A tragedy was almost multiplied in in Santa Clarita, when a man opened fire on an allegedly intoxicated home intruder, killing him, he might have shot a mentally ill child, instead.
NBC4 reports that Kelly Norwood lives in a different building on the other side of the compound, but has the same unit number as the bloodthirsty resident (203). Ms. Norwood was visibly upset, breaking down in tears at the thought that this could have been her son who was shot. “My son was just diagnosed with a mental illness,” she said, “He could have been this guy going upstairs [to the wrong unit 203] and this location and gets killed.”
This highlights a huge issue in trigger-happy community: the what-ifs. It’s all well and good that the apartment resident was “justified” in his shooting of the “home-invader”. But what if it had been Ms. Norwood’s son? What if it had been some random innocent knocking on the wrong door and getting blown away? What if it was your small child picked off by this trigger-happy, gun-humping, redneck, racist?
Does nobody think of the child who might have been shot in place of the “home invader” who was shot? Doesn’t the child deserve the right to live free of the fear of being shot? Is that not worth the life of this “good guy with a gun” that the NRA would have you believe are the majority of gun fetishists? If you won’t think of the little child who might have been shot, instead of the “criminal” that was, then who will?
Luckily, the police have taken the killer into custody and are searching for a witness who will say something other than the usual pro-gun lies, “He [the apartment resident] kept telling the man to go away, that he had the wrong apartment, that he was armed…”
The police have not yet located a credible, unbiased witness to tell them the truth about the murder, but the gun is safely in custody and the murderer will hopefully be barred from returning to the community, if he’s released.
Ms. Norwood’s son deserves it.
This was written based on what consumed almost half of NBC4’s report on this shooting: The fact that someone’s child, who lives in another building, could possibly, maybe, make the mistake of entering the wrong building and getting upset at not being able to enter his “home”.
This is a common tactic in a case like this. There is very little that the news can say about the incident itself that can paint the defensive gun use as evil. So, once the facts are presented, a strawman is offered to tug at the heartstrings; to ensure that the reader isn’t left thinking “Wow. So a gun can be used for self-defense? What else are the anti-gun crowd lying to me about?” (The answer is: Everything.) Instead, they try to help you associate the actual use of a gun with the potential for injury to a child, should his mother not be a good parent.
In this case, as in previous cases, there’s not a whole lot to be disputed. The possibly-intoxicated 40-year-old assailant tried to let himself into what was most likely the wrong apartment. The apartment resident armed himself and did his best to convince the man that he had the wrong place and to please leave.
Witnesses confirmed this to the police, but the man was still taken into custody. While the man will eventually be released (due to the fact that self-defense is not a crime, regardless of how much certain blue states wish it was), it will still take an act of god countersigned by both President Obama and Chuck Norris for him to get his gun back.
This is simply another example of how you can do everything right and still go to jail. He gave his assailant every chance to disengage, using force only as a last resort. But he still got a free ride downtown and set of matching bracelets.