One of the saddest examples of how far our media has fallen

[CrazyPhuD]

Generally speaking I don't watch the news and I can't stand any of the major outlets. I am particularly anti places like MSNBC or Foxnews that have no objectivity. But this style of reporting should revolt everyone.

What happened to our news being objective analysis instead of blatant marketing for whatever idea a particular reporter wants to push???? I guess being objective is too boring and no one would want to watch...

So here's the highlight important bits

• Intruder breaks into house
• Women takes two children and retreats through THREE LOCKED doors and up into a crawlspace
• Intruder hears someone in house, breaks through THREE LOCKED doors and opens crawlspace.
• Woman shoots intruder when she has nowhere else to go

and the USAtoday seems to think that the point they should lead with and bold is.....

The man pleaded for her to stop, but she kept firing until she emptied her rounds

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ruder/1821905/

Honestly do you think the media was intending to tell the facts of the story, or to build public opinion that what she did was wrong???

W
T
F

I'm not personally a big self defense fan because I don't personally believe I could shoot someone except in the most extreme of cases. But damn I'm amazed at what this women did, she likely has little training and completely panicked and yet she still hit 5 of 6 shoots. Considering I believe police hit < 20% of shots fired on average that's amazing. She's either one hell of a shot or he was REALLY REALLY close. The simple reality is that I think in that situation the vast majority of people would be so scared that no matter what the guy says almost everyone is going to be pulling that trigger until they hit and empty chamber. It's not evil intent, it's unbridled panic.

Un ****ing believable by the media.....

[HonestChieffan]

Agenda anyone?

[frazod]

Yeah, that poor unfortunate criminal, pleading for his life. It just breaks your heart.

**** him. If he was just there to steal, and knew they were hidden away, he could have simply looted valuables and got away. Instead, he went straight after his intended victim. Oops! The only bad thing is that the ****ing animal survived - hopefully he'll die in the hospital.

Nice hatchet job by another liberal rag.

[La literatura]

I think the subtitle was intended to be attentionly-grabbing gruesome, and I think your reaction is reasonable. But the article seems to show her in a positive light.

[LiveSteam]

She was on the phone with her husband.I just listen to that phone call. it went something like this.
Husband/Are you at home?
Wife/Yes i am in the closet with the kids.
H/if he opens the closet door you shoot him. Remember what I have shown you & taught you.

At about this time husband calls police from his work.

W/hes opening the door
H/SHOOT!
H/ To 911 operator/ She is shooting
H to W/ Shoot him again! Shoot him again.

The guy was freakishly calm through the entire event. My guess? he knew he had trained her well for just this situation. I really was quite amazed at what I listen to tonight. Props dude.

Edit--- Found it. man this husband is calm cool & COLLECTED! http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/10...home-intruder/

[rockymtnchief]

Get him a bandaid and sandwich, honey.

I'd have told her to keep shooting also. A gun emptied in him is a gun that won't be taken away and used on the wife and kids.

[aturnis]

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

[KChiefer]

You're singling out one FACTUAL sentence in the entire article and then deeming it a smear job. OK.

Personally, I find that sentence hilarious. Like a maced rapist begging someone to stop kicking them in the balls!

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

For some reason, I would normally agree to a degree. But the fact that she had her kids with her makes me more sympathetic to her actions.

[InChiefsHell]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

Um...if it were my wife and kids I'd say shoot that mfer till he was swiss cheese. But then, I don't want anything to happen to my wife and kids. Guess that makes me...weird...

[rockymtnchief]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

IIRC, she used a .38?

Twenty or so years ago, a Billings policeman shot a man with his .38, had it wrestled from him, and killed with his own gun. Empty that .38 in your target. No pity when someone's after your wife and kids.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

You're singling out one FACTUAL sentence in the entire article and then deeming it a smear job. OK.

Personally, I find that sentence hilarious. Like a maced rapist begging someone to stop kicking them in the balls!

So really the point is in human psychology. Like the age old adage, first impressions are everything. It sets the tone and perception of the reader to start. If you lead the reader off with a negative view they are more likely to interpret the results in a negative light. Often people don't even read entire articles so what you tell them in the beginning may be all they really read.

That's what is really egregious, the bolded, most eye catching part of the article imply's that she's a murderer. Now that may have been a gruesome way to get people to read the article. But it's blatant misrepresentation of the facts of the case to imply she tried to murder the intruder in cold blood. That's what galls me.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

Honestly had she shot him say in the hallway of her house as he entered the house my opinion of her would probably be fairly different than what she did.

Consider her actions, her first act was to gather her children and go up to her bedroom and lock the door. Allowing the intruder free range of the house to steal whatever he wanted. She then further retreated to the bathroom and locked THAT door. Still further she retreated up a crawl space. At any point in time she would have been legally permitted to leave her hiding place and come out and shoot him and it would have been justified.

She made every effort to retreat and then some. Yet he still pursued them. Can you imagine what would be going through your wife/gf's mind as she's hearing a person break through both her bedroom and bathroom door with a crowbar? Shear and complete panic would be my guess.

When you're under the influence of adrenaline your perception of time can totally change. She likely had no idea how many times she pulled the trigger and didn't realize it was empty until the gun stopped firing. For her to be panicked and still hit the guy 5 times out of 6 she had to be at near point blank range.

Even shot 5 times the dude was still able to to leave the house and get into his SUV. If that doesn't describe someone who is still a potential threat I don't know what does.

Even so that lady will likely be scared for life about what she had to do. An this reporter has the gall to imply that she tried to murder the intruder....just no words......

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

So really the point is in human psychology. Like the age old adage, first impressions are everything. It sets the tone and perception of the reader to start. If you lead the reader off with a negative view they are more likely to interpret the results in a negative light. Often people don't even read entire articles so what you tell them in the beginning may be all they really read.

That's what is really egregious, the bolded, most eye catching part of the article imply's that she's a murderer. Now that may have been a gruesome way to get people to read the article. But it's blatant misrepresentation of the facts of the case to imply she tried to murder the intruder in cold blood. That's what galls me.

It's a good thing there was more to the article then. As Lit said and you have acknowledged, highlighting that sentence was an attention grabber....and it's working.

[2bikemike]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Breaking into somebody's home is stupid. It doesn't have to end in death. If she shot him, and clearly gained the upper hand, she should have stopped, let the cops pick him up and let a jury decide his fate.

You idiots probably defend cops who murder idiots.

LEO are taught to shoot until the threat is completely neutralized. Sounds to me like her husband trained her well. She shot until the threat was nuetralized.

I will just add that even though she did everything possible to avoid shooting this scumbag, her nightmare is not over, its only beginning. She and her children will need some serious counseling.