Monday, November 25, 2013

My care-o-meter is not lifting off the peg today

 because I read a story about parents being angry at a guy that shot their son.

Seems the young shooting victim was holding a gun on a storekeeper when a Good Samaritan came in and shot him.

For those of you that can't figure out what I am saying, the bottom line is this: some little thug rightfully got shot in the commission of an armed robbery.

It should be noted that the robber had a prior armed robbery charge and was out on bond at the time.

Some concealed carry permit holder walked in on the robbery and shot the robber. A Good Samaritan because he was not legally required to intercede on this crime. He just saw the crime in progress and decided to stop it.

Right now the parents of the little thug are up in arms and have made a statement that the Good Samaritan should have minded his own business and let their son continue the robbery uninterrupted.

I do not understand this because if I were the parent of this little thug I likely would be so ashamed of myself for being such a failure as a parent that I would have disowned the kid right after his FIRST armed robbery arrest.

Over the past few years I have seen more and more parents defending their kids after they have been caught doing unspeakable things. The standard line seems to be "My baby didn't do anything" when in fact their little failure of a child has murdered someone.

In this instance the Good Samaritan made a mistake. He deserves to be taken down to the police station and be given some serious coaching in gun handling and marksmanship.

While in this instance it was a legal shoot, the Good Samaritan needs to learn a little more about shot placement.

After all, the thug robbing the store lived.

To find out why the blog is pink just cut and paste this:


1 comment:

  1. The robber's folks should be shot too.