The New York Times apparently thinks it’s just peachy to go back through public records and dig up shop owners who have had to use deadly force to defend themselves, and ask them how they feel about the event. I hate to break it to the New York Times, but most reasonably well adjusted people have a difficult time dealing with having to take another life, even if they are legally and morally justified in doing so. I think the right thing to do is to leave people who have had to do that alone.
What’s the lesson supposed to be here anyway? That’s it’s better to be a victim? None of the people interviewed here have anything to feel guilty about. They did not create the circumstance that lead to the loss of life. I’m sure in the same situation, I would have a difficult time dealing with it as well, but there’s one thing that’s certain — in order to feel anguish, you have to be alive — and that is the goal of exercising your right of self-defense. I think it’s pretty unconscionable for the New York Times to dig up the pasts of these people, and make them relive a horrible moment.
The New York Times, “All the news that fits their LibLeft Agenda.”
Sorry, but if some reporter came up to me & started asking questions, I’d first have to ask who they worked for or reported to. Then I’d most likely say no, I’m not answering any questions (period). ANd neither is my staff. We’re too busy (even if we’re not).
Reminds me of the anti-abortion activists who dig up contact information on women post-abortion. If they find regret or remorse, they capitalize on it as justification to end the practice of voluntary abortion.
This is really probably no different.
So if the NYT finds defenders who feel remorse for having taken a life … what … the NYT will argue that self-defense should be discouraged or outlawed?
I wouldn’t answer questions either. However taking lifes independ of circumstances destroys people twice, the victims and murderer…
I wouldn’t ask, but just the ask of asking them to think back, which you’d have to do to make the pitch, is a little revolting.
The only reason that we are even seeing this piece in the New York Times now is because last week, there were an overwhelming number of pro-armed-self-defense comments left on this New York Times story web page:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/business-owner-fires-on-4-robbers-killing-2-police-say/?ref=nyregion
Many of these same comments voiced full support for the armed shop owner who was the basis for this story, as well as disdain for New York City’s anti-gun mentality, particularly when it comes to this town’s mayor, our pal Mikey Bloomberg.
Naturally, some editor at the New York Times clearly must have felt the need to counter all of these comments which offended his or her left-winger and anti-gun sensibilities, so the end result is an article which seems to suggest that it’s never a good thing when a shop owner defends himself against armed robbery with a firearm.
Based on the majority of the comments in the cityroom blog entry, I would expect this piece to “backfire” as well.