Page 129 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 129 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
123
man wielding a silver pistol jumped into the Stuart car and announced a robbery. The black man forced Chuck to drive to a secluded area and took Carol’s two expensive gemstone rings, Chuck’s expensive watch, cash and the keys to the car. As the story goes, the gunman demanded Chuck’s wallet. Chuck responded he did not carry a wallet. The “gunman” supposedly inferred from this that the Chuck did have a wallet, but that it contained a badge or other identification of law enforcement. This “inference” caused the gunman to commence firing his weapon. Two rounds struck Carol in the head, and one round missed Chuck’s head as he ducked away at the very last second. The angry gunman shot Chuck in the abdomen and when he tried again to shoot Chuck in the head, the chamber was empty. The gunman leapt out of the back seat of the Stuart’s car and ran off. Chuck brought out his spare set of car keys and tried to drive to summon help. He also called 911 on his cellular phone, which routed the call to the Massachusetts State Police Communications Center. The dispatchers guided Chuck in his pained state to the nearest cross street so they could determine his whereabouts. The police arrived about 15 minutes after the shooting and rushed both Carol and Chuck to the hospital. The news jumped into action with headlines the next morning about the white couple who were shot in Area B the previous night by the gun-toting black man.
Carol’s wounds were extreme and doctors acted quickly making the decision to remove her child by C-section; the baby, a boy, weighing only three pounds was not expected to live. A priest was called in to baptize the baby, who was named Christopher. Meanwhile Chuck’s wound was almost as serious as Carol’s. Chuck had one wound in his abdomen that retained the bullet. He was operated on quickly,
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 129 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 123 man wielding a silver pistol jumped into the Stuart car and announced a robbery. The black man forced Chuck to drive to a secluded area and took Carol’s two expensive gemstone rings, Chuck’s expensive watch, cash and the keys to the car. As the story goes, the gunman demanded Chuck’s wallet. Chuck responded he did not carry a wallet. The “gunman” supposedly inferred from this that the Chuck did have a wallet, but that it contained a badge or other identification of law enforcement. This “inference” caused the gunman to commence firing his weapon. Two rounds struck Carol in the head, and one round missed Chuck’s head as he ducked away at the very last second. The angry gunman shot Chuck in the abdomen and when he tried again to shoot Chuck in the head, the chamber was empty. The gunman leapt out of the back seat of the Stuart’s car and ran off. Chuck brought out his spare set of car keys and tried to drive to summon help. He also called 911 on his cellular phone, which routed the call to the Massachusetts State Police Communications Center. The dispatchers guided Chuck in his pained state to the nearest cross street so they could determine his whereabouts. The police arrived about 15 minutes after the shooting and rushed both Carol and Chuck to the hospital. The news jumped into action with headlines the next morning about the white couple who were shot in Area B the previous night by the gun-toting black man. Carol’s wounds were extreme and doctors acted quickly making the decision to remove her child by C-section; the baby, a boy, weighing only three pounds was not expected to live. A priest was called in to baptize the baby, who was named Christopher. Meanwhile Chuck’s wound was almost as serious as Carol’s. Chuck had one wound in his abdomen that retained the bullet. He was operated on quickly, |
