93-Year-Old Knock Out Game Victim/Defender a Myth

Gun Watch ^ | 13 December, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

A story going around the net is of Gladis Bennett, 93 yr old grandmother, who supposedly shot and killed one of a group of attackers who were "playing" the knockout game.

The story caught my interest for obvious reasons, and because the blog referenced in the link above showed a picture of an older woman holding a large handgun, which I recognized as a large hand air gun, a   Webley Tempest
or  Mark II air pistol.    This prodded me to investigate further, to determine if the story were real or just another Internet hoax/satire.

It is not as if such events are implausible.   A recent case in Lansing, Michigan is suspiciously similar, and may have served as a exemplar for the story.

I could not find any actual news source for the story of the "Gladis Bennett", but I did find a Snopes article that showed the story as originating on National Report a news satire site.

We live interesting times, where satire is often hard to separate from real news events, without some research.

 
©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

It is important to expose these myths when they pop up. The truth is a major strength of conservatives. We need to be careful to uphold it.

[1rudeboy]

National Report has fooled a good number of FReepers. Annoying, in a way.

[skinkinthegrass]

noted.

[1rudeboy]

It’s not worth my time to determine one way or another, but it seemed to me that National Report exists to make conservatives look like fools.

[skinkinthegrass]

true...can't name any "deadwood/new media" to trust..
seems the CFP/(UK) Daily Mail have credible sources.

[frogjerk]

Beware of SNOPES, they work for the devil too.

[imardmd1]

Beware of SNOPES, they work for the devil too.

Do you have a case or two that could clearly demonstrate this? Thanks!

[Arthur McGowan]

This prodded me to investigate further, to determine if the story were real or just another Internet hoax/satire.

This prodded me to investigate further, to determine if the story WAS real or just another Internet hoax/satire.

Another writer who thinks that if there's an "if" in the vicinity, the verb must be in the subjunctive.

[CodeToad]

“Do you have a case or two that could clearly demonstrate this? Thanks! “

Is your google-foo broken? Simply search for that yourself.

[petro45acp]

Thank you!

[1rudeboy]

Come off it. If Snopes was that bad, there’d be websites dedicated to exposing that fact.

[marktwain]

“Come off it. If Snopes was that bad, there’d be websites dedicated to exposing that fact.”

My experience with Snopes is that they lean pretty hard left. That is to say, their assumptions about the universe come from the left.

I do not have examples for you, just personal impressions based on a few times I have used them.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

I believe that is true.

Snopes leans left.

They are somewhat reliable, but their outlook is on the left.

[imardmd1]

Is your google-foo broken? Simply search for that yourself.

In case you didn't notice, that was a gentle nudge for you to back up what you have claimed without giving any references. Do your own work, I'm not doing yours for you.

I've used Snopes for myself quite a few times, and also checked their claims against other urban legend reference sites, as well as other documentation, and found them reasonably reliable.

Without backup, you remarks amounted to at least gossip, and maybe slander; and your response to me gives an idea about the reliability of your opinion, sorry to say.

"In God we trust; everybody else bring data."

[imardmd1]

FJ, please see my post #15. It turns out that Code Toad apparently jumped in and took up your offense, and rebuffed me for suggesting that you provide references for your put-down of Snopes.

I thought that was you challenging me, then after posting, found out it was CT. So my stern reply was really directed to him, basically. You two seem to have agreed re Snopes in this thread, so the two of you sort out just who was offended and is going to stay that way, OK?

I've given my opinion regarding using Snopes.

[CodeToad]

“found them reasonably reliable. “

I haven’t. In fact, I have found them to be utterly unreliable especially concerning anything related to Obama.

We seem to have loads of pro-Obama trolls here lately.

[Drew68]

I've used Snopes for myself quite a few times, and also checked their claims against other urban legend reference sites, as well as other documentation, and found them reasonably reliable.

I don't have a problem with Snopes either. They got a bad rap among many around this place when they shot down a bunch of birther nonsense regarding Obama's eligibility.

[imardmd1]

As I said, my research on Snopes has shown that thy are reasonably reliable. That means that, as a professional research scientist, have not found them perfect, without error.

My standards are high, and I do not myself always meet these standards.

If one wishes to openly malign another, I want to see verifiable proof before giving that position credit. In this thread, Code Toad and frogjerk have not met that standard.

I hop that makes my position clear. I am not a troll, I am not pro-Obama, I certainly believe that the "knockout game" is an overwhelmingly verifiable fact, and I do my best not to be wrong. My entire professional life has been based on that approach. When I found myself in error, I have admitted it.

Enough.

[1rudeboy]

The Snopes folks are lefties. I'd like to see someone demonstrate that an email that Snopes claims is false is actually true because they are lefties.