So where is the national media for Daniel Adkins?

[hacksawfg]

Yeah, I know

But still, here is another situation almost identical to the Trayvon Martin case, except for one key difference (I'll let you guys figure it out). I don't really give a crap where Sharpton and Jackson are, I want to know is where is the media? Did they all of a sudden become responsible? I mean, we even have a dog involved in the story who wouldn't leave the owners side, how much more news ready can you get?

Family of Man Shot at Taco Bell Talks to Fox 10

 

[cobber]

No they didn't get suddenly responsible. It doesn't fit into their template of news appropriate for public indignation.

And don't hold your breath waiting for Al or Jesse. I hear they're headed to North Korea to alleviate human suffering there. (no they're not...)

 

[IndyDave1776]

And don't hold your breath waiting for Al or Jesse. I hear they're headed to North Korea to alleviate human suffering there. (no they're not...)

We couldn't get that lucky, especially considering the reception they likely would receive.

 

[cobber]

We couldn't get that lucky, especially considering the reception they likely would receive.

We can always HOPE...

 

[XDdreams]

There are way to many of these cases / situations that happen daily, the key differnce is what can be gained politically if certain ones are exploited. Well, we are finding out that with trayvon, gun control and race relations are shining through. It's disgusting to use the loss of life for gain, but the fact is, its happening right infront of our eyes, and a great many are taking the bait.

 

[hornadylnl]

We're only one more of these threads away from true racial harmony.

 

[Zoub]

We're only one more of these threads away from true racial harmony.

Define "We"

 

[hornadylnl]

Define "We"

Mankind

 

[hacksawfg]

I guess here's my point with the post (and I know I'm probably preaching to the choir).

A 17-year kid who may have just acted really stupidly (not atypical for your common 17-year old) and confronted someone who may have been following him is dead; nobody will ever know what kind of person he might been as an adult. A 29-year man with developmental disabilities was shot while walking his dog because he yelled (and possibly took a swing) at someone who almost ran him over- his family will also never see him again.

And yet one case gets coverage and one does not. What pisses me off is most media saying it's too many guns, it's stand your ground laws, etc. Unless they're going to cover other similar situations in the same manner (i.e. publicize the shooters name before arrest, present evidence without checking facts, etc.), the media can't say they're anything but full of <not getting banned again> about their true motives. THEY made it about race, not us.

Either way, seems to me the big common thread between both cases is that both shooters certainly didn't handle the situation in the best manner (Zimmerman should've probably stayed in his car, and the mystery man in Arizona probably should have just rolled up his window and driven away). Not saying it should be mandatory, but it would certainly be helpful for carry permit issuers to at least make accessible some level of instruction on different ways to handle situations that may commonly arise (i.e. road rage, suspicious activity, fights between other persons, etc.). When my wife was pregnant with our first, the hospital provided free (or very reasonably priced) classes that helped us understand a lot more about the process. We didn't have to take them, but we did, and learned a lot. It was certainly nice for them to be offered.

 

[joale]

We're only one more of these threads away from true racial harmony.

We may need juuuust a few more. But we have to be getting close.

 

[joale]

I guess here's my point with the post (and I know I'm probably preaching to the choir).

And yet one case gets coverage and one does not. What pisses me off is most media saying it's too many guns, it's stand your ground laws, etc. Unless they're going to cover other similar situations in the same manner (i.e. publicize the shooters name before arrest, present evidence without checking facts, etc.), the media can't say they're anything but full of <not getting banned again> about their true motives. THEY made it about race, not us.

The media folks will highlight/exploit whatever story that gives them ratings or supports the political agenda of the folks that own the media companies.

Either way, seems to me the big common thread between both cases is that both shooters certainly didn't handle the situation in the best manner (Zimmerman should've probably stayed in his car, and the mystery man in Arizona probably should have just rolled up his window and driven away). Not saying it should be mandatory, but it would certainly be helpful for carry permit issuers to at least make accessible some level of instruction on different ways to handle situations that may commonly arise

So the gubment (permit/license issuers) should provide training? Maybe we could have Mayor Bloomberg write the curriculum. Some states require training...some don't. If common sense were a little more common, we would probably have fewer of these types of cases...maybe.

 

[Hookeye]

If only there was a class..............

like the responsibility (especially legal) should be dumped onto some sort of teacher, or curriculum (and/or whoever came up with it).

Hate that kind of non thinking.

 

[hacksawfg]

So the gubment (permit/license issuers) should provide training? Maybe we could have Mayor Bloomberg write the curriculum. Some states require training...some don't. If common sense were a little more common, we would probably have fewer of these types of cases...maybe.

That's a big if relating to common sense. The fact is not every gun owner is going to take the time to go to the range and meet with fellow gun owners, or come someplace like INGO to educate themselves (although one would hope). What I am stating is that it would be helpful if some entity (I don't care who) would at least make available (NOT mandatory) the opportunity at a reasonable cost/free to John Q. Public who may have never shot a gun before but wants to exercise his/her rights to defend themselves the information he/she really should understand such as:

carrying doesn't make you an officer of the law

don't intervene in a situation that doesn't involve you unless necessary to prevent loss of life, etc., otherwise call the authorities

if you carry, you'd better be able to pull the trigger

you will have a lot of scrutiny placed on your actions if you do have to pull the trigger to defend yourself, and it's probably not going to be the most pleasant experience of your life

If nothing else, at least make sure they understand Cooper's four rules of gun safety.

 

[MikeDVB]

"Why is a guy even driving around to Taco Bell with a loaded gun?” Apparently she believes that the police being minutes away when seconds count is acceptable.