Massacre of ten students by two home invaders prevented, because one of the intended victims had a gun
More facts are needed to understand this story, but the basic picture is there. The invaders, after they had broken into the apartment and had brought the five male and five female students under their power, confirmed to each other they had “enough” bullets. Clearly they were intending to commit mass murder. The students certainly believed that that was the case. One of the five male students had a gun in his pack. When one of the invaders began a sexual assault on one of the five female students, the male student took out his gun and fatally shot the would-be rapist and mass murderer, and the other invader ran away. The only student we know anything about, because he was interviewed on TV, is Charles Bailey, in whose apartment the incident occurred. Bailey is black. It was one of his guests who used the gun. It would seem most likely that Bailey’s guests were black, since young blacks and whites would not be expected to socialize that much.. Also, one of the suspects lived in the same apartment complex, so it appears that the complex is largely black. All of which raises the question of motive. I do not recall any incident in which black criminals or home invaders committed mass murder on a group of blacks without some prior motive such as personal vengeance or criminal “business,” but I may be wrong about that. Further, the skimpy news story on the incident, all 350 words of it, from WSBTV, dated May 4, is the only news article about it. All other reference I’ve found in a Google search are a blogs and websites that are quoting the original WSBTV story. A remarkable thing like this happens, a mass murder prevented, and it gets virtually no coverage. Why? From the nature of the story—home invasion by blacks, intended mass murder of the young victims, resembling the Witchita Massacre—I had initially thought the ten students were white, and I attributed the lack of coverage to the media’s not wanting to tell the story of a white male using a gun to stop a racial massacre of whites. But since at least some and probably all the potential victims were black, the reason for the non-coverage might be the media’s lack of interest in the use of a gun to stop murderers, by a potential victim of any race.
College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader May 9 Bill Carpenter writes:
Another reason the story may not get much airplay is this: it shows blacks using their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves from predatory blacks. That violates the liberal worldview in serious ways. For liberals, black savagery must be denied, even as it provides the lowest common denominator of human conduct that legitimizes totalitarian government domination (including the disarming) of everyone. For blacks to show that they too can use the freedom of the non-totalitarian, non-liberal order to protect themselves and suppress black savagery robs the liberal manager of his purpose on this earth. It confirms what many blacks know: they have armed themselves and are ready to shoot to kill blacks who attack them or their families, regardless of socio-political excuses for black crime. May 9 David B. writes:
The MSM doesn’t like to cover a story in which a possible victim uses a gun to save himself. Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 08, 2009 09:40 PM | Send Email entry |