Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Why Do They Do This?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The other day... there was a news story 'bout a 93 yr old woman who fired at an intruder in her home. She didn't hit anything but the inside of her own house... but the perp fled the scene. 'Lotta similar stories as y'all know.

    What ticks me off... is the compulsion by the news weeneis to add a note of 'doubt' at the end of these stories. In this case... the 'talkin' head' added: "No charges will be filed' (against the old woman). Charges for what?

    I hear this kind'a crap over an over again... "Unkown if charges will be filed"... "Possible charges may be pending"... "So and so MAY face charges"... as tho defending yourself is WRONG! Is this promulgation and enforcement of the 'victim' mentality or what?

    There was an incident several years ago... where a barber who occupied a place of business next to a small drug store heard a robbery in progress... (the druggist was shot) 'n the perp ran into the street brandishing the weapon at everybody. The barber grabbed his .38 S&W as the perp was on the sidewalk outside of his shop... Confronted this guy on the sidewalk and shot him dead. The news weenie was opining 'bout: 'May be facing possible charges...." like she knew what she was saying. The talkin' head was 'Sally Thorner' (uber-liberal) in Baltimore. 'Forget what station that was... WJZ maybe. 'Been awhile since I lived there 'n never goin' back. All participants were black... and it was in a hi-crime 'hood. They do this sort'a crap ALL the time! They constantly sow seeds of doubt. I was on the phone to their news room in about 30 seconds. Not that it mattered... but people have to be proactive about self defense and the defense of others.

    There was a warehouse that kept bein' burgled... 'n the owners... (Brothers) stayed there at night to thwart future 'storehouse breakings'. The BG's did it again.... 'n the BG'swere armed. The brothers killed at least one of 'em... wounded the others. 'Held 'em for the cops. Big to-do about 'ambushing' the BG's. So... what are people supposed to do? Remain victims? These guys bypassed the alarm system... came thru the wall I think. This was their 3rd or 4th incident. There was more flak about honest citizens defending their lives and property than the BG's act of breakin' in. 'Course... this was The Peoples Demokratik Republik of Maryland.

    'Nuff said on that area. I had the good sense to leave (forever). :celebrate

    Anytime you hear this sort of nonsense... contact the news room and complain. If enuff people do it... MAYBE they'll knock these anti-gun'opinions' off.







  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Many, perhaps most, incorporated areas have ordinances against discharge of a weapon.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    They can't override self defense... no matter where that occurs.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think whenever we post such stories on forums or in blogs we add taglines at the end such as:
    No word yet as to whether or not the reporter was stoned when reporting this story.

    OR

    Still waiting on word if the reporter is having sex with the cameraman's spouse.

    We can impugn their character just as well.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    They can't override self defense... no matter where that occurs.
    There is no evidence of self-defense to privilege the shooter against unlawful discharge.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    They can't override self defense... no matter where that occurs.
    There is no evidence of self-defense to privilege the shooter against unlawful discharge.
    Sure, I bet the DA would enjoy presenting that in court. Most juries would love to convict a 93 year old lady of unlawfull dischard while defending herself in her home.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    thorvaldr wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    They can't override self defense... no matter where that occurs.
    There is no evidence of self-defense to privilege the shooter against unlawful discharge.
    Sure, I bet the DA would enjoy presenting that in court. Most juries would love to convict a 93 year old lady of unlawfull dischard while defending herself in her home.
    Hence "No charges will be filed' (against the old woman)." DAs are allowed discretion for just such circumstances.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Why do people get upset when a reporter tell the sheeple that what a person did was perfectly legal and will not be charged for doing something. The 93 year old lady fired a gun and most people would immediately question if what she did was legal. If the reporter had not said anything most people would be expecting that she would be charged with something and that what she did was illegal. The reporter plainly stated that the lady broke no law and ther was nothing to charge her with. Get your panties out of a wad over someone trying to help inform the public that just because you fire a gun doesn't mean that you will be arrested.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Maybe if we had an agency that could go on the news and say "We have concluded our investigation of the facts and determined this to be a lawful shoot by a citizen. Thusly there are no pending charges and we wish the victim (the lady) good health and safety."

    Wait. . don't we have something called POLICE??

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    SNIP What ticks me off... is the compulsion by the news weeneis to add a note of 'doubt'
    The press is not interested in its readers having enough information to draw the correct conclusion.

    Ever notice how they sometimes present contrasting views; but never give you the seniorinformation needed to evaluate which of the contrasting views is more correct?

    Controversy, upset, danger. These are themessage of most of the press most of the time.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    They can't override self defense... no matter where that occurs.
    There is no evidence of self-defense to privilege the shooter against unlawful discharge.
    Unlawful discharge? Uh... the use of a firearm for self defense requires 'discharging the weapon'. (Unless ya hit ''em over the head with it..." So... if self defense is legal... it stands to reason that the discharge is also legal. Not as tho you were just shootin' the thing into the air or somethin' for no reason. That'd be the actual dynamic of the event. Has common sense vacated the legal system also? 'Seems there is no evidence to privilege the shooter against Catch 22 stupidity either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •