayne, Indiana

Local news reports
Fort Wayne police have identified 24-year-old Traneilous L. Jackson as the one wielding the gun when shots from a white Ford Crown Victoria peppered the ambulance and a trailing black Chevrolet Impala while the vehicles sped down St. Joe Center Road.

Jackson has been charged with aggravated battery, criminal recklessness with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon.

The man who drove the Crown Victoria, 27-year-old Alfonso Chappell, later told police that Jackson wanted to avenge his brother, who he claimed had been stabbed by a man who was inside the ambulance.

Jermaine J. Loyall, 29, was stabbed just before 3 a.m. with a broken beer bottle. Police have not said who stabbed him, and court documents make only a passing mention of the stabbing. Paramedics arrived at the nightclub, determined Loyall to be in serious condition and loaded him into the ambulance to take him to Parkview Hospital.

Two of Loyall's family members and a friend then climbed into a black Impala to follow. Soon, as both the ambulance and Impala passed the Towne House Retirement Community westbound on St. Joe Center Road, they were approached from behind by a white Crown Victoria. Shots then began to ring out.

Inside the Impala, 27-year-old Latasha N. Loyall was hit 10 times all over her body, according to court documents. Lashanda Conwell, 31, was hit once in her forearm, and Domonic E. Loyall, 22, was also injured.

The ambulance sustained at least 18 bullet holes through the driver's side of its body and rear. Glass shattered as its windows were shot out, and at least two bullets made it inside the ambulance.

Jeromy Yardon, a paramedic treating Jermaine Loyall, suffered injuries to his left arm and abdomen from flying glass, shrapnel and bullet fragments, according to court documents.
One of the big problems is how easy it is to get a gun in states like Indiana. They allow private sales, they do not require any licensing of gun owners or registration of guns. All this convenience which is supposed to aid the law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights also aids the criminals. ANYONE can get a gun in Indiana.

The solution is obvious.  Strict gun control, managed at the federal level.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Your "solution" is silly, since the shooter here already is a prohibited person. Do you imagine that he'd be inconvenienced if your proposals were law? He's a thug with a long rap sheet, including drug possession. In other words, he managed to obtain something illegal. If guns were illegal or even just strictly controlled, he would do the same.

    How about passing a law against naming one's children things like Traneilous? That would have some social utility, at least.

    1. YES. If illegal guns were less readily available, fewer of these prohibited people would have them.

      That has been true where nationally guns were more restricted, including preventing dumbasses like you from trading or selling to people you don't know without any kind of background check.

      Geeze your stupid. It is a tragedy that you perpetuate stupidity and poor reasoning by teaching even less educated people, when you are so badly in need of remediation yourself.

      Where guns are more strictly controlled, effectively, people DO NOT GET THEM. You just don't want that to happen; you're happy with the failed gun culture - more proof of your lack of thinking ability.

    2. Oh, good, we get to do some English remediation here. "Your" is the possessive pronoun--belongs to you. "You're" is the contraction for "you are." It's generally best not to make basic errors when calling someone else stupid.

      Dog Gone, you lust after a British solution, but what you fail to recognize is that we have fundamental differences in the American character from the United Kingdom. We have a rebellious streak that created this nation in the first place. While that waxes and wanes, it certainly means that we'll tolerate less than they will. We can't even get a national healthcare system passed here, thanks to fears of government intrusion in our lives. Do you really imagine that the American people would tolerate the kind of gun control that you seek?

      But more than that, gun control against the law-abiding was possible in Britain because law-abiding subjects there had already registered their guns. Illegal guns show up all the time, but the good subjects are mostly unarmed. By contrast, there are hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms in this country. American gun owners are broadly against new controls. Do you seriously imagine all of us dutifully complying with your desires were they to become law? That's delusion, not critical thinking.

      And you have yet to explain how I endangered anyone by trading guns with someone at a show. Do you understand basic arithmetic and logic? I brought one rifle into the show; I left with one rifle. The couple did exactly the same. Neither party gained in total number of guns owned. How was the world any more dangerous after the transaction than before?

