TexasCHLforum.com

It's infuriating that the "news" media feels it's okay to impose on someone at the worst time in their lives. I realize that "blood sells" to the "news" media, but I find such profiteering disgusting.

Chas.

If he is mentally unstable (I do not know his exact diagnosys) With or without firearms he may be danger for himself and/or others. Adding Aggravated Robbery to the mix, is nothing but a disaster. Whoever supplied him with firearm and conspired to commit the felony crime has to have enhanced punishment.

Because the perp failed to scream "I give up, don't shoot!" after the first shot?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's infuriating that the "news" media feels it's okay to impose on someone at the worst time in their lives. I realize that "blood sells" to the "news" media, but I find such profiteering disgusting.

Chas.

...to say the least.

Suspect killed during Popeye's robbery possibly linked to other crimes
https://www.ksat.com/news/suspect-kille ... 3Dsharebar


Arrest warrants link dead robbery suspect to pawn shop robbery
https://www.ksat.com/news/arrest-warran ... op-robbery

#ArmedCitizen #2A @NRAArmedCitizen

Apparently being shot while committing a crime comes as a surprise to some folks.

The media, goes to a grieving sobbing momma to get a statement. She's a Mom, having the worst experience in her life crying sobbing and the press heads to her asking questions.

Just thinking out loud but, maybe we should pass a law that we get to shoot the MSM that assault grieving family members.

Just thinking out loud but, maybe we should pass a law that we get to shoot the MSM that assault grieving family members.

So, should we honor the 2nd Amendment, but not the 1st?

So...only 1 shot per criminal should be signed into law...paging St. Louis/Chicago/San Francisco/NYC city leaders...paging Al Sharpton and all other pro-criminal types...if caught perpetrating a crime one should only be shot once cuz more than once just aint fair...criminal gotta eat too...

Chaparral wrote:

Just thinking out loud but, maybe we should pass a law that we get to shoot the MSM that assault grieving family members.

So, should we honor the 2nd Amendment, but not the 1st?

Although I was speaking tongue in cheek. If I were approached by a reporter under such conditions, I would want at least the right to pummel that lowlife into a heap. I think a right to protect ourselves from assault outweighs the 1st ammendment right to get the story. JMHO.

Obviously there is not even a remote "correct amount" of shots that will end the threat, and there are too many variables in the mix to make any sort of reply to that woman's question about the five shots.

On the topic of over-aggressive reporters, no one should give any statement to them. As difficult as it surely would be, they should be met with stone-faced stares and a simple, direct, and emphatic "No comment, leave me alone". Enough people do that, the reporters might get the hint. If they continue and become more aggressive, then I would swear out a complaint of harassment against them.

K.Mooneyham is exactly right.

Few, possibly none, ever report the facts. They make up, embellish, lie,.....

What am I saying?

Reporters aren't to be trusted.

Follow K.Mooneyham' advice if ever you're involved into something that attracts their 'blue bottle fly' attention.

I was thinking about this, I suppose only one shot would do if it were a contact shot to the brainstem.

Heck, if the police can shoot a man crawling on his hands and knees five times, would it not be reasonable to think a man standing with a gun in his hand may require five or more?