He counts as a victim of a shooting because he was the one shot. That’s the term for it. Also, no one was convicted of any crimes in the situation so perhaps it’s not as cut and dry as he was trying to rob/kill and got shot by a innocent citizen.
well, kind of. forgive me.
"According to the Gun Violence Archive, the gun Ford (the one shot) pointed at the victim (the shooter) had been used in other crimes. It characterized him as an “armed robber” and said the “Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine” had been “established.” In other words, concealed carry worked – a man prevented a late-night robbery in his own backyard with a weapon."
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/chicago-tribune-struggles-to-fairly-cover-concealed-carry-incident/
So I followed your link and then followed the link in that article to the Gun Violence Archive. It does indeed say that the gun was used in other crimes. It also says the type of gun is unknown so I followed its cited source articles. None of them say anything about the gun being used in other crimes. The only mention of robbery was that police “initially referred to it as robbery”.
So if the GVAs own cited sources don’t include the critical piece of information how are we to know it’s accurate? I also find it strange that a “keep the media honest” site is ultimately using only the media for its information on what is true.
I will stick with what the actual authorities did which isn’t charge anyone time a crime. That makes it more complex than just standing your ground.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, you have a point. It is hard to gain an accurate picture of the incident due to the sheer lack of information
"According to the Gun Violence Archive, the gun Ford (the one shot) pointed at the victim (the shooter) had been used in other crimes. It characterized him as an “armed robber” and said the “Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine” had been “established.” In other words, concealed carry worked – a man prevented a late-night robbery in his own backyard with a weapon."
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/chicago-tribune-struggles-to-fairly-cover-concealed-carry-incident/
So if the GVAs own cited sources don’t include the critical piece of information how are we to know it’s accurate? I also find it strange that a “keep the media honest” site is ultimately using only the media for its information on what is true.
I will stick with what the actual authorities did which isn’t charge anyone time a crime. That makes it more complex than just standing your ground.