The story may not actually have happened, but the responses of some of the readers are downright mind boggling!
One guy said, "No one deserves to die, not even a dumb douchebag teenager."
Another guy actually agreed: "I totally back up his point; is it responsible to return violence with violence, and then use religion to cover up a murder? two crimes were committed here: an assault by one individual (could have been more, thankfully not) and the other murder. I understand that self defence is important, however taking the lives of two young individuals in the process doesn't balance out. An eye for an eye you say? no, she took two lives, and could have taken more. It's called murder. It's murder because in order for 'self-defence' to be utilized as a defence, she must have used the equal amount of force, or less to protect herself. the moment she pulled the gun on the kids is manslaughter--and I do hope she serves time for this"
I couldn't let that one pass by: "The fact that there were 7 against one senior citizen means that the force required to adequately meet the threat was automatically escalated. For you to think that she could in any way meet these predators with force on force is absurd in the extreme. It is called self defense, and while the result may be classified as homicide, it is also rightly classified as JUSTIFIABLE homicide. For her to be guilty of murder means that A) what she did was unlawful and B) it was pre-meditated. She was lawfully carrying a firearm under color of law that gives her the right to use deadly force to defend herself against the imminent threat of rape, great bodily harm, or death, so that strikes down the first part of that definition, and it was the attack on her that was pre-meditated - not her response, so that strikes down the second part of that definition. She murdered no one, but they certainly would have murdered her without a second thought."
