 |
| Arizonan with Rifle slung at local treat shop |
The exchange occurs in the video from 1:55 to 2:22:
Mark Curtis, anchor, 12News:
"Someones carrying a gun, and they're with their children, and they see a man walk into a Starbucks with a rifle on his shoulder. What would stop them from blowing your client away?
Marc Victor, attorney:
Well, the fact that the law prohibits that unless there is an imminent risk of deadly physical force, or....
Mark Curtis, Anchor 12News:
You don't think that a man carrying a rifle in a Starbucks, after what we have seen in Aurora, Colorado, would be enough reason for someone that is carrying a gun to think that they are in imminent danger?
Video of the interview between Anchor Mark Curtis and Attorney Marc Victor
No charges have been filed against Doctor Steinmetz, and the hearings have been vacated.
That did not happen fast enough to stop the local, national, and international media from blaring headlines and his name around the world:
Doctor points AR-15 rifle at woman and teen in airport
Video from the airport security cameras now shows those charges to be false. If you look in the background in the interview video, you can see that Dr. Steinmetz never points his rifle at anyone. Clearly, Mark Curtis knows this, because he never mentions the previous charges, preferring to attack with his weird assertion that someone in a Starbucks, who sees a man enter with a rifle slung over his shoulder, would be justified in "blowing away" the open carrier.
Many of those who want a disarmed population advocate for death to armed citizens. Some have advocated calling 911 and lying. Some have advocated provoking panic when they see an open carrier. Some have said that they should leave without paying their bills. Some have said that they would try to provoke a confrontation between armed citizens and police. But this is the first case that I have seen where a prominent media person has claimed that being armed is sufficient cause to justify being "blown away".
This flies in the face of all the facts. Open carry protesters are exceptionally safe, at least as safe as police officers. This simply makes sense. They know they are in the public eye. Even an article at the NYTs notices that safety is not an issue at these events. The FBI notes that criminals almost never openly carry, and seldom carry in holsters.
I do not see how Mark Curtis can claim any credibility on second amendment issues, no matter how many "I believe in the second amendment, but.." statements that he issues.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
Posts
4 comments:
If I ever have a lobotomy, I suppose I can become a news anchor. It's apparently too obvious for a TV newshack to notice, but none - again not one - of those who've flexed their rights by walking into a restaurant or business has threatened anyone - at least anyone with two live ganglia to rub together. Whether a MomsDemandXanax member - or newsreader - 'feels' threatened by the presence of inanimate machinery... On the other hand, just how much intelligence (obviously, too much to work a 'news' desk) does it require to realize that every massacre, every 'active shooter' incident, has taken place where - surprise, surprise - someone expected the magical 'no guns allowed' sign to protect against evil or psychotic murderers.
The correct word is "imminent", not "eminent"
Thank you for the correction.
So, according to the news anchor, a hypothetical woman with child, who (the woman) also is carrying a gun, is justified in brandishing HER weapon and/or "blowing away" the guy with the rifle? That makes NO sense at all! One carrier allowed to shoot, the other not? Try this one on: the rifle slung over shoulder point down; woman pulls gun and starts shooting. Who's the victim here? Certainly not a justifiable shooting "because I got a child with me"! Sheesh. These guys always invent straw dogs to shoot down! Liberalism IS a mental disease!!
Post a Comment