Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Unreal, Canadian being fully prosecuted, for using a home invader's gun against him... [View all]mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 2, 2017, 03:20 AM - Edit history (3)
He's 'dude in house'. Says it right at the top.
Don't you think probably somewhere it'd actually say 'the homeowner' if Monroe ... WAS the homeowner?
BTW, it's certainly POSSIBLE that it was a family consisting of two guys ... this could've been a 'loved ones' scenario ... but there's nothing really suggesting this was innocent 'family night' with 'loved ones' being interrupted by armed assailants ... that's just a scenario some on this thread are being lead to imagine, although it's no way 'part of the actual story presented'.
But even THAT ... in fact, if you ACTUALLY read CLOSELY, you'll realize it's possible that Monroe was in fact one of the 3 INVADERS, who ended up switching sides and fighting for the two dudes that were previously/already in the home. It doesn't say ... he was even one of the two originally in the home, does it?
It says he's barred from contact w/two individuals ... perhaps those are the two originally in the home? Or perhaps they are the two he broke into the house WITH, but betrayed later? Because if he was one of the people IN the home, originally, wouldn't he be barred from contact w/either 1 (other dude in house) or 3 (the invaders), or 4 (all the above)? Being banned from seeing 2 people ... suggests he was actually ... an invader, who betrayed his 2 cohorts. Otherwise, the 'math' doesn't add up. Why 2 people, if he was 1 of 2 originally in the home, invaded by 3?
This story is very obviously trying to spin a particular 'yarn' ... without ACTUALLY saying SHIT.