Here we have a story of a Chicago Firefighter who had his car carjacked, and was about to be run over by the attacker, when he drew his concealed carry gun and shot the criminal... He was cleared of any wrong doing, it was determined to be a justified shooting...and now the left wing is about to destroy him.... https://www.americanthinker.com/art...teen_shot_in_carjacking_attempted_murder.html A lieutenant in the Chicago Fire Department may find out. The fireman committed the grave sin of defending himself and his property from an aggressor. Now he is the target of a social media campaign to ex post facto punish him for having the audacity to protect what is rightfully his. Last summer, the unidentified firefighter left his Jeep idling on the West Side of the city (admittedly, not a bright thing to do anywhere in Chicago) when it was carjacked by 17-year-old Charles Macklin. The lieutenant, who is Hispanic, attempted to stop Macklin, a black teen, from taking his vehicle by jumping in front and yelling, "Get out." Macklin refused. According to the police report, Macklin then "tried to run [the firefighter] over," at which point the threatened lieutenant pulled his concealed handgun and shot the teenager in the chest, killing him. After investigating the lieutenant's actions, the Chicago Fire Department found no rule violation or wrongdoing. That wasn't enough justice for Macklin's sister, Janique. In a glowing profile that reads more like a KCNA summary of Kim Jong-un's latest trip abroad than a real news account, the Chicago Tribune provided a platform for Janique's feeling of unfairness. "When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they're pulling off in your car?" she asks, either unaware that her brother tried to run down the owner of the car he was jacking or dismissing the official police report entirely. Then comes the most revealing quote: "Even if [Macklin] did that, if he did steal the car. You've got insurance – let him go to jail. I would've rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he's dead." This is an abhorrent mix of demanded obeisance, willful duplicity, and wishful thinking. Macklin wasn't just stealing the car; he made an attempt on the owner's life. And why is it assumed that Macklin will only go on a joyride? Why does she conjecture that the worst thing that will happen is her numbskull brother will go to jail? What if Macklin had used the vehicle to commit another theft or, worse, a murder? ------- So when Janique Macklin says something akin to "Yeah, my brother shouldn't have stolen the Jeep, but he shouldn't have been shot dead for it," we should trace the fatal consequence back to its provenance: a choice.