LiveWire

**Scroll for Update**

In my book, “The New American Revolution,” I devote an entire chapter to the importance of gun ownership, not only for the reminder of your power as an individual, but for the obvious source of personal protection.

Here’s another example of how guns save the lives of innocent people.

Oxnard Man Who Broke Into Apartment Is Slain

An Oxnard man who broke into the bedroom of a Rancho Cucamonga apartment early Friday morning was shot and killed by one of the occupants — a prison counselor for the state Department of Corrections, authorities said.

The intruder, Hector Soto, 21, of Oxnard, died less than three hours after being shot and undergoing surgery at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton, the San Bernardino County coroner said.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department did not release the prison counselor’s name. He will not be charged, a spokeswoman said.

Of course, scum like Soto who live in San Francisco or Washington, DC have a much easier time victimizing the law-abiding because guns are banned in those cities. Perhaps those towns should send travel brochures to others like Soto who would prefer to travel to cities where their potential victims have no way to fight back. San Franciscans, perhaps you should have taken a look at what happens to crime and homicide rates in cities that ban firearms. That’s right, they become the murder and violent crime capitals of the country. Just ask anyone in DC who thought the banning of firearms would make them safer. Instead, it has created a living hell.

Fortunately, at least for those who live in Rancho Cucamonga CA, a different message has been sent–break into a man’s house, and that man will fight back–in a very permanent way.

Update 1/10:

This message was posted by Patrick P in the comments section:

Tammy, you should update this post. The “intruder” was actually a drunken neighbor who mistook the apartment for the one he was staying in. At least that is what the LA Times is reporting.

If the Times article is correct I respectfully suggest that an apology is in order for calling Mr. Soto “scum.”

I stand by my assessment Patrick, and here’s why. Of course the key part here “at least that’s what the L.A. Times is reporting.” Yes they are, and they’re repeating what family members are insisting and what their own anti-gun bias reinforces. They quote Soto’s stepfather (and man who of course has no reason to want his stepson to be viewed in a certain light):

Man Made Fatal Error in Address

Ward [the stepfather] said that after Soto realized his key wouldn’t open the unit’s door about 2:50 a.m. Friday, he probably decided to climb through an open front window. He would have been reluctant to knock or ring the doorbell, to avoid waking up his brother, his brother’s wife and their young daughter, Ward said…

And this from a Sheriff’s Sgt, essentially repeating what the stepfather is insisting upon:

“Well, all of these buildings in the complex look the same. He went to the wrong building, and the wrong unit.”

But then this exchange is noted in the same article:

The resident “comes out of the bathroom, and all of a sudden he’s thinking the boogeyman is inside of his house,” Bradford said.

The pair scuffled in the bedroom. Soto briefly walked out of the bedroom, and the occupant pulled a gun from a nightstand, according to the account reported to deputies. Soto returned to the bedroom and approached the man until the man backed up against a wall. Cornered, the man fired one gunshot, Bradford said.

Is it possible that Soto went into the wrong apartment? Yes. Is it probable? No.

Here’s what we are supposed to believe: Soto goes to a door he thinks is his, his keys won’t work, and according to the stepfather “probably” didn’t want to wake up his brother and family, so decides instead to break into the apartment through a window at 3 in the morning. Yeah, that’s a lot quieter and safer, isn’t it.

Then he encounters a strange man in the apartment (which is supposed to be his) and the man starts to fight with him. I’m sure words are exchanged like “What are you doing in my apartment” perhaps by both men, at which point either the 65 year-old intended victim realizes he has a man who is in the wrong apartment and it’s a mistake, and Soto realizes he’s in the wrong apartment (at the very least Soto realizes his brother and his family are not on the premises either). But it seems that communication was never made, because a physical fight still ensues, and in the new article Soto not only does not leave the apartment, instead he goes back into the bedroom where he corners the old man who then has no choice but to use deadly force defending himself and his wife.

And we’re supposed to believe, through all this, Soto is a man who innocently entered the wrong apartment. Uh huh.

Or, we have this scenario:

A guy returns to an apartment building where his family lives, thinks the old man neighbor (who had just moved in temporarily) would be an easy mark at 3 in the morning and decides to rob the guy. After all, if he was graduating the next day, a little extra cash couldn’t hurt, right? A 65 year old man shouldn’t be too hard to physically subdue. Unless of course, the intended victim is armed.

This is why I’m cynical about the mistaken apartment argument. First, it’s one thing to break into the wrong apartment, and quite another to stay and return to engage the man who lives there in the bedroom after you’ve already encountered enough to tell you you’re in the wrong place.

I also, frankly, find it odd that the statement of a family member of the intruder is the one who everyone believes when making determinations about what happened.

It must be embarassing and yes, tragic, for that family. Who, after all, wants to believe that a family member was doing something criminal? Many make excuses, believe there must be some mistake. But to accept that as reality, and then use the L.A. Times carrying it as further “proof” this was the situation, is ridiculous.

And the sheriff? I’m sure there is a reason to pander to the feelings of the family. After all, the intruder is dead, and they have stated the man who did the shooting is not being charged with anything. Perhaps, they feel, it can’t hurt to patronize the remaining family, who still live there.

Left out in all of this is a man who was forced to shoot another man. The old man had retreated into the bedroom, and Soto returned to further the physical confrontation when he easily could have walked out the door. Instead, he went back for more. Why? Unless, of course, he wanted something from that apartment.

The Los Angeles Times is also not going to miss an opportunity to cast a law-abiding gun owner as a bad guy, or the presence of a firearm in a private residence as a bad, dangerous thing. Let’s remember what gets covered and who is doing the reporting.

All of that said, I stand by my assessment, and argue that attempts to paint a bad guy as a victim is a mistake and reflective of our society which is growing increasingly unable to hold people accountable for their actions.

Look at facts and circumstances for reality as opposed the arguments of a grieving stepfather, and the coverage of the leftist, anti-gun Los Angeles Times.

Now, if more comes to light, specifically if the innocent man in the apartment comes forward and indicates that Soto made comments indicating he was in the wrong apartment, I’ll address that. Yet that man has said nothing to that effect, and the police are not charging him with anything, indicating they believe the man felt he was dealing with an intruder and nothing less.

I’ll keep an eye on this and if there are further developments I’ll let you know. I’m sure you’ll let me know, too 🙂