SFChron: Robber Killed By Victim, Reported as 'Tragic', Robber a 'Good Person'

NewsBusters.org ^ | 4/21/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

One would think the writers of The Onion satirical newspaper snuck into the offices of The San Francisco Chronicle after reading a report about a Pizza shop owner who saved the lives of his family by killing a gun wielding robber that was attempting to rob his store, a store with the owner's whole family inside. The Chronicle calls the meeting of the thief and would be killer and the innocent Pizza shop owner "tragic" and the report is filed as if the whole story was all just some unfortunate accident instead of a crime stopped cold.

The lives of the two men intersected tragically at about 9:30 p.m. Thursday when Hicks, armed with a pistol and joined by two other men, tried to rob Piedra inside the popular pizzeria at 89th Avenue and International Boulevard. Fearful that the assailants might hurt him, his wife and three children -- all of whom were inside the restaurant -- Piedra pulled out his 9mm semiautomatic pistol and opened fire, killing Hicks, police said.

The Chronicle made the story as an excuse at a morality play revealing how friends are remembering the robber as one who "...always had a smile on his face", that the shop owner "took no satisfaction in taking Hicks' life", and the police "...by no stretch of the imagination" were they "agreeing with or justifying what the owner did." We are even treated to a telling of our "tragic" robber's happy little "rap artist" name; "Boonie".

Obviously the San Francisco Chronicle has decided that this story is going to be their platform to show how guns "traumatize" everyone when the real focus of the story should be on how a shop owner protected himself and his family inside the shop from an armed criminal.

This is no "tragic" incident, but a crime stopped by a man protecting his family!

But, the SFChron goes to great pains to show the remorse of the shop owner, Mr. Piedra, as well as reporting how everyone just loved the drug using, girlfriend beating, pseudo "rapper", Hicks, turning a righteous case of self-protection into a giant pity party for the criminal.

The Shop owner is reported as having remorse:

"I wish this never happened," Piedra said. "I don't want anybody, any business to be in this kind of situation, with anybody putting a gun in your face."

Why, exactly, would anyone imagine otherwise?

The police are seen as scolding the shop owner who was just protecting his family and property:

Piedra said his 17-year-old son, 19-month-old son and 13-year-old daughter were inside the restaurant at the time. Piedra said he was afraid that the assailants would shoot him or hurt his family, a contention supported by Oakland police who nevertheless cautioned against citizens taking direct action against criminals.

"There is definitely a balance," said Officer Roland Holmgren, department spokesman. "This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

Holmgren said, "We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

And a neighbor of the shop owner is quixotically quoted in the story as being anti-gun:

Mohammed Ali, the manager of a market on the busy thoroughfare that has seen its share of robberies, had mixed feelings about business owners arming themselves. "Of course they have a right to protect themselves, but from what? If we have law enforcement, should (businesses) have guns? I don't think so. They're inviting trouble."

Again, WHY is this man's quote in the story? Ah, because the SFChron is anti-gun, that's why.

Then the SFChron goes into a long account about how everyone just loved the criminal, Hicks... sorry, "Boonie"... and how they are all going to miss him.

They even take time out to quote one of "Boonie's" friends found at a "makeshift memorial" to Hicks who is presented as a philosopher, rapper.

"He always had a smile on his face," said a 22-year-old man who identified himself as a rapper named Little Al. "He was a solid dude, loyal."

He didn't express any anger at the pizzeria owner for shooting his friend. "Life happens," he said. "I'm not upset, you feel me? You wouldn't want it to happen, but it happened. Ain't no telling why that shooting occurred."

Well, isn't that nice?

Even the girlfriend Hicks beat up is quoted as saying "despite the alleged abuse, Hicks was a 'good person.'"

This story was such an absurd warping of the proper message, that a crime was stopped and a family had their lives and property saved in accordance with the Constitution and all that is right. But, the SFChron used the story, instead, to moralize on how bad guns are and mourn the death of a criminal.

[GlennD]

It’s fairly simple and straight forward, and after a little contemplation, most folks see it.

Defining a Liberal:
1) Liberals always lie, even when they don’t need to. (think Klintoon)

2)They always cheat, even if they don’t need to. (think of any election with Demoncraps)

3)They always steal, even when they don’t need to.(Think of liberal tax plans)

4) Liberal are always in favor of killing innocent people.

5) Liberals always begin ant thought pattern by asking first, “how will this effect me, next time I want to experience an orgasm.”

I think all conservative types understand 1-3. Most seem to not realize 4 & 5 until it’s pointed out or clarified.

