Two men were fatally shot and at least 15 others have been wounded in shootings across Chicago since Friday.(Sunday, March 30, 6am)
Seventeen .... which was the median age of the victims (except a FedEx courier and a 41 year old man who was in the company of a 16-year-old victim of the same incident) ... people shot. One of the "wounded" was shot in the head; prognosis unavailable.
(According to the rough timeline provided in the article, all of the shootings occurred between Noon Friday and 4:30pm Saturday.)
One 'victim' was killed by a Chicago policeman; the 'victim' was pointing a pistol at the policeman at the time, during a home invasion of the officer's residence, and had refused to put down the gun. As nearly as the reader can tell, that was the only incident in which both parties had displayed a gun. Were the shootings entirely random? The article doesn't delve deeply enough to determine causality. Apparently, even the local NBC affiliate was overwhelmed by the spate of Gun Violence in Chicago.
Yes, the term "Gun Violence" seems appropriate; but the emphasis should be on the word "violence", not "guns". Note that only ONE incident was characterized by an intended 'victim' having a gun. That was the Chicago policeman who shot a teen who was defending his life, his property, and his family during a home invasion.
According to the article in only one shooting 'gang-related'. Yeah, right.
Let's talk about this for a minute:
In over a dozen separate incidents, in only ONE case was the intended victim armed; the home invasion of a cop.
What if that home had been the resident of someone who wasn't a Sworn Officer? Guns are outlawed in Chicago (no matter what the Supreme Court says), so what if that at-home defender of self, family and property was NOT a cop? Chances are the resident would not have been able to defend himself. Anybody who will attempt to burgle a home without checking to ensure that the resident was not there ... doesn't much care. So .. it wasn't a simple 'burglary', it was a classic "Home Invasion".
"Home invasion is a term used in the United States to describe illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping."
We already know that the 'resident' was armed; he shot the one of the gang which broke into his home.
Assuming that the 'resident' was not an armed LEO, and knowing that this occurred in 'gun free zone' (Chicago) ... what would have happened?
Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden defended the officer’s actions, saying the 33-year-old officer was with his 7-year-old daughter at the time of the incident.
Your imagination is as good as mine, and your conclusions are probably similar. Nothing good for the inhabitants, ending in death.
You have to ask yourself: if 'home invasion' is so devil-may-care in Chicago, why don't the "City Fathers" wake up and allow their people to defend themselves?
If the parent was not armed, the death-toll in Chicago for that 30-hour crime spree would be higher. Subtract the home invader, add the father and the daughter.
And it's just another big headline for the Chicago newspapers.
Nothing to see here .. MoveOn, people!
1 comment:
Brace yourselves, it is going to get worse, much much worse. The UN report on global warming/climate change just came out. It predicted that ongoing GW/CC is going cause a tremendous increase in crime and warfare that will affect everyone in the world. We are already seeing the affects in places like Chicago, Detroit and Syria.
Post a Comment