posted on December 2, 2005 10:03:28 AM new
Got this in email yesterday and i thought it worthy of being posted here.
You walk across the parking lot, unlock your car, and get inside.
Then you start the engine and shift into REVERSE, and you look into the rearview mirror to back out of your parking space and you notice a piece of paper stuck to the middle of the rear window, blocking your view, so you shift into PARK, unlock your doors and jump out of your car to remove that paper (or whatever it is) that is obstructing your view.
When you reach the back of your car, that is when the car-jackers appear out of nowhere, jump into your car and take off!
Your engine was running and they practically mow you down as they speed off in your car. And guess what ladies? I bet your purse is still in the car...
BE AWARE OF THIS NEW SCHEME THAT IS NOW BEING USED.
Just drive away and remove the paper that is stuck to your window later, and be thankful that you read this email.
I hope you will forward this to friends and family... especially to women! A purse contains all of your identification, and you certainly do NOT want someone getting your home address.
posted on December 2, 2005 10:19:42 AM new
From Snopes.com
Claim: Parking lot carjackers are placing flyers on the rear windshields of automobiles, then taking the cars when drivers step out of their vehicles to remove the flyers.
Status: False.
Origins: This alert has been kicked from inbox to inbox since February 2004. Although we classified it as Undetermined in our initial write-up just after the warning appeared (because at that early stage not enough was then known about it), we've now moved this alert squarely into the False category.
Since February 2004 we have been watching the news most carefully for any sign of an actual carjacking — either perpetrated or merely attempted — that followed the script outlined in the widely-spread e-mailed caution. We have yet to see evidence of so much as one. Were this "lure motorists from their vehicles by leaving flyers on their cars' rear windows, then drive off with their buggies" method in play, that surely would not have been the case.
Nothing rules out there having been one car theft carried out in the manner described that we have yet to hear about. But even if that proves to be the case, there is clearly no crime wave, no ever-present danger to motorists everywhere, no flyer-armed menace lurking in the nation's parking
lots.
We generally try to apply five points in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities:
1) Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described?
2) Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible? (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.)
3) Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning?
4) Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread?
5) Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to?
Tackling these points in order, we find:
1) This is a decidedly "low-tech" scheme for stealing cars, so it's certainly possible this method could be used to steal cars (although, as we discuss below, it may be a rather implausible scheme in execution).
2) Our law enforcement contacts noted that although the process described above could be used by carjackers, they were unfamiliar with any cases of cars being stolen in this manner, and the scheme outlined ran contrary to their experience of how carjackers operate. Specifically, they said that carjackings are generally crimes of opportunity, committed by persons in need of quick cash or youngsters either out for a thrill or participating in some rite of passage (such as a gang initiation). Carjackers tend to hang around places where motorists have to stop or exit their vehicles (e.g., intersections, gas stations, car washes, ATMs, freeway on- and off-ramps) and then force the drivers out of their automobiles (or simply take off with the temporarily unoccupied cars). Running around parking lots sticking flyers on windshields and then hanging around to wait for drivers to return to their vehicles involves planning and exposure atypical of most carjackers; they're more likely to approach occupied vehicles (particularly luxury cars with high resale value) and force the drivers out (by threatening them with weapons and/or physically pulling them out of their seats).
They acknowledged, however, that as improvements in car alarms, locking devices, and other anti-theft systems have made it harder to steal unoccupied vehicles, car thieves (i.e., those who boost vehicles on a regular basis, mostly without the use of violence or weaponry) may be resorting to alternative methods such as the one described above. (Many cars lack rear windshield wipers under which flyers could be placed, but the flyers might be affixed with some type of adhesive instead.)
But one aspect of this scheme sounds somewhat implausible: Drivers usually have to back up to leave a parking space in situations where they've parked head-in, and people who have parked head-in are generally approaching their cars from the rear when they return. So, a flyer posted on a rear window is quite likely to be discovered and removed by the returning driver before he enters his car.
3) We haven't yet found any news reports of cars being jacked in the manner reported above, nor any law enforcement officials who had heard of it other than though the e-mailed. It's possible, though, that if this were truly a new scheme, the detail about a flyer on the windshield might not have been reported because the victim (and police) didn't realize it was an element of the carjacking.
4) Since we haven't yet documented any occurrences of the activity described in this warning, we can't confirm that it is a widespread activity.
5) If this scheme were actually employed by carjackers (or car thieves), it's certainly something the average person might fall victim to.