#4 explains why liberals are always pro-communist. Commies kill innocent people. It explains why, though they are pro-abortion, they are against the death penalty. Killers usually kill again, even if it’s just a jail guard. But liberals will always turn crooks loose to kill again, if they can. It obviously explains why they are for gun control of normal citizens. Liberals love higher crime rates for this reason, and it also allows them to hire more b-crats to control and more cops. Once you give this some thought, you can see the logic of it, from their perspective, and see more of their actions to kill off innocent.

#5 is the very most important, for liberals. It should really be #1, I suppose, for my list, but for some reason I like this order. Liberals always...ALWAYS, ask of any problem or perceived problem, first and foremost, the effect of any action, how it will effect their sex wishes. If there is any possible chance that any action will in any way, interfere with them having an orgasm, any place, any time, with any person, thing or animal, they are violently opposed. This explains their propensity for abortion (not to mention #4), pervert “rights,” easy divorce, live sex shows and all porn as some sort of “free-speech,” sex-ed to little children in gummint skewls, etc. I like to refer to this as was an article I read some years back titled, “Liberals Struggling Foreword With Their Pants Around Their Ankles.” The article explained (as I believe as has been prov en true now, that sex is used by liberals as a control mechanism for the masses of the immorally trained in gummint skewls.

#5 trumps all other points. All so-called rules are off for any “good liberal” if anything interferes with sex, and they will even toss their own “leaders” under the bus over #5, if they make a mistake on this one. Klintoon understood this one very well, as does Hitlery.

[gbs]

Justice prevailed in a big way, which is hard to swallow in ol San Fran.

[TigersEye]

That’s pretty good. I had a feeling you had something worth contemplating there. Thanks!

[GlennD]

You are more than welcome. I had mulled that over for some time, a few years ago, wondering why liberals are what they are, and what seems to motivate them. I started keeping track of what they do, and tried to understand why. This list is what came to be. I’m sure every liberal will be “shocked & outraged” at the suggestions that they actually follow these rules, but since I quantified it, I find no matter what issue/question comes up, I can see what they will do, always keeping in mind, the last ideas take precedence over the first. I’ve also noticed that a liberal is a socialist is a communist is a fascist is a “good” Democrap. I put the good in quotes, meaning more or less, true to those 5 points. The only difference between a fascist and communist is the symbol on the arm-band. And the only difference between a “good” liberal and a communist is that communists tell the truth more often that the liberal. Good example, in the 50’s, Kruschev pounded his shoe on the podium in the UN, and said, “We will bury you.” Now Teddy and company say, “We want to help you,” and they both do the very same thing. Commies and liberals both lie as part of the plan, but commies are secure in their control (so they think) and are likely to say things that are true.

Anyway, TigerEye, I hope this helps you. I do find it useful to keep these points in mind. If you wish to understand the method the liberals use for augmentation, buy a book by C S Lewis, titled “God in the Dock,” and read the short explanation of “Bulverism.” It’s ideas are essential if you want to understand how liberals confound conservative in “debates” in the news, and how news sources (even Fox) “report” their concept of news. Once one understands the concept, it’s like a new light, shining on every talking-head on the boob-tube. There are other ways to explain the concept, but I think Lewis has an entertaining way of setting it in your mind. I could explain, but I type with 2 fingers, and my words will be inferior to Lewis’.-Glenn

[TigersEye]

Thanks FRiend. I will no doubt cogitate on those points and work it into my present understanding of liberals. I agree that Democrap=liberal=socialist=commie=fascist. The difference between Kruchev and Kennedy is Kruchev was in power, real power, and Fat Teddy is a toad with very limited power. Give 'em enough power and they'll drop the pretense of "helpfulness."

Maybe my library has a copy of Lewis' book. Sounds interesting. I consider different points of view tools to sharpen my own vision. It is like throwing new light on an old subject.

[GlennD]

You are welcome. Maybe you can help me add to it. I have this idea that I think should be between #3 & #4. I am missing something concerning the liberal idea of all this so-called hate crimes stuff. I note that liberals always consider any opposition to their idiotic ideas as hate, and every true, “good” liberal I’ve ever run across was consumed with actual hate for people. Conservatives tend to be Christian, and try, at least, to avoid hate. Liberals are always miserable, and mad about something, even when they happen to be winning some battle, like promoting sodomy to grade school children. I also note that liberals tend to be very active in their pursuits to tear down any semblance of civility or culture. I enjoy reading their complaints/hate-mail to conservative people or sites. They have a vocabulary of which 50% are 4 letter, dirty words, and those seem to be the only ones they know how to spell. I think all this stuff points to a total lack of courage. What do you think of:

3A) Liberals tend to be angry, ruthless cowards.

I still feel something is missing, because there are a few notable exceptions, like Castro, Stalin et al., who apparently weren’t cowards. Maybe you can see something I’m missing, or if some other freeper reads this can analyze and clear my foggy mind. I have too many dead brain cells.

Glenn