Commuters attacked with machete in gun-control Chicago

Rate this post

Obama’s hometown Chicago is a gun-control city. But that hasn’t stopped Chicagoans from gun violence, as our DCG reports every Monday on the shootings that took place the weekend before. (See “A good weekend in Chicago? Less than a dozen shot“)
Not only does gun control fail to stop or even reduce gun violence and homicides, Chicago’s criminals are now wielding the primitive but lethal machete.
Meg Wagner reports for New York Daily News that on Sept. 8, 2014, seven Chicago hoodlums, including three 15-year-olds, slashed a commuter on a train platform with a machete, which left the victim with serious cuts to his neck and head.
Around 12:30 a.m., the seven hoodlums — ranging in age from 23 to 15 — approached two brothers, 17 and 26 years old, sitting on a bench on a Brown Line train platform in Albany Park, Chicago’s WLS reported.
They asked the victims to flash them gang signs, a request the two refused because they were not in a gang, they said.
That’s when 18-year-old Mario Elvira pulled out a machete.
The teen hacked into the 26-year-old’s head and neck, police said. Platform security video showed the rest of the group surrounding the victims as Elvira slashed.
He kept swinging until the next train pulled into the station, sending the seven scurrying.
The 26-year-old was taken to a local hospital in stable condition with a deep gash to the head, which required 30 stitches. The 17-year-old was not injured.
Police caught the group shortly after the attack.
Elvira, 23-year-old Jean Salvatierra, 19-year-old Kevin Ramierz and 20-year-old Kevar Preston were charged with robbery, aggravated battery and trespassing.
One of the 15-year-old boys was charged with aggravated assault and trespassing. The two others, a boy and a girl, face only trespassing charges. Police have not released the juveniles’ names.
The four adults are being held on bails between $250,000 and $450,000.

Welcome to Amerika! – rapidly devolving before our very eyes into a third world country.

H/t FOTM reader Amy

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Commuters attacked with machete in gun-control Chicago

  1. Deprived immigrant children. Could not afford a gun. Has La Raza or
    Rep. Gutierrez (D-IL) made any comment about these poor innocent
    children. If they need a place to stay I will take care of them. They can
    dig a trench around my property and then I would bury them in it. And
    Gutierrez could help them dig too.

  2. battery?! assault?! how’s about ATTEMPTED MURDER!
    A machete was slammed into a man’s head…repeatedly!
    What in the world is going on with people today? This earth has become the devil’s playground.

    • It WOULD have been attempted murder,but they don’t want to disenfranchise the Hispanic voters.

    • I completely agree with you . . . robbery, aggravated battery, and trespassing, those are nonsensical charges! Let’s call it a “Hate Crime” and “Attempted Murder,” as you say. Furthermore, any 15 year old who can participate in heinous acts such as these–should be charged as an Adult, and their names should be displayed in large letters, so that others will know how depraved these individuals are, and to stay away from them. The fact that society shields them is dangerous to everyone else who interacts with them. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this excellent post. It is incredible that our society is down-spiraling at such horrific speed.

    • Just like Democrats want!

  3. Hmmmm…. I wonder if that was a registered machete, and if that guy had a permit to be carrying it concealed?
    It’s a genuine shame that neither of the brothers was able to pull a weapon and teach those punks a real life lesson about bringing even a very big knife to a gunfight, but thank God they both survived.
    Hopefully they will now both learn their own lesson, that no civilized man goes unarmed and defenseless in a hell hole like Chicago.

  4. This also sounds like a gang-based attack, likely mexican etc. (MS-13 etc.) as many of them also like to keep machetes on hand. I wonder if that will be mentioned at all?
    My guess is the reaction will be to try to register/license knives, if any action is taken at all, which as we all know is far from what needs to be done, what needs to be done is to undo the devilish indoctrination these people are getting in schools etc. and to undo the “gun control” legislation, because all that does is keep the bad guys armed (because they ignore law anyhow.) and good folks unarmed (because they purposefully choose to observe the law).
    This does send a very clear message though, “where there is gun control the blade is king”, I imagine los zetas will be very pleased with that result. (lest we forget, before ISIS even existed, mexican cartels such as the zetas were already beheading people on these shores.)

    • Brits have started to talk about knife- and club-control now that they’ve taken all their guns and violence (not to mention gun crime) is out of control there. Pretty soon their liberals will honestly be talking about gravity- and fist-control.

  5. There ya go-make everybody REGISTER their “over 6 inch blade” knives. THAT will stop this knife-violence,just like gun registries have stopped gun violence. California,New York-are ya listening? (I heard Riding Crops and Golf Clubs are the lethal weapons of the future….)

  6. Hmmm Hispanic and African teaming up. I thought the two were
    at odds.

  7. Too bad their victim wasn’t armed.

  8. Oh and also, folks should be aware of, and watch this nasty little thing too: As I read it, this guy actually wants to take away the citizen’s ability to purchase, own or possess Body Armor, as read: “To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions.”
    Either Mr. Honda is a nutbag, or he’s being intentionally malevolent. What sane reason could someone have to want to prohibit owning body armor, be it enhanced or not, especially in a country where the above event occurred?
    Remember to always sift through the bill and it’s amendments, as “piggybacking” something else nasty in on a bill is commonplace (as is jamming in multiple copies of a bill through the house and senate to ensure passage.)

    • Oh Also I don’t want to forget this: this is the NDAA for 2015, yes already well on it’s way. Consider amendment 7: “an amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 113-455 to add a Sense of Congress establishing that national security is the top priority for the federal government and should be the top priority for the use of public lands.” What ramifications would that have for “public lands” do you think? Also consider what happened to this amendment: “13. H.AMDT.676 to H.R.4435 Amendment sought to change section 1021 of the FY 2012 NDAA to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the United States, its territories, or possessions, by providing for immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution or by an appropriate state court and sought to strike section 1022 of the same Act, which provides for mandatory military custody of covered parties.
      Sponsor: Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] (introduced 5/21/2014) Cosponsors (None)
      Latest Major Action: 5/22/2014 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Smith (WA) amendment (A013) Failed by recorded vote: 191 – 230 (Roll no. 234).”
      Voted out, ergo congress wants indefinite detention. Go exploring through the thing yourselves and see what else you can find. (Apologies for being terribly off-topic, but I thought this to be of interest to other commenters and the folks here.)

      • Thank you, Seumas, for this information about NDAA 2015 and for all your other tips.

        • Happy to be of help Dr. Eowyn, also I should note in my wandering through those legislations I happened upon two other versions of the NDAA for 2015, this one: and carl levin’s version: (Which makes mention of the previous NDAA’s repeal of the UCMJ’s ban on sodomy and “clarifies” it, striking “forcible” and replacing it with “unlawful forcible” if I recall right. Apparently Mr. Levin wants to make darn sure forcible sodomy is allowed for?)
          Just in case they try any tricks I’ve saved the most current versions of these three NDAAs (as they appear today) to a text file, minus the plethora of amendments for the “Buck” one. Here’s hoping the servants of evil can be routed in this venture.

  9. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this important post. I will pray for the victims and their families.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.