What bothers me is the practice of some newspapers describing a perpetrator caught in the act as a "Suspect." When a criminal is inside a business, firing a weapon at employees and owners, I think they have earned the appellation "perpetrator." Yes, the Constitution still declares a person innocent until proven guilty, but let's get real. There's no doubt a perpetrator is guilty when s/he is caught in the act of committing a crime.
If a criminal is wounded or killed while in the commission of a crime, they are NOT a "victim." They are a wounded or dead criminal. A victim is an innocent person attacked by a criminal.
In this story residents of a neighborhood "protest" outside an Oklahoma pharmacy accusing an employee of racism. The pharmacist is white, the robbers were black. They BOTH had guns, had fired at the Desert Storm disabled veteran [thank you for your service] wounding him in the hand. One of the robbers was killed when he attempted to further assault the Veteran after he had been shot. Fearing for his life and safety, the veteran then shot him a second time, killing him.
WHAT, in the name of all that's Holy, was this armed victim supposed to do? Should he have shot to wound the robber a second time? Trained law enforcement officers and soldiers sometimes cannot be sure where their shots will impact after experiencing an adrenaline dump. Of course, the pharmacist had been wounded. That will throw your aim off, too.
But, presumably black protesters, accuse this brave would-be robbery victim and wounded man of being a racist because he shot at black robbers. Yes, the dead robber was a student. But he was obviously old enough to engage in criminal activity. He was NOT an innocent shot for being black. He was a CRIMINAL armed with a handgun who was stopped in the act of committing a violent felony. It was a possible logical outcome of his actions. He was forced to take immediate responsibility for his actions. His "supporters" should realize this and STFU.