The alert has gained a measure of credibility thanks to it having been forwarded by members of the law enforcement community. Illinois State Police Master Sgt. Terry Granell received the warning via the usual method (a friend e-mailed it to him), thought it something he should pass along to his daughters, and so unthinkingly volleyed it to them from his work account, which automatically appended his official signature block to the mailing. Taking their dad's e-mail for an official announcement from the Illinois State Police about a mode of crime that agency was dealing with, the alarmed girls passed along the heads up about leaflet-armed carjackers to their friends, who in turn loosed it upon a wider audience. As it sped from one inbox to the next, the alert was presumed authentic because it carried the contact information for a real police officer.
Yet appearances to the contrary, Sgt. Granell's e-mail wasn't an official statement made on behalf of the Illinois State Police about a form of crime it had noted and wanted the public to guard itself against, it was merely the passing along of a dubious e-mail by a private citizen who just happened to be a police officer.
Later versions of this e-mail identified Sgt. Granell as being a member of the Louisiana State Patrol or Louisiana State Police.
One of the many versions in circulation commences:
Detective Bledsoe, of the Florissant, MO Sheriff's office confirms that this is happening in St. Louis County, Missouri and could be happening near you, so be careful and take note. Leutenant Tony Bartholome of the Missouiri Highway Patrol urges everyone to keep this email circulating — the more people who are aware of this MO, the better. Description of new carjacking scheme:
The Florissant (Missouri) Police Department has posted this denial on its web site:
ERRONEOUS E-MAIL CAUSES ALARM IN CITY OF FLORISSANT
Chief William Karabas of the Florissant Police Department wants to make the public aware of an erroneous e-mail circulating in reference to auto thefts, specifically ‘car jacking ’ incidents in the City of Florissant.
"I want to put an end to this rumor. The City of Florissant has not had any incidents of this nature!", said Chief Karabas. In fact, the e-mail makes reference to many false claims. Chief Karabas stated, "Some of the points include, referring to the Florissant Police Department as a Sheriffs Department, which we are not, we DO NOT have a Detective Bledsoe, there is NO State Trooper named Bartholome, there is NO Missouri Neighborhood Watch Association, there is NO such address (1456 Washington Ave) in Florissant and the telephone number given on the e-mail is NOT IN SERVICE!"
Again, there is NO validity to this e-mail. It is FALSE. We ask that people be informed and get the correct information. One way to check e-mails for validity is to call your police department or go on-line to check ‘Urban Legends’ at www.snopes.com
Detective Bledsoe of the infamous warning notoriety is an actual police officer, but he serves with the Montgomery County (Texas) Sheriff's Office, not the Florissant Police Department. (Montgomery County is just north of Houston.) He came to have this Internet can tied to his tail after receiving the "carjackers using flyers to lure victims from their vehicles" warning in his e-mail in February 2005 and sending it to some friends as an example of what possibly could happen, not realizing that his official signature block would be automatically appended to his forward. He has no personal knowledge of carjackings being carried out by this method, he has not been party to any such investigations, nor was his e-mail meant as an official alert on behalf of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office.
Since February 2005, Det. Bledsoe has fielded more than 300 phone calls about the warning many presume he authored, with inquiries coming in from all over the country.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Dec 2, 2005 10:20 AM ]
posted on December 2, 2005 10:40:54 AM new
Snopes.com is normally a good place to find out the validity of email alerts, however i would say that in this case that the info i posted is good to know about in advance should anyone ever get in their car at a parking lot and see such a thing on their back windshield and as Bear pointed out it has occured in the Houston area so what's the real truth on this one, who knows for sure?? I have no idea if Lieutenant Tony Bartolome is a real person or not, i suppose one could always call the number and find out.
posted on December 2, 2005 10:52:19 AM new
I don't know Pi - if he is, he has moved. If you read the bottom of the Snopes info you will find that is another evolution of the email he is working in Missouri.
Bear - this just seems too implausible for someone to actually try. First there is the issue that Snopes brings up... you walk padst your rear winshield when you go to get in the car. Why not remove it then? but lets say you didn't... Parking spaces these days are not exactly that wide so once you get out of the car in the space and leave your door open, you have blocked the carjackers from coming in from the front of the car. Now, since no one walks to the very back of the car to get something off the windshield but rather stands at the side, there is not exactly enough room for said car jackers to quickly rush between you and the car next to you, get in the car and close the door before you have a chance to at least interfere with the process.
This would have to be one of the dumbest carjacking method ever developed.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on December 2, 2005 02:58:11 PM new"This would have to be one of the dumbest carjacking method ever developed."
Yep it would. But seeing all those stoopid crooks caught on video cameras robbing convenience stores, gas stations and ATM machines, I'm not surprised.
Did you see the video of the guy who broke into a lady's apartment and started trying on her underwear? Sheesh, a stalker with a fetish. And, the camisole didn't fit. I bet those thong panties were not too comfy either.
posted on December 2, 2005 04:09:40 PM new
This same alert was printed in the local newspaper (The Conroe Courier) giving a contact in the Montgomery County Sheriff's department in the account of the carjacking. That is the reason I believe it to be true.
