A TRUE STORY FROM... "THE HOUSTON HERALD" HOUSTON , TEXAS

Last Thursday night around midnight, a woman from Houston, Texas was arrested, jailed, and charged with manslaughter for shooting a man 6 times in the back as he was running away with her purse.

The following Monday morning, the woman was called in front of the Arraignment Judge, sworn-in, and asked to explain her actions.
The woman replied, "I was standing at the corner bus stop for about 15 minutes, waiting for the bus to take me home after work. I am a waitress at a local cafe.

I was there alone, so I had my right hand on my pistol in my purse hanging on my left shoulder. All of a sudden I was spun around hard to my left. As I caught my balance, I saw a man running away with my purse. I looked down at my right hand and saw that my fingers were wrapped tightly around my pistol.

The next thing I remember is saying out loud, "No Way Punk! You're not stealing my pay check and tips." I raised my right hand, pointed my pistol at the man running away from me with my purse, and started squeezing the trigger of my pistol.

When asked by the arraignment judge, "Why did you shoot the man 6 times?

The woman replied under oath, "Because, when I pulled the trigger the 7th time, it only went click."

The woman was acquitted of all charges. She was back at work the next day!

That's Gun Control, Texas Style

for Texas

I do not agree with this. I support the 2A, and the right to bear arms, but killing when your life is not in danger is NOT the law of the land . . . even texas.

Either she will be charged at a later date, or someone is treating this women with privilege.

Check it for authenticity... posting a few to see who's awake this morning

Probably should have posted it in the joke forum, but this one needs a good chuckle every now and then.

Post the link . . .

It's fake google "houston woman shoots purse snatcher 6 times in the back" and read the snopes report.

However, at the bottom.....

But in 2006 a man was shot 68 times, and when the sherrif asked the shooter "why?", the man exclaimed he had run out of bullets.

thats refreshing to read,, we agree

taking a life over a purse, very sad indeed,,,

I agree with it because I have 0 tolerance for criminals!

It would be refreshing if you would stop dancing around some of the more challenging questions I ask you (in other threads) and deal with them honestly( heck take your time, I don't post these to get immediate responses, but your responses so far have been absurd or based on emotion only, not facts)

Better than having tax payers pay for 3 meals a day and his gym equipment lol.

the family that must bury him have to pay, they may be taxpayers too....

the children he may leave behind will have to pay dearly,,,,

I would prefer giving him the three meals for however long a petty thief gets in jail (probably not much)

define 'FACT' And then point them out in the threads you refer to,,, mine our yours

All criminal penalties should not be inequitable to the harm of the crime, otherwise calling it justice would not make sense. I am for justice.

Is there anyone who would say they arent for 'justice'

its the definition that differs from person to person

I am for JUSTICE too,,,

I would prefer to not pay for someone who does not to work to support them self, but rather just take from someone they view to be an easy target. Perhaps if your grandmother, grandfather, mom or dad got jumped and beaten mercilessly for the $23 they have on em you might change your mind. But I doubt it, rose tinted lenses are a hard thing to overcome!

In the example given no deadly force was used. So your example is orange to the apples of the OP.

So far as you having to pay for it . . . that has more to do with removing the forced labor part of incarceration, really a different topic anyways . . .

No one agrees that a penalty that is disproportionate to the harm of the crime is justice . . . in fact justice means getting what you deserve which MEANS proportionality. You can disagree what is proportionate, but not what justice means.

sigh . . its so hard sometimes with some of you guys to even have a meaningful conversation because you pretend words can have any meanings you want.

The criminal doesn't consider his families part in the equation resulting from the possible outcomes of their actions..... so you think to make it our responsibility to do so? NOT!

If he had family, they wouldn't be obligated to claim the dead thugs corpse.
The County could dispose of the trash.