TexasCHLforum.com

Woman, 49, allegedly killed her husband, according to a copyrighted story in the Galveston County Daily News:

A police spokesman wrote:The family visited a karaoke bar before returning to [their] home [in Santa Fe] shortly before 2 a.m. Saturday,...
The couple began an argument that escalated into a physical altercation, ...
The victim was hit in the chest with a shotgun blast as he was walking out the door...

The suspect is charged with murder and is being held on $150,000 bond.

http://www.galvestondailynews.com/news/ ... 0f31a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She sure showed him. I hope they don't have minor children.

- Jim

"as he was walking out the door"

So she was outside and he followed her? Or maybe he was walking out backwards? Or maybe she has some magic way of getting a "shotgun blast" to curve around and hit him in front from behind.

I just love the way some of these things are written.

Probably she yelled at him and he turned to face her.

In real self-defense shootings, there is often an issue about where on the body the offender is shot. People can move quickly and unpredictably, even in the milliseconds between a trigger pull and impact.

- Jim

Story came up on non-subscription sites:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9239783" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I don't share the contempt that some of you have for "the media," what's the point of sending a photographer to take a photo of a police car at night, probably an hour after the victim and suspect were removed from the scene? It's like the mindlessness of sending a crew to shoot video in front of a jail or hospital because someone related to an incident is in there.

The husband is dead. The wife is in the hospital because of medical complaints, under arrest, shortly to be transferred to the TDCJ unit (probably). Nothing to see here.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Story came up on non-subscription sites:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9239783" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I don't share the contempt that some of you have for "the media," what's the point of sending a photographer to take a photo of a police car at night, probably an hour after the victim and suspect were removed from the scene? It's like the mindlessness of sending a crew to shoot video in front of a jail or hospital because someone related to an incident is in there.

The husband is dead. The wife is in the hospital because of medical complaints, under arrest, shortly to be transferred to the TDCJ unit (probably). Nothing to see here.

- Jim

My contempt for the media is over two categories
1. The complete omission of reporting on stories that don't fit their agenda. I would rather have them slant their coverage and to just bypass the event or situation
2. The gross distortion of the situation. A specific case in point was printing the childhood pictures of Trevon Martin.

I guess that the media outlets think that there is some credibility that they get for being at the hospital where a victim or a perp was taken. Obviously if they can find that building, everything else that they say about the situation has to be true. From a sheer visual impact viewpoint, a picture of a police car with its lights flashing is probably more interesting to readers and listeners than the TV station shooting the bricks on the side of their building but I agree that it would be just as relevant to the story.

Broadcast media is free enterprise, and worth every penny.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Probably she yelled at him and he turned to face her.

In real self-defense shootings, there is often an issue about where on the body the offender is shot. People can move quickly and unpredictably, even in the milliseconds between a trigger pull and impact.

- Jim

Yes, seen that.

I don't think I've ever heard a story that started out with a "bar" and "2am" have a happy ending. Seems like no matter what happens, several hours later there is a lot of regret.

seamusTX wrote:Story came up on non-subscription sites:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9239783" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I don't share the contempt that some of you have for "the media," what's the point of sending a photographer to take a photo of a police car at night, probably an hour after the victim and suspect were removed from the scene? It's like the mindlessness of sending a crew to shoot video in front of a jail or hospital because someone related to an incident is in there.

The husband is dead. The wife is in the hospital because of medical complaints, under arrest, shortly to be transferred to the TDCJ unit (probably). Nothing to see here.

- Jim

I have contempt for the media for several reasons the least of which is that they will mis-quote you and use it against you the same as some gubbermint agencies. the next being that they do sensationalize what shouldn't be made out to be more than it is and another is that they are biased towards what ever they feel or believe is right. none of this should ever occur but it does because most media have the morals and moral fortitude of a slug and that's a stretch for the media as I think slugs have more integrity and honor than any reporter. they are inept at reporting a factual report without coloring it to a predisposed biased end, they are inept at doing any kind of research to cross check facts before they open mouth and insert foot, this applies to both what we call liberal and conservative media because as I said they have an agenda to put forth as opposed to what reporters were supposed to be as most of us were taught

There may have been a time when some media sources were objective, but it was long ago and far away.

Newspapers in the U.S. were nakedly partisan from day 1. They only tried or pretended to be objective in the latter half of the 20th century. As long as readers understand that media and individual journalists are biased and have agendas, they can take that into account.

My take is that the bare facts probably are correct but incomplete. Any views framed around the facts most likely conform to some agenda. I almost have to laugh at some news programs that try to be "fair and balanced" by getting two kooks with opposing points of view to totally contradict one another.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:There may have been a time when some media sources were objective, but it was long ago and far away.

Newspapers in the U.S. were nakedly partisan from day 1. They only tried or pretended to be objective in the latter half of the 20th century. As long as readers understand that media and individual journalists are biased and have agendas, they can take that into account.

My take is that the bare facts probably are correct but incomplete. Any views framed around the facts most likely conform to some agenda. I almost have to laugh at some news programs that try to be "fair and balanced" by getting two kooks with opposing points of view to totally contradict one another.

- Jim

WW2 did seem to instill some restraint and promote ethical journalism. That folks continued to believe in journalistic objectivity well into the late 60's is/was a tragedy for the U.S. Murrow, Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Reasoner, Daly, Goddard, Smith, all developed or grew to prominence during the war and were gone by the 70's.