I personally would not spend $180 on a pair of sneakers. Other than that, I’m pleasantly surprised that the Huffington Post decided to report on this:
A man trying to rob Atlanta customers waiting to buy the latest LeBron James sneakers was killed by a shopper who continued to wait on line after the shooting, according to NBC News.
The robber, a man who has not been identified yet, sauntered up to people before dawn in Atlanta, waiting in line to purchase the $180 Lebon X Denim kicks by Nike on the day they were released, CNN reported. The shoes, endorsed by the star forward on the Miami Heat, could be sold for a much higher price on eBay.
Witnesses said the thief pulled out a gun and tried to rob the crowd.
…whereupon somebody in the crowd who also had a gun promptly shot him. I will freely admit that if I had been the one who did the shooting then I would have undoubtedly (after making my weapon safe, of course) freaked out and lost my stuff and probably vomited and do all the other things that people do after shooting someone (and that they never show you happening in the movies), instead of calmly getting back in line. But that might have just been shock. I dunno: I wasn’t there.
Anyway, I’m a little confused as to why the HuffPo decided to put this up – especially since the cops are currently ruling this as self-defense; as it stands, the story doesn’t exactly fit in with HuffPo’s usual narrative on guns and their proper use. Maybe they’re making a statement about American commercialism? Which I am not always entirely happy with, either – but, heck, what people do with their cash money isn’t really my problem, as long as it’s legal and not going to affect my life any.
Moe Lane
Via
Man pulls gun on crowd. Crowdmember pulls a legal one back, protects his community, and rids us of one more scumbag. http://t.co/NYjG78UfOC
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) June 25, 2013
Huffington Post will probably push the anti-gun narrative, by saying “If that law abiding citizen hadn’t had a gun than that thief wouldn’t have died, and he probably was trying to feed his little thief family”. You know because the Thief would have NEVER used that gun on a store clerk who might be deemed uncooperative or too slow in getting what the thief wanted.