Misrepresentation of the "Make my day Law" by the Editor of the Longmont Times-Call

Printable View

10-31-2012, 09:44
Fried Chicken Blowout

Misrepresentation of the "Make my day Law" by the Editor of the Longmont Times-Call

This morning my Google home page hit on a local article from the Editor of the Longmont Times-Call. He clearly does not respect your right to safety in your home and choose to misrepresent the law that protects our right to self defense in our homes. I've written a rebuttal to his article that can be found in the comments below under "Jason"... I suggest you all write in your support of the law as well as cancel any subscription you may have to the Times-Call if you are unfortunate enough to be paying for that rag of a newspaper. I dumped mine years ago due to their slanted views. Hopefully my comments is completely correct and presented in a respectful manner, but also passes along my irritation at the media's bias.

http://www.timescall.com/opinion/edi...nes-go-too-far

Thank you
10-31-2012, 10:02
Robb

You did a fantastic job with your rebuttal. Good work.
10-31-2012, 11:13
Ronin13

Great response, Jason... also, IIRC, isn't it illegal to shoot someone who is fleeing? Good for you in trying to educate and inform our "media" considering good journalists are now rare.
10-31-2012, 11:47
Sawin

Good job Jason. I hope he reads your comment and the others. I love that all of them in response to the article thus far, are 4-0 against the editors opinion.
10-31-2012, 11:57
Fried Chicken Blowout

Thanks for the support. My feeling was that the editor of a paper is a powerful position and what he/she writes needs to be of the upmost quality and totally unbiased. I didn't feel that this article was of the quality it should be coming from the editor. If someone wanted to write an opinion piece and send it to the paper stating stuff like this then so be it, but not from the editor. I believe he was attempting to twist things with his knowledge of writing to make the reader take the article a specific way without actually outright lying in the article.
10-31-2012, 11:59
Fried Chicken Blowout

By the way, for those that don't know of my blog... You can read more of my writing here...

https://weaponkingpin.wordpress.com

I promise to be as bias as possible towards the firearm community as I can be in my own writing.
10-31-2012, 12:00
dwalker460

How people like this stay employed is beyond me
10-31-2012, 12:02
merl

that newspaper knows its audience. this community is not part of it in any way.

Trouble is there isn't really any other source for what is going on in Longmont
10-31-2012, 12:26
Aloha_Shooter

To be fair, I think most here would agree with many of the other editorials. You can't judge an editor or paper by a single misguided article or essay (although you can and should correct their misrepresentation of the facts as Jason did). It's not like this paper is the Washington ComPost or New York Slimes.
10-31-2012, 12:27
SA Friday

3 data points and no interviews of any of the DA's as to why the prosecution was declined? What a hack.
10-31-2012, 12:27
newracer

Firt of all I total agree that there was some mis-information in there and I think your response is great. However it is an editorial that is giving an opinion so it will be biased.
10-31-2012, 12:30
Canuckistani

Quote:

Originally Posted by newracer

Firt of all I total agree that there was some mis-information in there and I think your response is great. However it is an editorial that is giving an opinion so it will be biased.

This - "editorial" and "written by the editor" are two very, very different things.
10-31-2012, 12:39
Fried Chicken Blowout

Quote:

Originally Posted by newracer

However it is an editorial that is giving an opinion so it will be biased.

Yes, I should have not said it should be unbiased, because it's more of an opinion. But it's not correctly representing the law as it's written and I believe it was the intent of the writer to mislead the reader to believe that that "Make my day Law" is something that its not. The writer implied that the law was a "broad license to kill people". Clearly it's not and the law is written very well to make sure that anyone reading it knows that's what it's NOT a broad safety net to kill anyone in your home.
10-31-2012, 12:39
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Great response, Jason... also, IIRC, isn't it illegal to shoot someone who is fleeing?

Depends on the situation. There is no law about it of which I am aware.
10-31-2012, 12:42
ChunkyMonkey

PATHETIC EDITOR!!!! His article is a rewrite and slightly updated from a 22 year old NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/01/us...-a-threat.html
10-31-2012, 12:48
SA Friday

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

PATHETIC EDITOR!!!! His article is a rewrite and slightly updated from a 22 year old NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/01/us...-a-threat.html

WOW... I'm posting that in the comments, if you don't mind.
10-31-2012, 12:53
ChunkyMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by SA Friday

WOW... I'm posting that in the comments, if you don't mind.

Heck yeah, if I don't have to login etc, I would have. Thanks!
10-31-2012, 14:34
ColoWyo

Hey Friday. The link you posted on their website doesn't work for me. It says something to the effect of "page not available"
10-31-2012, 14:38
SA Friday

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColoWyo

Hey Friday. The link you posted on their website doesn't work for me. It says something to the effect of "page not available"

Thanks. I just edited it. It should work now.
10-31-2012, 14:43
brutal

Quote:

Originally Posted by SA Friday

WOW... I'm posting that in the comments, if you don't mind.

link posted on that rag's page no worky.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/01/us...-a-threat.html
10-31-2012, 14:50
SA Friday

Quote:

Originally Posted by brutal

link posted on that rag's page no worky.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/01/us...-a-threat.html

hmmm. Maybe there's a lag between posting or editing. The edited post, which I can see b/c of my login, works just fine.
10-31-2012, 14:52
dwalker460

worked for me
10-31-2012, 14:54
TFOGGER

It must suck to plagiarize something that riddled with errors in the first place...
10-31-2012, 17:24
DavieD55

The Times call has gone to Sh!t, esp since the MediaNews Group bought them out. It's a bunch of mamby pamby BS with no real news.
10-31-2012, 18:15
sabot_round

I think that the editor should be neutered.[Bang]
10-31-2012, 18:21
KevDen2005

You did good. I liked the responses.
10-31-2012, 22:47
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevDen2005

You did good. I liked the responses.

Agreed. I especially liked SAFriday's first response about few data points and zero investigation into why those cases went the way that they did. Well done.