Broad definition leaves Yuma in awkward spot
Incident here isn’t what one thinks of with ‘mass shooting’
A few weeks ago, an alert reader sent the Yuma Sun newsroom the cover of Time magazine, with a note that said, “Why are we on this cover?”
The headline on the cover read “ENOUGH,” with a smaller subheadline, “A year of gun violence in America so far.”
The rest of the cover was filled with cities in which mass shootings had occurred. Gilroy. Dayton. El Paso. Chicago.
Then, in the lower lefthand corner, the reader noticed “Yuma, AZ.”
A mass shooting is not something one would forget, especially if it happened in our community.
Yet both the reader and the newsroom staff were perplexed - what was this cover referencing? So we looked into it.
For Time’s research, a mass shooting was defined as any time four or more people were injured or killed in a shooting.
And Yuma did have an incident that met that definition.
At the start of the year on Jan. 3, four people were shot during a home invasion on East County 18½ Street. Four people broke into the home, and the occupant of the home fired several rounds at them, killing one and injuring the other three.
The incident is still under investigation, but the occupant - the shooter - has not been charged. In Arizona, there is a stand your ground law, and under that law, people have no duty to retreat before using weapons or physical force on those who are believed to be a threat.
State law also allows for self-defense protections against intruders if the residents believe themselves to be in danger.
When we think of mass shootings, however, we generally aren’t thinking of self-protection during a home invasion.
Instead, that phrase draws immediate, specific images of horrific acts of violence against unsuspecting people: shooters who target schools, churches, movie theaters, or shopping centers.
Random acts of violent destruction in open, public spaces against people who simply were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Our shooting incident did involve multiple victims, but the premise isn’t the same. It wasn’t a random act it was a resident of a home who was defending himself.
While Time’s parameters are clear, Yuma should have had an asterisk beside it.
What do you think, readers? Was Time right in including Yuma, or no? Let us know. Share your thoughts online at www.YumaSun.com.
Unsigned editorials represent the viewpoint of this newspaper rather than an individual. Columns and letters to the editor represent the viewpoints of the persons writing them and do not necessarily represent the views of the Yuma Sun.