|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: ‘No more Stephon Clarks:’ Lawmakers revive bill to prosecute officers who use deadly force
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Flanked by Californians whose loved ones have been killed by police, a San Diego lawmaker on Wednesday announced that she’d revive a bill that would make it easier to file criminal charges against officers who use deadly force not deemed “necessary.”
Democrat Shirley Weber says the California Act to Save Lives has one important difference from a similar bill she submitted last year. This time, it more clearly allows officers to invoke the self-defense law without penalty when there is imminent danger and when deescalation strategies like verbal warnings and persuasion tactics do not work. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/7/2019)
|
I have no love for police, but the people shot are invariably criminals that have either displayed aggressive behavior or are fleeing from police. There death is no loss to society.
You don't want to get shot, put your hands up and obey LEO commands. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
