For Media, Armed Threats Equals 'Harassment'

Harassment sucks. It’s not a fun time when an individual is making your life difficult by calling you up, following you around online, and so on. It’s not pleasant at all.

But, according to one Texas television station, harassment has another meaning.

Their report on a man who used his own gun to defend himself and his family from a robber sounds great.

A man is dead after police say a father shot and killed him for threatening his family inside a Popeye’s Chicken restaurant in San Antonio.

Police say the robber approached the father around 8:30 Wednesday night while he was waiting for his kids to leave the bathroom.

That’s when the robber pointed his gun at the family.

The father then drew his lawfully carried firearm and shot the aggressor.

Pretty straight forward, right?

Not so much.

Note the headline from Facebook. Harassing.

Miguel over at Gun Free Zone offered his take on the headline.

Liberals love parsing language to create a “favorable” mood to their cause rather than tell the facts. That would explain why the herd of sexual predators got away with so much sh*t as it was not sexual assaults but friendly taps and hugs.

He’s not wrong, either.

It should also be noted that the word “harassing” also appears in the URL for the story, which usually indicates that it was the overall headline to start with.

In other words, it sure looks like at least one reporter wanted to frame a narrative.

The reasoning is simple. People who skim headlines will see this and think, “He was only harassing the family. There was no reason to shoot the poor man.” It makes the father look like some kind of an unhinged maniac.

Which is what the media wants people to see gun owners as.

There’s a reason the mainstream media ignores the millions of times firearms have been used to defend human life but focus on the rare instances of misuse. There’s no attempt to provide perspective because perspective would work against the narrative.

Here we have a clear-cut case of self-defense. The robber pointed a gun at the man’s family. At that point, he did what any right-thinking father would do. He put the bastard down with his own firearm.

But therein lies the problem for the media. He did everything right, just like millions of other Americans have, and that means they can’t report it like he’s some kind of a loose cannon.

So instead they manipulate language, knowing that most people just read the headlines, and present a biased view that will make those skimmers think this father was some unhinged monster…yes, even if it did admit it was an armed robber.

Was this manipulation a conscious choice or subconscious? I don’t know, and I don’t really care. It’s disingenuous reporting either way. It presents a biased account of the facts–an account that doesn’t mesh particularly well with the body of the story, I might add–and manipulates the lazy to believe something untrue.

And this was in Texas.

Just imagine what it’s like in New York or California, for crying out loud.

That’s why this kind of nonsense needs to be exposed early and often.