|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: The Law is The Law started by: thibodeaux Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 30 2011,07:47
< http://www2.nbc17.com/news....1165519 >QUOTE Garner Police have cited Perry Whitaker for violating the town's gun ordinance for shooting at a prowler on Wednesday.
... Despite the fact that he was trying to protect himself, police cited Whitaker, 26, of Nellane Drive for violating the gun ordinance. They say there is no self-defense exception in Garner’s gun ordinance. Only a law enforcement officer may fire a weapon within town limits according to the local code. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2011,08:00
Umm... just, wow.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,08:16
You didn't mention that they shot at him first. That's pretty key. And also pretty messed up, that you can't return fire even under those circumstances. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,08:18
Apparently he was also ex-police. Maybe there's some bad blood between him and the cops that cited him.
Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 30 2011,08:37
I figure there's usually more going on than we get in the story.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2011,09:08
All things being equal, I'd rather get punshed for violating that ordinance than let someone kill me.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2011,10:37
QUOTE All things being equal, I'd rather get punshed for violating that ordinance than let someone kill me. Agreed. QUOTE You didn't mention that they shot at him first. That's pretty key. Did they change the story? That's not what the article says now. From the article: QUOTE Garner police said Whitaker told them he was threatened by two suspects after he spotted them trying to get into a foreclosed home across the street from his own. After Whitaker fired his shotgun at them, the two suspects jumped into a vehicle and drove off, according to police. There is a self-defense exception in Garner’s gun ordinance, but according to police Whitaker was not defending his own property and there was no evidence anyone fired a weapon at him before he opened fire. IF the above statements are true, then yes, he should be cited, if not worse. IF they didn't fire at him, why'd he shoot AT them? Did they have knives? Knives aren't threatening unless someone's close...at least when you're holding a shotgun. And they couldn't have been close since he didn't hit them. Maybe he simply shot into the air? There's definitely more to this story that we're not hearing. Although, firing on unarmed people, committing a crime or not, might explain why he's an ex-cop... Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,10:49
That is completely different from what it said when I read it. It said they had entered his home and shot at him after which he fired back at them with his shotgun.It also specifically said that there was no exception for self-defense under the local law in the article. Totally 100% different story now. Worse still there is no indication anywhere that they just completely reversed the entire story. That's pretty shitty journalism right there. That particular media outlet is now worthless and untrustworthy, IMO. Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2011,10:59
I found the original story in Google cache, so here it is:QUOTE GARNER, N.C. -- Garner Police have cited Perry Whitaker for violating the town's gun ordinance for shooting at a prowler on Wednesday. Officers responded to a break-in in progress at a home on Nellane Drive. Whitaker told them one of the prowlers had fired a shot at him and he retuned fire with his shotgun. The two suspects then jumped in a vehicle and fled. Despite the fact that he was trying to protect himself, police cited Whitaker, 26, of Nellane Drive for violating the gun ordinance. They say there is no self-defense exception in Garner’s gun ordinance. Only a law enforcement officer may fire a weapon within town limits according to the local code. Whitaker faces a maximum fine of $50 and 30 days in jail if convicted. Jim Corron, a neighbor, said there were two guys prowling around a vacant home around 12:30 p.m. Wednesday. That's when the exchange of shots occurred. The suspects got into a car and sped off. No injuries were reported in the exchange of gunfire. No one has been arrested involving the break-in. I missed the bits about vacant home, and when it said they were breaking into "a" home on blahblah drive, I read it as "his" home. So I misunderstood a little. Still, there are some huge differences between this story now and this story then. And no indication that it has changed. Not cool. Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2011,11:07
Agreed. Someone needs to explain the HUGE changes made in the story. Was the original version correct and this new article is a cover up or was the original story completely wrong and the reporter sucked at their job?
Posted by Troy on Jun. 30 2011,11:21
Oh, Garner. Your reporting and your High School soccer teams are both terrible.
|