From the local paper's report of the incident:
Person fatally shot in North Toledo
Victim was suspect in apparent robbery attempt
Toledo police are at the scene of a convenience store robbery in North Toledo where one person has been fatally shot.
The deceased was identified by police as Lamar Allen, 25, of Toledo.
The incident occurred about 9:45 a.m. at the Express Carryout, 1920 Mulberry St.
The two adult male suspects were in the process of emptying the store's cash register when the clerk fatally shot one of them, said Toledo police Sgt. Joe Heffernan. The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter.
It was unclear whether the second suspect, who fled the store, was hit by a bullet or got away with any cash. He was last seen running toward Stickney Avenue.
The robbery attempt happened about 9:45 a.m. and just as the store had opened for the morning.
The clerk, whose name police withheld, was working by himself at the time.
The robbery attempt was caught on a store video camera. Forensic experts are reviewing the tapes.
Note the choice of words (emphasis added): "The victim, who was struck multiple times, collapsed right in front of the counter."
Anyone who is shot while emptying a store's cash register cannot be a 'victim.' They could have called him 'suspect' or 'robber' or 'thief' or even included the term 'alleged' in conjunction. But "victim" certainly was a poor and inaccurate choice and makes it appear as if the news report is trying to garner sympathy for the robber.
Because remember: when you have a victim, you also have a perpetrator. So is the paper implying that the store clerk is somehow guilty in defending himself? It would appear so.
Then they make sure to point out that the robber was "struck multiple times" and "collapsed right in front of the counter." My take on this is that the clerk shot the guy several times and killed him dead.
Never having found myself in a similar position as the clerk, I have no idea how many times one might fire a weapon at two people who are robbing your business. But there's also no way to know, when you come upon such a situation, whether or not the robbers will fire back.
The perception the paper seems to want you have is that, somehow, the clerk must have used 'excessive' force since he killed the robber on the spot. I could be wrong in their motive, but knowing the penchant of the paper for such positions, I doubt it.
The bottom line is that the story could have been written and reported on without such biased words being used. But liberal bias in our local daily is a given, rather than the exception.
While I can have sympathy for the robber's family at their loss, I have more concern for the store clerk. Even in self-defense, it must be a terrible thing to know you have taken someone's life - and logic about it being the 'right' thing is usually not enough to overcome the feelings that must result.