Breitbart.tv

Wait until the ACLU get wind of this story! With their track record, they’ll probably have him arrested and thrown in jail for life for daring to do harm to a criminal! The ACLU must be livid that a victim not only stands a chance of getting off free for daring to defend himself, but actually getting praise for doing it! That just isn’t the modern liberal way in America! Lucky for him he’s living in a sensible part of the country and not the Bay Area of California or somewhere similar with activist judges rewriting the law to their own preferences!

That’s what I’m talking about. Little chance of getting punched by a cop on this one. It’s very unfortunate though that this slimebag survived, opening this man up to retaliation. And why did police take his gun into custody? Perhaps they will replace it with a more appropriate home protection weapon like a sawed off .410 or 12GA filled with duck shot.

Lieten to the “question” (accusation) posed by the “journalist.”
DID HE PUSH YOU, DID HE HURT YOU IN ANY WAY?
This poor African-American! (the burglar.) He meant no harm breaking into the blind man’s home! He was just seeking shelter from all the racism out there! (Ha ha). The criminal, with a criminal record, is the VICTIM! Thank God for the media!

But now the cops took his gun away. Law enforcement is broken. They praise him (rightly) for defending himself and taking responsibility for his own safety, and then they remove the means he has to defend himself. Why do they need his weapon? Charge him with a crime or give him his gun back!

Why do the police have his gun? I’m sure that they justify keeping the gun so that they have the “evidence” in custody. Why not chop off the blind man’s hand and put them it cold storage, or maybe just his finger since he used it to pull the trigger. Or cut off his ears that he used to detect the intruder. – Give him back his gun NOW! You just advertised that he is unarmed so now a relative or friend of the intruder can go and “get even”.

I’m perplexed by referring to the gun as “in custody”. To me, it implies that “the gun” is a third party and somehow possesses a “person” status. Wouldn’t “police seized the weapon” be more fitting and descriptive? Either way, I’d like to hear their justification for taking away this brave man’s only expedient means of defense. What crime did he commit to constitute the seizure of his weapon?

It’s good that a black man shot the black intruder. If it was a blind white man this would be be questioned as racially motivated.

Good for the people who have the fortitude to protect themselves and therefore protect us all.

The blind man is now in more danger because the newscast informed all of the remaining hoolagins that the police took the man’s gun. Great thinking on the part of police and news people.

Post a Comment