Weak Analogy?

A good argument connects the dots between premises. This does not. Let's connect those dots...

1. Person X killed a child because the child was screaming.
2. Person X has anger issues and they can't control anything when they are angry.
3. Killing someone when it is out of one's control is not immoral.
4. Therefore, person X killing that child is not immoral.

I see no fallacy with the way I have written this. Of course, each premise is debatable and any premise that is rejected would result the in the conclusion to be rejected. As for the weak analogy, I don't even see an analogy here.