Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumYet another teen has used deadly force to protect his home from intruders.
'I just shot the man': Boy, 14, kills intruder after gang of FOUR men try to break into house where he was home alone with his sister
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082698/Boy-14-kills-intruder-Michael-Henderson-gang-FOUR-men-try-break-house.html#ixzz1icVReARi
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Good kid.
Only problem I see is the dispatcher illegally ordering the kid to not protect himself.
SteveW
(754 posts)The one in Oklahoma seemed to do the right thing by saying in effect that the 18-yr-old should defend herself and her daughter; the N.C. dispatcher seemed to give poor advice in recommending that the boy not fire his gun at the intruders. However, it is possible that the dispatcher feared that LEO might be at risk when they arrived.
Perhaps better procedure would be for the dispatcher to notify arriving LEOs that the would-be victim had fired on home-invaders so that they could take precautions. This would be better than a desperate discussion of law, castle doctrine, liability, and gun politics during a home invasion.
___________
One positive outcome from these incidents is that MSM seems increasingly willing to publicize proper self-defense measures; I just wish there was more of it. Maybe then thugs and punks will begin to get the message.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The dispatcher should just do their damn job and dispatch cops, rather than attempt to control the situation.
I get so angry at government functionaries who seem to think their input is valid in situations where it obviously is not.
SteveW
(754 posts)Fourier
(27 posts)That's all they need to do.
burf
(1,164 posts)seeing what the laws are on guns there.
The Daily Mail isn't a newspaper, it's a rag. Daily Mail readers are known to move their lips when they read it.
It has long been engaged in (among other far right-wing political crusades) a concerted effort to persuade the great British public that its government hates it and prohibits it from defending itself against evil people.
It sensationalizes news, and publishes sensational non-news.
It has been riding this hobbyhorse at least since the beginnings of the saga of Tony Martin, the violently unpleasant bigot who shot and killed an unarmed fleeing teenaged burglar in the back outside his farmhouse (and was eventually convicted and served a prison term) a decade ago. It has a strongly vested interest here: selling newspapers to right-wing morons.
The fact that a domestic US story appears in the Daily Mail is equivalent to a domestic UK story being reported on FoxNews: it's there for a reason, and the reason has nothing to do with informing the public; it has to do with manipulating the public and promoting a political agenda.
burf
(1,164 posts)such as this? Do they ignore them?
So home invasion is not a problem in the UK? What would the penalty be (if any) for a homeowner defending his/her home or family in the manner reported? Or would it not be an issue because the homeowner would not be allowed to have the weapon in their home?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Are all homicides given this kind of media attention in the US -- and then in the UK?
As for your queries about situations in the UK: maybe you want to ask google. Not to be harsh, but really, I'm not the local encyclopedia.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)it was a 14 year old boy, defending his sister and his home against four men, which lead to one of the intruders deaths. I'd say that's pretty newsworthy, I mean I've seen more important pieces but I've also seen a lot less compelling news stories. It's also probably a story because of the old phrase "If it bleeds, it leads". A bit of a cynical outlook but none the less true about the media. Violent stories garner more attention from readers.
I'd say its a pretty compelling story. If you where asking about why it is a story in the UK, I can only speculate. Maybe it has to do with what you said about the daily mail, I've heard similar things before but I'm not really up to date on the UK media; but maybe because it also deals with firearms used in the defense of the home, something that doesn't happen very often in the UK due to their gun laws.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Penalty for a homeowner defending his family? Ask Tony Martin. He's currently serving a life sentence for doing just that.
SteveW
(754 posts)the "slant" of coverage on self-defense issues, maybe some "progressive" papers should do the same? Here is a follow-up story which should convince folks of how a mom defends herself and her baby.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082210/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-week-babys-father-died-cancer.html
iverglas
(38,549 posts)is the subject of a thread in this forum and another in GD, I believe. Perhaps you've managed to miss them.
What "slant", exactly, would a "progressive" paper apply to a story like this?
A crime was committed and a person defended themself. Seems pretty straightforward.
It isn't an issue of "slant". It's an issue of content and choice of content.
The issue is that the Daily Mail and its various counterparts in the media hype up stories like this not to inform the public about what is really a very insignificant news item -- how many women in Africa defended themselves, successfully or unsuccessfully, against violent assaults in the course of wars waged over commodities on the same day in history, just for starters? -- but to foment opinion in support of a political agenda.
