Yeah, they really said this...

Via David Codrea's Examiner column (and if you're not reading the Examiner guys every day, you should be), we have this outrageous bit from the Toledo Blade:

Twice in just the past few days, seemingly bad guys were shot while allegedly attempting to rob Toledo stores. Although we're glad the robberies were thwarted and thankful no innocents were injured, we're not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.
...

Being robbed at gunpoint is frightening, and we do not presume to judge, as police would say, the righteousness of either shooting. But it must be remembered that robbery is not a capital crime, and it's only by chance that no one other than the would-be robbers was injured.
...
it seems to us that when deadly force is used as a first response rather than a last resort, civil society suffers.

Huh. Sure sounds to me as if they're judging the righteousness of those shootings, with that crack about robbery not being a capital crime. It seems to me they're saying those clerks' defending themselves and their property was wrong even though they don't come right out and say it. One gets the idea the Toledo Blade editorialists don't think their readers are smart enough to grasp such nuanced slander. And as for the deadly force being used as a first response -- just which party initiated the confrontation with deadly force here? And how the hell were the clerks on the other side supposed to respond, by putting daisies in the damn gun barrels? Apparently the Toledo Blade thinks so...