Robbery Suspect Wounded by Victim

[lildobe]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07302/829440-100.stm

Police seek robbery suspects, 1 wounded by victim
Monday, October 29, 2007
By Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny County police are searching for two of the three suspects whose robbery earlier this month was interrupted by a gun-toting victim.

Detectives already have arrested one of the suspects, Lolitta Irvin, 20, of Wilkinsburg.

Detectives said she and two men accosted a Wilkinsburg man at 9:41 p.m. Oct. 6 on Rebecca Street in Wilkinsburg.

The victim, whose name has not been released, broke free from the bandits and pulled a pistol.

He and the suspects fired at each other.

The robbery target was not injured, though an undisclosed amount of money was taken.

However, two of the suspects, including Ms. Irvin, were wounded.

The two men have not yet been apprehended, police said.

No charges have been filed against the victim, who was licensed to carry the gun, police said.

First published on October 29, 2007 at 11:02 am

[Bill of Rights]

Seems to me this is a good example of good reporting. The victim is correctly identified, as is the wounded robber. The victim- No, scratch that, the survivor is identified as having been uninjured in his lawful self-defense, and is further identified as being licensed to carry, (which is a technical point as to the misleading terminology- We have a right to do so. The license is superfluous.)

The only way the survivor is not identified is by name, which is as it should be.

All of the above leads me to the belief that either the reporter, the editor or both are either new on the job or are the token libertarians.

I don't often see truth in reporting like this. Good show!

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I recoiled when I read: "No charges have been filed against the victim, who was licensed to carry the gun, police said." That seems absolutely gratuitous and irrelevant to me. Why would any right thinking person even consider the possibility that charges would be filed against the victim? What kind of asinine question was that to ask the police in the first place? Furthermore, what about charges filed against the perpetrators? There is no mention at all in the article about that. Who's side is this reporter on, anyway? This couldn't be a story filed by a reporter with an anti-gun bias, could it?

[Bill of Rights]

I think maybe the reason for a line like that is to tell people who think that gunshots should mean someone is charged or maybe to head off people who claim that the real criminal was some sweet, angelic little altar boy who never hurt anyone and was such a good boy... and therefore was clearly murdered in cold blood, never mind the fact that he told the survivor, "Gimme yo money, muthaf****r!" which was immediately followed by :shock: "OH $#!T! HE GOTTA GUN!"

They did say they arrested the one wounded perp once her wounds were treated, and they're searching for the other two, one of whom is also wounded. All in all, I think the story could have been spun and twisted a lot worse for "our side".

Lildobe, is that paper fairly conservative usually, or is it liberal like most "news"papers?

Blessings,
M