Trigger Happy Mom..?? - Page 2

Dre_sa · January 6, 2013, 08:52 PM

I would love to create an unbiased news organization. One that reports only the facts, with no political agenda. One that does not sensationalize irrelevant details. One that takes every opportunity to educate its viewers/readers/consumers. One that reports stories like this one, as well as the unfortunate tragedies.

Why do we not have this? This is America, the first thing we should have is a reliable news source.

PT-92 · January 6, 2013, 10:10 PM

Quote:

LOL, when a correction is made and there is no longer a reason to complain about an inappropriate title, you call them cowards?

Yup--Did the reporter suddenly experience an "epiphany" thereby now believing the brave mother was heroic and not "trigger happy?" Of course not--they came down on the reporter because of vociferous public outcry resulting in the change in wording, not because of any philosophical change in belief. I was raised whereby if you say something that you believe in you either 1) stick by it by "Manning-Up to subsequent criticism or 2) you retract statement only after issuing an apology/reasoning for the edit (in fact, it's unethical in journalism to revise prose absent an explanatory notation).

CS86 · January 6, 2013, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CS86
Also shocked that 5 hits to the head region didn't jar his head enough to make him disfunctional.

And how would you know?

I miss read the first time thinking he fleed right after being shot. I was thinking, Wow, 5 shots to the head and he was able to run!, but the article states:

Quote:

, but he managed to flee after the family ran to a neighbor’s house.

I guess he could of been out of it until the family left the house.

alex0535 · January 7, 2013, 12:34 AM

Good for her, she is a hero.

All of those rounds into head and neck at what must have been near point blank range didn't kill the guy is pretty crazy, sort of makes a point that .38 is a bit under powered.

She did the right thing when the first bullet and the second bullet dont stop the threat, and that is use the rest of the bullets.

MLeake · January 7, 2013, 01:41 AM

Read the article again. He didn't delay running because he was physically unable. He did not know she had run dry, and begged her not to shoot him again. She told him to stay put until she and the kids left, and she would not shoot him any more.

He made a conscious decision to wait.

His adrenaline ran out when he was driving away in his car.

Dr Big Bird PhD · January 7, 2013, 02:44 AM

Disgusting phrasing. Surprise surprise

rickyrick · January 7, 2013, 05:21 AM

ABC news just aired this story and they portrayed her as a hero mom and responsible gun owner.

MLeake · January 7, 2013, 09:03 AM

DNS, I was leaning toward your reaction on the change in the article, but now I fully agree with PT-92's expanded explanation. Apology and overt retraction were called for.

bird_dog · January 7, 2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

ABC news just aired this story and they portrayed her as a hero mom and responsible gun owner.

I have a lot of left leaning friends and family (as I'm sure most people do), and none of them -- NONE of them -- are in favor of any more gun laws, and all of them respect the other members of our family who choose to lawfully carry. I believe that the "ban all handguns" crowd is as sparsely populated as the "full-auto for everyone!" crowd. It's just that, in the media, there are a higher percentage of leftist extremists and the extremism on the left is just as extreme as the extremism on the right. Those of us who are capable of having a conversation, and meeting in the middle on some things, will hopefully still have a voice when all of the post-Newtown fire has died down.

Good for ABC news. This time.

jimbob86 · January 7, 2013, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Yup--Did the reporter suddenly experience an "epiphany" thereby now believing the brave mother was heroic and not "trigger happy?" Of course not--they came down on the reporter because of vociferous public outcry resulting in the change in wording, not because of any philosophical change in belief. I was raised whereby if you say something that you believe in you either 1) stick by it by "Manning-Up to subsequent criticism or 2) you retract statement only after issuing an apology/reasoning for the edit (in fact, it's unethical in journalism to revise prose absent an explanatory notation).

There is very little "journalism" out there these days: They don't report the news- they make the news.

whipper · January 7, 2013, 03:45 PM

This is out of the California Handgun Safety Certificate Program.

"The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury."

It's on the test. I think she did what she was supposed to. She was within the law.

MLeake · January 7, 2013, 03:46 PM

Of course, she was in GA, not CA, but the concept is similar.

January 6, 2013, 08:52 PM	#26
Dre_sa Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2005 Location: Left coast Posts: 610	I would love to create an unbiased news organization. One that reports only the facts, with no political agenda. One that does not sensationalize irrelevant details. One that takes every opportunity to educate its viewers/readers/consumers. One that reports stories like this one, as well as the unfortunate tragedies. Why do we not have this? This is America, the first thing we should have is a reliable news source. __________________ Imagine what I would do, if I could do all I can.

January 7, 2013, 12:34 AM	#29
alex0535 Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2012 Location: Georgia Posts: 908	Good for her, she is a hero. All of those rounds into head and neck at what must have been near point blank range didn't kill the guy is pretty crazy, sort of makes a point that .38 is a bit under powered. She did the right thing when the first bullet and the second bullet dont stop the threat, and that is use the rest of the bullets. Last edited by alex0535; January 7, 2013 at 12:43 AM.

January 7, 2013, 02:44 AM	#31
Dr Big Bird PhD Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2012 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 779	Disgusting phrasing. Surprise surprise __________________ I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

January 7, 2013, 05:21 AM	#32
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	ABC news just aired this story and they portrayed her as a hero mom and responsible gun owner. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

January 7, 2013, 01:41 AM	#30
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Read the article again. He didn't delay running because he was physically unable. He did not know she had run dry, and begged her not to shoot him again. She told him to stay put until she and the kids left, and she would not shoot him any more. He made a conscious decision to wait. His adrenaline ran out when he was driving away in his car.

January 7, 2013, 09:03 AM	#33
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	DNS, I was leaning toward your reaction on the change in the article, but now I fully agree with PT-92's expanded explanation. Apology and overt retraction were called for.

January 7, 2013, 03:45 PM	#36
whipper Member Join Date: March 3, 2006 Posts: 47	This is out of the California Handgun Safety Certificate Program. "The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury." It's on the test. I think she did what she was supposed to. She was within the law.

January 7, 2013, 03:46 PM	#37
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Of course, she was in GA, not CA, but the concept is similar.