|
|
|
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:
OH: Fatal shooting of Black teenager ruled as homicide after white gunman claimed self-defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
An autopsy report has determined that the fatal shooting of a 13-year-old Black boy by a white man in Columbus, Ohio, was a homicide.
This information arrives months after the charges against the accused shooter, who claimed he shot the child in self-defense, were dropped.
The report from the Franklin County coroner’s office released on Tuesday revealed that Sinzae Reed suffered two gunshot wounds, one to the chest and one to the hand, on 12 October, 2022. Homicide is one of five determinations used to determine the manner of a person’s death, and a coroner’s determination of homicide does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed. |
| Comment by:
jdege
(1/20/2023)
|
Yes? It was a homicide. If it was a murder, it was a homicide. If it was an accidental shooting, it was a homicide. If it was justified self-defense, it was a homicide.
That it was a homicide only means that someone was killed. Which we already knew. The coroner's finding has exactly nothing to do with whether the shooting was or wasn't justified.
Do reporters not even know how to read, anymore? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
