Gunfire Erupts After San Antonio Woman Refuses to Talk to Ex-Boyfriend; Police Refuse to Charge Shoo
A San Antonio woman was taking refuge at her friends' apartment when the ex boyfriend somehow got word of her location and went over. Being alone in the apartment, the woman refused him entry to the apartment premise.
The boyfriend decided to come in, anyway, and he began kicking down the door. Dear reader, you look worried. Just to set your mind at ease: he doesn't shoot her at this time. In a "shocking" departure from the prevailing narrative of a gun in domestic dispute being 100% likely to harm the victim of domestic violence, Buzzfeed would say "You Won't Believe What Happens Next!" The (civilian) cavalry arrived.
The apartment residents arrived home to find the assailant still kicking their door down. They again asked the man to leave but he continued kicking. At that point one of the residents informed the criminal that he was in lawful possession of a firearm.
The attacker continued his assault upon the apartment, trying to get at the woman behind the door. Eventually, in order to protect the life of their guest and their own, the resident was forced to fire upon their attacker. With two bullets in him, the attacker finally desisted in his unprovoked and unlawful use of force to enter an occupied habitation for the purpose of committing a crime of domestic violence. He fled, but collapsed in the parking lot and was pronounced dead at the scene. Now, of course, we await the de rigeur appearance on the local news of the attacker's family and friends to tell us "what a good man he was" and how he was just "misunderstood" and "didn't deserve to be shot". Or they will tell us that he "just wanted to talk to her" and "wouldn't have done her any harm if she had just opened the door." Now, if this even comes close to remaining in the news or is picked up by Regional or national coverage, you can be sure that they will focus heavily on the pain and trauma to the criminal's family more so than the victim's. Some news outlets will even go so far as to refer to the criminal assailant as as the "victim" due solely to the fact that he was shot and killed by a good guy with a gun who was able to be his own first-responder. The actual victims in this story will receive minimal national media coverage, but are lucky to have been living in a free state, rather than in any of the states in which armed self defense is a de facto crime (see Blue locations on map for more information).
In many jurisdictions, the simple fact that a firearm was used would have resulted in the resident's arrest as a "violent criminal" and the confiscation of his self defense implements. Meanwhile the actual attacker, had he survived, would likely have been released in under a day due to most cities' catch and release programs.
However, while VERY "Progressive", San Antonio )is in a state where feelings have not yet overtaken common sense in all areas of life. Nevertheless, would anyone in the class care to hazard a guess as to where, under catch-and-release, the attacker would eventually be found again? If you guessed "attacking the apartment residents or his ex-girlfriend" you're probably right! And in one of those blue-dominated States above, the apartment residents and the initial victim, would now be disarmed. They would now be vulnerable to whatever delay in rescue results from being a police force in a large, progressive city with an astronomical crime rate. But in those states where feelings have trumped common sense in all areas of life, this would not be a big deal. The evil gun has been safely rendered neutral, and the violent Criminal has not had his rights violated by being retained in a Cell until his trial date.
Because, as we are wont to say here, "Gun Control not really about Public Safety or even really about the gun. It's about control."
Why else do we not see more anti-violence measures and but simply more anti-gun measures?