Thank God we have tough gun laws

So, no one has been charged with anything, near as we know.

You guys are pretty worked up about a story in the "liberal media". I'd wait to see what happens before I get too bent out of shape.

"Second hero joined Officer Anthony Presley in Brooklyn gun battle"

Damn media putting the liberal spin on the story, again.

And, of course, turns out he isn't being charged with anything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576271453734115170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14471786

All charges are to be thrown out when in defense of ones life or safety from permanent injury. At least in my state. I carry my own anyway.

huge-O-chavez wrote: Good thing about that is that all gun owners who are willing to go through the legal and bureaucratic hassle, pass the background checks, pay the fees, and hope that their license is somehow actually issued and not arbitrarily rejected because they don't "need" a gun, and who by the way aren't often criminals to start with go through practical hands on safety and functionality training.

Fixed that for you.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: So, no one has been charged with anything, near as we know. You guys are pretty worked up about a story in the "liberal media". I'd wait to see what happens before I get too bent out of shape. "Second hero joined Officer Anthony Presley in Brooklyn gun battle" Damn media putting the liberal spin on the story, again.

i dont think the headline was the problem.

it was the really ambiguous line inside the article about 'sources say he could be charged.' What sources? Who? When?

its really just poor journalism.

madmallard wrote: its really just poor journalism.

The only good journalism in the last 20+ years has been wikileaks.

madmallard wrote: i dont think the headline was the problem. it was the really ambiguous line inside the article about 'sources say he could be charged.' What sources? Who? When? its really just poor journalism.

I agree. It is poor journalism. Why was that thrown in there? To create controversy. Controversy sells papers. Looks like it worked too. Everyone was all bent out of shape about charges that were never filed and were never likely to be filed.

But this particular bit of poor journalism gave a slant to the story that, it could be argued, was sympathetic to conservative issues. Yet, no one ever says "look at the conservative bias in the news!"

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: An older... maybe late 50s woman in granola clothes hops out with a brown paper bag, waves... ruffles around in the bushes some and pops out on the water in a canoe.

Way to berkeley with Tom.

ReverendDexter wrote:

madmallard wrote: its really just poor journalism.

The only good journalism in the last 20+ years has been wikileaks.

Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go?

He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

N Sperlo wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: An older... maybe late 50s woman in granola clothes hops out with a brown paper bag, waves... ruffles around in the bushes some and pops out on the water in a canoe.

Way to berkeley with Tom.

HA! Sorry I set off the false alarm.

One of the articles states he "comandeered" the officers gun and shot at people who were "alledgedly" trying to rob the store. Sound like the reporters are still trying to bury one in this guy.

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

Yeah, I'm curious on that as well. Supposedly there's some stuff in there that's REALLY bad for Ms. H. Rodham Clinton.

ReverendDexter wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

Yeah, I'm curious on that as well. Supposedly there's some stuff in there that's REALLY bad for Ms. H. Rodham Clinton.

I hope it's not naked pictures.

Wally wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

Yeah, I'm curious on that as well. Supposedly there's some stuff in there that's REALLY bad for Ms. H. Rodham Clinton.

I hope it's not naked pictures.

Now that would be a chargeable crime. (shudder)

carguy123 wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote:

madmallard wrote: its really just poor journalism.

The only good journalism in the last 20+ years has been wikileaks.

Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

he's busy pursuing his dancing career http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNqd4hW98sQ

ReverendDexter wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

Yeah, I'm curious on that as well. Supposedly there's some stuff in there that's REALLY bad for Ms. H. Rodham Clinton.

When people have dirt on the Clintons, they tend to die.

tuna55 wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Speaking of Wikileaks, where'd that guy go? He promised some insider documents on the Big Banks and then he disappeared? For good?

Yeah, I'm curious on that as well. Supposedly there's some stuff in there that's REALLY bad for Ms. H. Rodham Clinton.

When people have dirt on the Clintons, they tend to get suicided.

FIXED

Wait a minute, lets do the math: 16 shots fired + 5 bad guys = 0 dead bad guys

New Yorkers need to learn how to shoot!

It's hard to learn when you only see guns on tv

15 round mags are allowed by police only in NY, good thing it was a cop's gun he missed them all with