"Dear Lord, if you can't make me a better man, don't worry about it. I'm having a real good time like I am.".
[ edited by Bear1949 on Dec 2, 2005 04:11 PM ]
posted on December 2, 2005 04:22:10 PM new
Snopes can't be expected to be correct 100% of the time. They're human too.
------
And I think warnings like these are good to receive. Just like the one warning women about criminals who puncture their tires....then come offer to help them.
It's good to have these possible senario's in our minds...so that IF we ever should find ourselves in a similar situation....we'd recall the warnings we'd previously read.
--------
And chimpchamp....lol....I've watched a few of those videos of criminals who weren't so bright in trying to pull off their crimes. Funny just how stupid some of them are.
posted on December 2, 2005 07:53:18 PM new
I just got one that said that I should forward it to 100 people and Microsoft would give me 50 bucks. You bet I forwarded it all right.
This reminds me of the other fake one that was being forwarded all over creation about gang initiations that involved newbe gangsters driving around blinking their lights at other cars. When somebody blinked back, they supposedly became the target and were followed and shot at or run off the road or some such nonsense..our local sherriff's dept. even bought into this foolishness, and circulated flyers telling people to beware of cars that were blinking their lights...morons on the public payroll...
the evils of forwarded emails....
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on December 2, 2005 07:59:48 PM new
Not so funny nor moronic imo for any police dept to believe.
Other than the 'flashing lights' you mentioned....it did happen in San Jose and it was gang initiation related...per the San Jose Police department.
The wanna-be gang members are required to shoot an innocent person in order to get in the gang.
posted on December 2, 2005 08:22:00 PM new
Profe, i remember getting a similar email before the elections that said if you support the Republicans you should flash your lights off and then on but if you were a Democrat supporter, upon seeing this that you should immediately turn your lights off and drive that way for the rest of the evening. There were alot of accidents in my home town after that email circulated around.
posted on December 2, 2005 08:26:38 PM newit did happen in San Jose and it was gang initiation related...per the San Jose Police department. The wanna-be gang members are required to shoot an innocent person in order to get in the gang.
So I know it's not a joke.
You better tell snopes then. They appear to have done extensive research on this one, going all the way back before the 1980's and only came up with two cases which may be copycat type crimes, but even they are not proven, and neither one was in San Jose.
]Other than these two incidents, one in 1993 and one in 2004 (and even in those cases we're not sure what prompted the acts, whether they were "lights out" shootings, or if a popular rumor was used to cover something else, or if the violence and the intelligences about headlights were unrelated), there have been no documented "Lights Out!" shootings.
posted on December 2, 2005 08:58:08 PM new
LOL profe. Informing snopes.com is NOT my job. Because they aren't 100% accurate or haven't heard of every single shooting that has happened anywhere in America....is not my problem.
One of the shootings I'm speaking about in San Jose, CA happened downtown...and was reported in the San Jose Mercury News. IF snopes wishes to be more accurate, they might want to read ALL the newspapers.
Another one involved my son...and was also printed in the SJ Mercury news. Both shootins, one resulting in a murder WERE reported there....both were suspected of being gang related. As they SJ police said this had happened several times before.
So...poo poo on snopes not always being as anal and informed as some believe them to be.
posted on December 2, 2005 10:27:40 PM new
did you all see that one on 20/20 tonight about this guy who bought a fireman's outfit on ebay, stalked this woman and then terrorized her?
And they caught him due to some junk on his computer.
posted on December 3, 2005 05:30:02 AM new
Searching the Mercury News archive, there are two articles that DEBUNK the Lights-Out initiation shootings, and none that claim they ever actually happened. We're talking specifically about the so-called lights-out initiation rumors as described above, not just any old gang shooting. Those happen all the time. Nobody would argue about that.
I guess you better let snopes and the Mercury News know, Linda...bein' how you have information they don't. For the good of all, you really should share.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on December 3, 2005 12:28:02 PM new
lol profe @ we're talking about...
Well...guess what...I chose to talk about something similar...and noted the difference.
What's with you lately?
Most of these email 'stories' have some truth in them. Parts may or may not be accurate...but just as bear and I both have shared....similar things have happened.
Because YOU choose to 'talk' about/focus on only ONE issue...doesn't mean we have to.
posted on December 3, 2005 07:32:17 PM newWhat's with you lately?
Nothing much, what's with you?
There aren't any documented cases of blinking-headlight gang initiation shootings. Just like the original poster's forwarded email. Another waste of bandwidth. You can choose to believe them all you want, it won't make them true.
There are people on this earth who still think it's flat. Doesn't make it so.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
