Monday, January 28, 2013

Monday Morning Addition

Friend Allen sends in the latest addition to the DGC:

Woman may have known intruder her husband shot in South Omaha
A homeowner who shot and killed an intruder in South Omaha told others he had no idea who the man was.

His wife apparently couldn't say the same.

The homeowner, David Erives, told others that he had no idea why the man was grabbing at his wife shortly after trying to get in the back door of the couple's house at 1607 Drexel St. late Thursday.
Now, I don't know about the rest of y'all, but someone's grabbing at my wife at 11:30 at night, they're going to get a hell of a lot more than a .22LR in the leg. Looks to me like Mr. Erives was showing remarkable restraint - as well as following victim to the media-promulgated myth of "you don't have to kill them, just shoot them in the leg to stop them". It was the second shot - the one that went to the chest - that stopped the attack, not the shot to the leg.

Is it just me, or is the paper trying to make you think that maybe there might have been something going on with the wife and the recently deceased? Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive to media reports on defensive shooting, but it sure sounds like they're trying to lead to that conclusion. They make pointed statements like "may have known intruder" and "apparently knew the man" without giving any evidence - like, say, he was employed at the same casino where she worked as a waitress.

Facts are he was at her house late at night and grabbing at her. He was told to leave, repeatedly, by both the homeowner and the woman he allegedly knew - and yet stayed on the premises. Even after having been shot by the homeowner - generally accepted as a clear sign of being unwelcome - he stayed there and continued to harass the homeowner. Wonder if the paper will print the results of the tox report on the recently deceased?

I know, I know, "Man shoots wife's lover" is a better headline than "Man shoots wife's drug-addled stalker", but still...

Dead Goblin Count: 360

That is all.


Old NFO said...

That IS a strange one... and I wonder if the backstory will ever come out...

Roy said...

Probably not. Journalists have the attention span of a squirrel unless the story fits one of their preconceived agendas.

Stretch said...

Fact are irrelevant.
Emotions are everything.

Ed said...

Even though he was an adult and should have outgrown the mindset years earlier, the intruder was attempting to impose Toddler's Rules of Possession:

1. If I like it, it's mine.

2. If it's in my hand, it's mine.

3. If I can take it from you, it's mine.

4. If I had it a little while ago, it's mine.

5. If it's mine, it must NEVER appear to be yours in anyway.

6. If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.

7. If it looks just like mine, it is mine.

8. If I saw it first, it's mine.

9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine.

10. If it's broken, it's yours.