Feel Good Story of the Year

[Katzndogz]

Robbery victim wants to thank Good Samaritans who came to his rescue | khou.com Houston

After he was robbed, Dorsey began running down the street and says two men in a Mercedes asked him what had happened.
Dorsey told them and they not only caught up with the suspect, but they started shooting at him.
The suspect fired back. In the end, the two witnesses turned vigilantes won and took down the bad guy.
“I don’t believe in guns,” said Dorsey. “I don’t own a gun. I’m totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn’t protect myself.”
After the robber had been shot, police say he jumped over a fence and was attacked by a German Shepherd. That attack prevented him from getting away.

Shot, then held by a dog until the police arrived. Libs would rather the robber got away because the guns were banned, next the dogs will be banned too.

 

[there4eyeM]

Points we are supposed to learn from this story:

- Robbery now carries the death penalty.
- The guys in the car started shooting on the word of someone they didn't know.
- Anyone who questions that this is good news is a 'lib' and, thus not only wrong, but evil.

Certain people here will find this a happy story.

Some others will think a bit.

 

[Katzndogz]

The police take the word of people they don't know every day.

A lib will totally ignore the fact that the "suspect" fired his gun at the two pursuers. They won't pay a bit of attention to that. The robber is an innocent man enforcing his rights to equality.

Then he got bitten by a dog. Yes, a feel good story. If robbery carried the death penalty, carried out immediately, we would have way fewer robberies.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Don't give Obama any ideas.

First, he wants the government to decide what medical treatments our senior citizens receive, based on "cost versus benefit".

Next, to control the population, Obama will make parking violations subject to the death penalty.

 

[there4eyeM]

Police shoot people on the mere word of others?

Who fired first?

Fewer robberies or more barbarity?

'Lib', whatever that means to whomever, has zero to do with it. Anyone seriously promoting this kind of action is assuring that firearms will be further controlled.

 

[Katzndogz]

Police shoot people on the mere word of others?

Who fired first?

Fewer robberies or more barbarity?

'Lib', whatever that means to whomever, has zero to do with it. Anyone seriously promoting this kind of action is assuring that firearms will be further controlled.

According to the article, the robber fired first.

I expect that libs will want firearms further controlled for the very reason that the streets must be made safe for criminals.

 

[there4eyeM]

Police shoot people on the mere word of others?

Who fired first?

Fewer robberies or more barbarity?

'Lib', whatever that means to whomever, has zero to do with it. Anyone seriously promoting this kind of action is assuring that firearms will be further controlled.

According to the article, the robber fired first.

I expect that libs will want firearms further controlled for the very reason that the streets must be made safe for criminals.

Odd that the article gives the chronology in the same order as the OP; i.e., the guys chasing fired first.

I expect people who refuse to be reasonable about firearms will see them severely limited. That is too bad, because I see nothing wrong with weapons in responsible hands. Those who present no danger will be regulated the same as the irresponsible.

 

[Dot Com]

is there a name what wrong w/ you Katzndogz aside from being a certified rw kool aid drinking FAILtroll?

 

[Ernie S.]

Police shoot people on the mere word of others?

Who fired first?

Fewer robberies or more barbarity?

'Lib', whatever that means to whomever, has zero to do with it. Anyone seriously promoting this kind of action is assuring that firearms will be further controlled.

According to the article, the robber fired first.

I expect that libs will want firearms further controlled for the very reason that the streets must be made safe for criminals.

Odd that the article gives the chronology in the same order as the OP; i.e., the guys chasing fired first.

I expect people who refuse to be reasonable about firearms will see them severely limited. That is too bad, because I see nothing wrong with weapons in responsible hands. Those who present no danger will be regulated the same as the irresponsible.

No, idiot Those who present no danger will grumble and moan but comply up to a point. Criminals i.e. the irresponsible will chuckle to themselves and be happy that their victims will be further limited.

 

[hjmick]

I posted this last night, got nothing.