• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why Do They Do This?

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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. :cuss: 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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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??
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 
Top