I took that to mean the victim's car, but I believe you are correct.
Nonetheless, the article doesn't say that the men or the vehicle were present or visible when the man pulled up. In fact, it sounds like they pulled up behind him based on the description of the article. If you take the statement to mean that the BG was in front of the BG's car then the next statement which seems to say that the BG was at the back of the victim's car supports that idea.
It's still building a lot on a little. It's too bad that the OP didn't post the entire text of the article, or at least the entire text of the pertinent section of the article.