previous post next post  

2nd Amendment - A News Conference

Last month I posted a News Clip on how a local citizen made good use of his 2nd Amendment Rights.  In the process, he put a stop to an incident of mayhem at his local community.

One thing that struck me, was that a .40 Cal. projectile was found embedded down the barrel of the perpetrator's shot-gun.  Only by the grace of God, did the hoodlum not commit murder that fateful night. Very Close.



...And of course the required news report of the "poor" victimizer who is now made the victim of this heartless "gun freak":

Report: HERE

Boq

5 Comments

The citizen who did the shooting, James McCullough, was potentially facing a misdemeanor charge for carrying concealed without a permit - but the prosecutor has said that based on a review of the surveillance tapes, McCullough's pistol was visible - i.e., in legal 'open carry.'
 
Um, Boq, why are you putting words in peoples mouths? No one used the words "poor" or "victim," nor the phrase "gun nut" in that report.

Both parents say their son was in the wrong, and the strongest criticism came from the father that the man didn't have to shoot his son "so many times." True, they were surprised their son did this, but they weren't in denial, as we've seen in a hundred other similar cases.

Not to mention the TV stations portrayal of the shooter was quite sympathetic.

Are you trying to make this even fit a narrative? I thought that was the MSM's job. ;-)

 
Heh - I don't claim to be a journalist, nor I play one on T.V. (or this fine blog for that matter).  It was clear to me, from my biased perspective, that the news reporters was angling for some sympathy for the deceased.

Yes, both parents acknowledged that their son was in the wrong.  However, when the father inserted the "But" in their explanation they did negate the first part of the statement.

All I did was put a dialogue bubble over the cartoon that they wanted to depict.
 
I doubt the parents were concerned about the costs of expending ammo. It's not like they're going to be charged for it!
 
All the authorities seem to agree, that one should not shoot to kill, necessarily, but shoot to stop the threat, and keep shooting until the threat stops threatening. That could amount to shooting once and missing, but thereby scaring the threatening guy  into stopping what he was doing, or, at the other extreme, emptying the magazine into him if he keeps coming.