This story is from several days ago. The three “kids” who were shot, approached a home with their faces covered. They opened fire on people who were in the front yard of the residence. That’s when the homeowner’s son returned fire with his “semiautomatic rifle.” The fact that he was defending his mother seems to be lost on the gun-hating Left when it comes to matters of self-defense. What was he supposed to do? Watch her die? And if the bad guys were swinging swords, or trying to stab innocent people with steak knives, what then? As far as I can see, that son protected his mother.
But the Left hates self-defense so much, that they can’t let it go. (And if they want to beat a dead horse, I am perfectly willing to continue to highlight the use of the so-called “assault weapon” as a “defense weapon.”)
Neither the homeowner nor the people who lived at the home were injured. But all three
teenagersviolent criminals died from their injuries. One of the teensmiscreants died at the scene and the other two died at a local hospital, [Deputy Lee] Thomas said. [My edit. Z-deb. (I fixed it for them!)]
The timeline of events is not in question.
One of the suspects had a handgun and fired shots at the residents before the homeowner returned fire, Thomas said. The homeowner’s name has not been released.
The only thing not clear, is how long the gun-hating Left and the media (but I repeat myself) will bitch and moan over what appears to be a textbook case of legal self-defense. Or how do “fired shots at the residents” and “fear of death or grave bodily injury” stack up against one another?