      There is one possible answer, in your point of view. My rifle had my name on the ATF form at the FFL where I bought it. Now, I have a rifle that has no paper trail to me. It horrifies you to think of guns that can't be traced. Those guns aren't easily confiscated.

      If that's what passes for critical thinking in your area, I'll keep my Southern good sense, thanks.

    3. Typical for Dog Gone, she's given the chance to discuss her assertions, and she fails to take the opportunity. For her, tossing insults and running away is critical thinking. What I don't understand is why she thinks that she's fooling anyone. Subconsiously, she must know that she's delusional. That's why she doesn't want us to have guns. She thinks that we're all like her.

    4. its not his name dumb ass its the way the police force is in fort wayne

  2. Yes, of course, MORE laws are needed because aggravated battery, criminal recklessness with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon isn't illegal enough. Criminals don't fully understand that we don't want them to do certain things unless we say 'we really mean it' by passing MORE laws.

    "They allow private sales, they do not require any licensing of gun owners or registration of guns."

    Unlike DC, which is a paradise of peace. I understand DC is going to lay off half the police force because of the lack of crime.

    1. Yes, indeed, more laws are needed. We've never tried gun control, especially in states like Indiana.

    2. We already have MORE laws. The gun control crowd wasn't happy with the old laws, so there were MORE laws passed and now the gun control crowd isn't happy with the current laws. The gun control crowd won't be happy with new laws either, and will still want MORE laws.

      Suppose all the laws that you want are passed, and it doesn't work, what then?

    3. We've never tried gun control, Bill. The mish-mash of contradicting and easily-circumvented laws we now have cannot be called gun control.

  3. No gun control now, no gun control ever!! They've tried taking guns from citizens at the federal level and 54 Democrats in Congress paid for it with their political lives in 1993 including a sitting Speaker of the House.

    1. Gun-rights advocates are the fools and dummies of the gun manufacturers and their gun lobby. The individual stooges think they're talking about freedom and self-defense while the real gangsters who run things are laughing all the way to the bank.

    2. Mikeb, you're like the kid who shouts insults and then runs over to stand next to the teacher. The good news is that we're adult enough to ignore your remarks about us and to carry on doing as we choose.

  4. Managed at the federal level? It already is Mike. And it still doesn't stop a criminal.

    Phrases like "lawful gun owner" and "hidden criminal" just make me laugh.

    Lawful gun owner when they are not.
    Hidden criminal, thats a good one! No one knows who a hidden criminal would be, not even the government, until they expose themselves, right? No one is a criminal until they are, right Mike? After all, you should know this yourself and should know better than to use such useless phrases like that.

  5. People:
    I live too damn close to where this Traneilous Jackson was living, and I can tell you from experience, it's NOT about gun control ANY more than AUTOMOBILE-control laws would help with DUIs.
    Hell, I mow my lawn while packing, given the nature of the "beasts" around here, and that's a prudent thing to do.

    Coming from a police family (back in philly) as well as once working for the FEDS, I can tell you that the REAL problem is the PEOPLE...not the "tools" they wish to employ.

    Does anyone remember the MACHETES (supplied by CHINA I might add)that were used in the murders of about 20,000 people in AFRICA years ago (because they couldn't get guns - aka gun-control)...?

    If anything, enact a mandatory law that states if a gun is used in a felony (crime), you get AT LEAST FIVE plea-deals.
    (and that's a whole other problem in Ft. Wayne - the prosecutor's office)

    It's a damn good start, anyway.

    Stay safe out there

    1. A couple things, Bob. Do you think if the Chinese has supplied guns instead of machetes the death toll would have been exactly the same in Rwanda? I think it would have been much higher.

      Cars are controlled. DUIs are already down due to traffic regulations and strict enforcement of the drunk-driving laws over the last decade or so.

      If cars and driving were treated like guns, the situation on the road would be much worse.