Insanity (literally)

An apparently deranged man is walking around downtown Seattle in broad daylight on a Saturday morning, acting strangely and shouting at nearby pedestrians, insulting and threatening them. Another man walks by, minding his own business. The erratically acting man attacks the second man, punching and kicking him, while screaming that he is going to kill him. The second man is beaten so badly that he falls to the sidewalk. He then draws his .357 Magnum revolver, for which he possesses a valid concealed-carry permit, and fires once, killing his assailant.

This is such an obvious case of justifiable self-defense that the victim is not even booked into the local jail. He is merely questioned, then released. The police are convinced that it is a slam-dunk "good shoot". Police spokeswoman Deb Brown:

"He was down there, minding his own business. There is nothing to think he was anything but a random target".

A tragic occurrence, but the right outcome according to the circumstances, right? Not according to the Seattle Times, which published an editorial by the deranged man's uncle, lambasting the victim for having the gall to carry a firearm to defend himself. Some of the choicer cuts from his letter (my comments in bold):

"Witnesses say Danny's attack appeared random, but it was Danny who was shot dead. Initial reports painted Danny as a dangerous person who deserved it and the shooter as the victim."

I would say that about covers it. The victim had been beaten to the ground, and was being kicked and punched by a much younger man who was yelling that he was going to kill the victim. Yeah, I think that your precious Danny deserved it.

"Most normal people would respond by instinctively running or using their hands to defend themselves.
However, the shooter was not what we would think of as normal — he was carrying a gun and his immediate instinct was to shoot his attacker.
Many "normal" people are capable of killing another person in a brief moment of extreme anger, but this is uncommon because most of us do not carry lethal weapons and our bodies are not killing machines — a .357-caliber Magnum is."

Remember, the victim had already been beaten to the ground. Running away or using his fists were no longer options. The victim used the only means of defense he had left, and he was lucky to have it, as it stopped the attack immediately. This is not "normal" behavior, according to the letter writer. Actually, I think that self-preservation in the face of a deadly threat is one of the most normal reactions that a person could have. I believe that if there were more "normal" people such as the victim walking around, that the rate of random violent crimes such as this one would decrease substantially.

"There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness.
I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun."

Having a mental illness does not give a person a "free pass" from being a deadly threat. The victim could not have possibly known this person's complete medical history, nor should he have been expected to. I think the only "misguided" people in this whole sad story were the people who let the perpetrator out of the psych ward, and perhaps his uncle, who apparently lives in Fantasyland.

Oh, the bottom of the letter states that the uncle lives in Canada. That explains everything.
I'm sorry for your loss, sir, but don't blame the victim for your nephew's actions and ultimate demise.

Thanks to Billy Beck for the heads up and links.