Pelican Parts Forums - Media Spin and the 2nd Amendment

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/index.php)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)

- - Media Spin and the 2nd Amendment (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?t=372806)

Media Spin and the 2nd Amendment

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-student-shot_weboct18,1,7527823.story

Quote:

No charges for man who shot drunk U. of C. student
A man who shot a threatening University of Chicago student in the chest Wednesday night acted in self defense and will not be charged, authorities said today.
...
The 24-year-old student, who was drunk and carrying a vodka bottle, followed the man out of the elevator and down the hall, threatening to "hit him in the head with the bottle," Kubiak said. As the man entered his apartment, the student kicked the door and pushed it open, continuing to yell threats, she said.

The apartment's resident retrieved a handgun and shot the student once in the chest as he entered the apartment, Kubiak said.

Some thoughts:

1) To me, the title of the article presumes the man who did the shooting should be charged. It also gives them impresson that the shooting was unprovoked.

2) In Chicago, it is illegal to own a handgun unless it is registered with the city. The city stopped accepting new registrations in 1980. I've noticed that Chicago generally will not charge people in cases of self defense, as they are afraid it will bring a court challenge and get the law overturned. Had the handgun been "found" in the apartment or used in a crime, the owner would have been charged.

I dunno, to me the headline says some guy who shot some drunk college student is not being charged with anything. Pretty cut and dry.

The very 1st paragraph says the kid was threatening and it was self defense.

I'm ok with it.

Like I said, "to me..." I might have read too much into the title...

Are they charging the drunk kid with making terrorist threats, home invasion and a host of others? I would.

The kid made threats of bodily harm, "kicked the door and pushed it open" and "entered the apartment."

If that were my home, they would not be able to charge the kid after the fact. Corpses don't tend to show up for court.

Well, the homeowner may be guilty of poor marksmanship. He should have made sure the perp was dead. Now he'll be sued into the poorhouse.

After being hit in the chest at presumably short range, his assailant actually made it to the hospital and remains in critical condition. Sounds like he needs a bigger gun.

A friend of mine recently became a physical therapist. One of his patients is a Chicago gangbanger. This guy was shot four times at point-blank range with a .22. He was hit twice in the shoulder and twice in the leg. He will survive, but one of the bullets severed a nerve in his arm and he no longer has use of his hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 3538785)

Are they charging the drunk kid with making terrorist threats, home invasion and a host of others? I would.

Ditto, tack on assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder.

what is the problem with the headline? the whole idea is to get you to read the article. the rest of the story is contained inside.

'After being hit in the chest at presumably short range, his assailant actually made it to the hospital and remains in critical condition. Sounds like he needs a bigger gun.'

That's not my feeling on defense with a handgun. I would just want the threat to stop.
Jim

It's impossible for me to know if a shooting was justified from a story like this. Not saying it wasn't, just that I have no idea whether the guy (shooter) could have just shoved the guy out the door or kicked his ass, etc... A drunk waving a booze bottle is not necessarily the same as a charging grizzly bear, but like I said, I wasn't there. Apparently the DA, or whoever charges in that jurisdiction, thought that the shooting was clean; or at the very least, not a winner for their office to prosecute.

Shooting drunks in the chest is no joke, they usually don't survive. I don't take that stuff lightly, but I would shoot someone given the right impetus.

I'm shocked that you didn't blame liberals by name for this hideous journalistic transgression :p

No wait, I'm not shocked, I'm outraged. OUTRAGED!

Higgins, are you with me?

I'm right behind you. More evidence that this once great nation is spiraling down the drain at the hands of this hideous liberal journalistic conspiracy. When my state of shock subsides, and the feeling of awe passes, I'm going to get outraged. Outraged, I tell you...

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion (Post 3538862)

A friend of mine recently became a physical therapist. One of his patients is a Chicago gangbanger. ... one of the bullets severed a nerve in his arm and he no longer has use of his hand.

and hopefully it's his favored shooting arm... :rolleyes:

Gotta love Larry Elder:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071018/cm_uc_crlelx/op_244129

Quote:

Professor and economist John Lott checked 280 separate news stories in the week after the Appalachian Law School shooting, and only found four that mentioned the students who stopped the shooter had guns. The Washington Post, for example, said the students "helped subdue" the killer. Newsday wrote the shooter was "restrained by students." The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, however, wrote that the shooter "was wrestled to the ground by fellow students, one of whom aimed his own revolver at [the killer]." Four months later, the Times-Dispatch detailed the students' actions, including the second student's use of a gun.