That's because the media thinks you have a moral responsibility to accept a beating......even if it kills you. They LOVE the idea of a compliant population (partly because they view themselves as an unofficial extension of government......which is why they love calling themselves "the fourth estate").C-dub wrote:Sure seems like deadly force would have been justified in this case if either of the victims had been armed. But, we all know that if deadly force had been used by one of the victims the liberal media would have turned it all around and gone on a witch hunt for the victim's actually defending themselves and it wouldn't matter how many thugs were attacking them or how badly they were hurt. If their injuries weren't life threatening and verified by a doctor afterwards any use of deadly force would be completely unnecessary in any liberal's eyes.
Search found 1 match
Return to “Lethal Force against an unarmed assailant(s)”
- Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:54 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Lethal Force against an unarmed assailant(s)
- Replies: 22
- Views: 4476