The Mail can't find enough homegrown tales for that purpose, one presumes, so they look farther afield.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)a progressive paper would ignore it or spend a couple of paragraphs on the chances of her accidently shooting herself. That is why I read it all with a grain of salt.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Abject nonsense.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the same progressive sites that complained that Bush's terror watch list did not have any terrorists until someone in congress decided to add those names be added to NICS? Then that list magically became real Al Qaida terrorists. Not nonsense at all, just being honest.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)in the nation's capital.
He said that they might shoot themselves.
This kind of argument is sound and reasonable when convenient and "abject nonsense" when inconvenient. But your spin cannot change reality. This argument has been made by "serious" "progressives." If I cared enough, I'm sure I could find examples of this in "progressive papers." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you agreed. (Though I would be shocked if you were honest enough to admit it.)
It's not abject nonsense that such arguments have been made, along with "blood in the streets" and "Dodge city" warnings. It's just inconvenient.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)perhaps you would actually reply to the post you are looking at.
It's not abject nonsense that such arguments have been made
No one was talking about any arguments made.
My comment was about a particular statement:
a progressive paper would ignore it or spend a couple of paragraphs on the chances of her accidently shooting herself.
If you have something to offer to substantiate the assertion that a progressive paper would spend a couple of paragraphs on the chances of the individual in this story shooting herself, please offer it.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It's not abject nonsense that a "progressive paper" would spend two paragraphs on the danger of this woman (or others like her) shooting herself in a story like this. Complete with alarming anecdotes, Brady "expert opinion" and manipulated statistics.
And if you consider my refuting your bullshit to be paying you attentions, your life is sad indeed.
If you consider an outlandish restatement of the outlandish claim that I had initially challenged to be "refuting" anything, rational people the world over weep.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Not so sure of it. This time last year I would have said the same thing about poorly written articles about how easy it is to get automatic weapons at gun shows without background checks. The source? Some guy claiming to be with Al Qaida. Did the writer think to check with the ATF or look it up? No. Would I have believed that "progressives" would be hypocritical about Bush's bogus list? No. Yet, it happened.
The adage "Truth is the first casualty of war" applies.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)shooting. He claimed that the 9mm cartridge possesses an exceptionally large bullet. Outlandish to expect bullshit from the media on the subject of firearms and gun restriction? More like outlandish to expect sane reporting!
ileus
(15,396 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)On "Political Agendas:" If it weren't for MSM in the U.S., the gun-control "movement" would be as dead as liquor prohibition.
The question was: What "slant", exactly, would a "progressive" paper apply to a story like this?
How could the answer to that depend on what is meant by "progressive"?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Maybe he could have used some Judo on them.
"He continues: 'I don't know how many it was (who broke in). Just one came around the corner. I got one more in the chamber. I'm going to shoot again,' the boy said.
'Do not, while I’m on the phone, do not fire that firearm, OK?' the dispatcher says
'What if another one comes in the house, ma'am?' he asked.
'Let me know, OK, if you see anybody. I will let you know (when a deputy gets to the house),' the dispatcher responded."
I guess that dispatcher figured he should have just let those intruders have whatever they wanted, too. Maybe he could have offered up his sister like that dude in the Bible that offered up his daughters.
"Police said the teen will not face any charges for killing Michael Henderson on December 29.
Under North Carolina's Castle Doctrine Law, homeowners can use deadly force if they fear their lives are in danger."
Exactly what the Castle Doctrine is supposed to do.
DWC
(911 posts)We should have heard about this from ABC or NBC, or CBS or USA Today. Instead it comes from a UK publicaton.
MSM stinks.
Semper Fi,
Fourier
(27 posts)rapidly decline.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)or reason for posting this?
(Funny how no one has described this as drive-by litter the way so many would have if a news item had been posted this way by a known firearms control advocate ...)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)One can either ask the Op to start the conversation, or one can ignore the Op and start one himself.
Had I got here first, I would have asked for the Op to start the conversation. No double standard from me.
Swede
(33,265 posts)I thought this was the correct forum for it.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)wish to impose on the us the homeowner would be arrested for not having the firearms"properly secured". They would be removed from the property, the license revoked, and the parents facing prison sentences and fines.
Of course it is possible that without the firearm the goblins would have simply got the "stuff" that they wanted and left.
Or it also a possibility that they would have tied up the children and left them in the home.
Or it is a possibility that they could have done the above, then burned the house to cover thier crime.
So many possible scenerios to consider.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas