Sacrosanct Self-Defense

By Semperpapa

The news of the Oklahoma young woman who exercised her sacrosanct right to self-defense has gone viral across the Internet.
Here is the scoop:
Sarah McKinley is an 18-year old young widow. Her husband passed away from cancer on Christmas Day. She was in her Oklahoma City home on New Years Eve when two armed intruders attempted to force his way into her home.
She called 911 and basically asked dispatch if she had the right to shoot the intruders. The dispatcher responded that she had the right to do whatever she needed to do to safeguard herself and her young child, a 3-month old boy.
Sarah is today NOT a statistic as she proceeded to use her 12-gage shotgun to terminate one of the intruders, practically saving her and her little son's lives.

This is the good news, followed by even more positive news that the woman is not facing any legal issues (I know! Why is this even classified as "good news" when it is only common sense!).

The 911 call and the particulars of the event have made the national news, so last night I am watching, against my better judgement, one of the local channel news from Los Angeles (usually do so to check the weather).
Using the report as a pretext, one of the station reporter made her way to some of the Southern California public areas, including some liberal locals like Santa Monica. Her stunt was done to gage the reaction of common street folks to the events in Oklahoma.
The people this so-called reporter interviewed were all women and the majority of them said that she was justified in her actions.
And then there were the cooks and fruits of California, clearly examples of the reason why the social fiber of this state has gone to hell.

One woman said that Sarah should have run away instead of defending herself. OK, what if she did not have the chance to run? And in any case, she was in her OWN home! Why should she retreat from her OWN home in favor of a criminal? This is the permissive approach the morons in California have taken.
On a side note: the woman I mention above had a very heavy Hispanic accent. The "surrender " approach she champions is the same that she expect every American to have in regard to illegal aliens: irrelevant they break the law, they should be allowed to do so without consequences!

Another woman stated that maybe Sarah did not have to kill the perp, but just wound him "...just, maybe, shoot him in the arm or the leg..." showing the extreme ignorance of the common Californian about the realities of crime. This particular interviewee said she supported the idea of self-defense, but that she did not have to kill him. Really?
These ignoramuses are so smoked by Hollywood crap that they actually believe the calm, cool and collected reaction people have to being in dangerous situations as demonstrated by Tom Cruise or Matt Damon is actual reality. They do not realize the mind-altering fear one feels when facing a predatory human being threatening one's life. Sometime there may be no chance to take a careful aim to the intruder's leg or arm. And regardless, wounding an intruder is a fast road to financial ruination as somehow some liberal scum judge is going to award your very home to the offender for damages.

The ones who really baffle me are those who hesitate. The interviewer asked the question: could you kill a criminal to defend yourself or a loved one? Some people could not actually formulate a response, a reaction I have personally witnessed in some debates with some of these spineless individuals. I sure feel sorry for their children, knowing their parents could not harm someone to save them.

The optimal situation is the one Sarah McKinley found herself: she saved her son's and her own life and the scum is dead. No taxpayers' money to waste on the POS and one less douche bag off the map.
Great job, Sarah!

Just my thoughts!