Reporting the Simple Salient Facts in a Case of Self Defense

The way some outlets (oh, let's just take a random example....ummmmmm.....how about.....Associated Press) report crime stories, you'd almost get the impression that the reporter thinks that those killing their assailant in self-defense are unjustified in doing so. At least the story makes it look like the self-defender didn't know how to use the gun. And now, the rest of the story...


The Associated Press story begins thusly:

The owner of a popular pizza shop opened fire on three robbery suspects, killing one of them and apparently wounding his own son.


What does that conjure up in your mind? That he recklessly endangered his son's life? That he didn't know how to use a firearm? That he shouldn't have had a firearm on the premises?

I remember working as a college student at a 7-11, whose policy at the time was that we could not bring firearms on the premises. My employment was not in a particularly high-crime city, but I remember thinking how stupid that policy was. I still think that. So maybe that colors my opinion of the AP story a little bit.

So, in my opinion, color the AP version of the story the color of crap.

Here's what really happened:

Sgt. Jim Rullamas said Friday that Allen Joseph Hicks II, 22, of Oakland, who was carrying an assault pistol, came into the parlor with two other men, pointed the gun at the 41-year-old owner and said, "This is a robbery."

Besides his son, the owner's wife and two daughters also were in the parlor.

Rullamas said the parlor has been robbed before and the owner's brother was shot in the face in another robbery in 1992, which is why he kept a pistol on the premises.

The owner, whose name was not released, pulled the gun and shot at Hicks, hitting him more than once while the two other suspects fled.

The owner later told police he shot Hicks because "he was in fear of his life and his family's life," Rullamas said.

Despite being wounded, Hicks struggled with the owner. In the struggle another shot was fired — from whose gun authorities are not yet sure — and the 17-year-old son was hit in the abdomen. The owner suffered a cut over his eye in the struggle.

By the way, the Associated Press has a nice set of idiotic bookend paragraphs to sandwich their almost meatless story. Here's the final paragraph:

Friends left messages, balloons, candles and bottles of cognac at a makeshift memorial honoring Hicks on Friday.

Hicks is the robber. Oh, the poor guy!

Comments

  1. Leftists will tell you that the MSM is conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've noticed that, and it absolutely baffles me...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps reading this letter to the editor of the Standard Examiner will help you understand the thinking behind the claim that the MSM has a conservative bias.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You conveniently left out these paragraphs:

    "Catarino Piedra, 41, who owns Coliseum Pizza and Taqueria in East Oakland, won't be charged with a crime because prosecutors determined he was acting in self-defense, Alameda County Assistant District Tom Rogers said Friday."

    "Oakland police said Piedra appeared justified, but cautioned citizens against arming themselves."

    Remember, this was in the Bay Area of California...not exactly representative of Heartland, USA. Even there, the police admitted the shooting was justified.

    Of course, that fact does not support your agenda, does it? Best leave those quotes out.

    And Reach's statement "Leftists will tell you that the MSM is conservative" is patently false, with the exception of Faux News which completely lacks objectivity.

    For the record, this progressive does not consider the MSM conservative...just unprofessional, shallow and irrelevant. I suggest you watch Bill Moyers' most excellent documentary "Buying The War" (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html)

    Then contrast the MSM's performance in the run-up to the Iraq War with that of, say, the late great David Halberstam during Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please explain to me how these paragraphs go against what I had to say. I'm not sure of your logic, but then again that may be that I am simply illogical myself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs