It’s been a long day and we’ve got two of these to get through. So…we’re going to skip the sarcasm making fun of the logical gymnastics the media and other “progressive” information sources would use to frame this homicide as anything other than what it is: justifiable.
Around 8 AM, Anthony Clark “Tony” Brown III, a Salem, Oregon 20-year-old, was shot and killed while burglarizing a home in the company of a minor.
Details are unclear, but police state that Ol’Tony and his unnamed, under-aged accomplice are “suspected” of burglarizing the home.
Unfortunately for Little Tony, a resident of the house was home, armed, and closing fast on the intruders.
On encountering little Tony and the child, the resident engaged them, striking Tony with gunfire and killing him.
The innocent child accompanying innocent lil’ Tony was a 17-year-old altar boy from Keizer. He has been charged with First Degree Burglary, a felony.
Fortunately for the remaining adult-sized felon, though they outnumbered their victim, neither he nor Tony appears to have been armed with anything Oregon recognizes as a weapon. So, under Oregon law, this is generally treated as a defense to charging the poor, misguided angel with the Felony Murder of Tony.
What these people will not understand, though, is that in most rational jurisdictions, the victim of a violent assault is generally not responsible for determining the ultimate intentions of the attackers who have him outnumbered. There is no rational reason to require a man to stop in the middle of repelling an assault to ask, “Excuse me, I know the two of you are busy with looting my home after forcing your way in, but are you armed? Do you intend to hurt me?”