Shadow8088
Expert
- Jul 24, 2012
- 972
- 28
Come on.. this ain't your first rodeo... you know good and well that if the cops did it they'd be cleared of any wrongdoing...
You and I are in total agreement.What we have here is a criminal or stupid joy seeker who happens to be Black and a home owner/defender who happens to be White.
The kid had no reason to be in that yard, whatsoever and the homeowner MAY not have had a right to protect his property and possibly his life and family. I see a real problem here and the skin color of the individuals is not it.
The MSM doesn't seem to have picked this one up so far...
You and I are in total agreement.
The question is, will the MEDIA blow this out of proportion in the same way they created the mess in Sanford, Florida?
Its getting attention here because I chose to write a headline to garner attention. The media uproar may not occur in this case if they look at the fact that the kid climbed onto private property. Or the fact that the kid's brother says he is a young thief. Its hard to turn this kid into a saint. On the other hand, it appears, at least in Louisiana law, the MSM will get a conviction of a white man for shooting a black kid.Why wouldn't they? It's getting attention here just from the headline. Why wouldn't they follow the same and blueprint as last time? If course they will say the uproar isn't their fault. After all, they are only reporters. White people will say it's the fault of the media, race baiters and racist Blacks. Blacks will say it's being publicised because of systematic bigotry and racism in the media and our society in general.
Hopefully people here will look at the facts. I've tried to provide the facts, but we are very limited at this time to some minimal media reports, Legal Isurrection's post, and our amature interpretations of the Louisiana law.I don't give the media too much opportunity to feed me. My question is, how much will INGO blow this out of proportion?
What we have here is a criminal or stupid joy seeker who happens to be Black and a home owner/defender who happens to be White.
The kid had no reason to be in that yard, whatsoever and the homeowner MAY not have had a right to protect his property and possibly his life and family. I see a real problem here and the skin color of the individuals is not it.
Grabbing a gun to go outside and check out what is happening is prudent. I've done it and will continue to do it. If someone is there, I would definitely do something to let them know I was there. Probably by saying what are you doing, can I help you, or get the hell out of here. But, if they continued forward, responded threateningly, or didn't answer all bets are off. I probably wouldn't shoot immediately if the latter response is in play, but the alert level would go up. The other responses...shooting is at the top of the list.
OK. . . .
I think it also is telling that the neighbor who saw the kids on the bikes at 0144 hrs did not call police "for fear of profiling" (paraquote)... That should have been the absolute last thing on his/her mind. . .Blessings,
Bill
Man oh man...
After I've already spent my day commenting on Mr.Conservative with my anti-Trayvon support and pro-Zimmerman, this is just bad. We have a MAJOR bandwagon president that will completely love to use this to his advantage.
Remember, Trayvon would be what Obama's theoretical son would have looked like. I'm sure this 14 year old would have been, too - just waiting for our pres. to declare it.
So if you're under attack and you fire once and the bad guy drops... Upon inspection you see in the heat of the moment/under the adrenaline you shot them in the face/head...It could be argued that the head shot is not a reactionary shot.. That took some aiming... and just 1 round fired? sorry.. that doesn't sound like self-defense to me...
I realize Most INGOers were PERFECT little angles when they were teenagers