A real disservice is done by using limited headline space on the fact that this perp is an Army vet, rather than the many more germane and remarkably horrific facts in this story. Let me share a few of them here: https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-shootings-iowa-iowa-city-des-moines-18c07e4efae400f2ebab63ee052f6c57

He was wearing body armor and laden with ammunition for his pistol, but needed to "defend" himself. Against whom? Glad you asked...

"Four unarmed Black girls all aged 16 and under."

Mind you, you wouldn't have learned the potential hate crime angle from the police release on the shooting:

But back to the incident, in which the armed, armor-wearing white Trump rallier had to "defend" himself against four Black girls... who were surrounded by yelling Trump ralliers and their vehicles.

Now comes a new character, straight out of Gran Turismo.

I don't have anything to add to this. The thing speaks for itself.

Since the shooting, Trump fans are unhappy with "authorities for charging McKinney." The shooter's legal defense is supported by someone in the state's top law enforcement agency.

Nothing says "I shot in self defense" like covering up the shooting and hiding out from authorities until you're fingered by others

In conclusion: This is what you get for not convicting the Zimmermans and Rittenhouses when you get the chance. Pure, unadulterated, aggressive armed white supremacy calling itself "defense."

The fact that this idiot served is not irrelevant. But white supremacist militarism is not exclusive to uniformed veterans. (Armed wannabe-ism is a bad problem too; see Zimmerman/Rittenhouse.) Nor is "service" in general determinative. There's a whole *cluster* of problems here.