|
|
|
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:
FL: Police ignore 'stand your ground' defense, attorneys say
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After a shooting, law enforcement officers are ignoring an important provision in the state's "stand your ground" statute that requires them to determine if self-defense is applicable before they make an arrest, prominent defense attorneys say.
"If there's a confrontation and someone gets shot or hurt, the winner goes to jail. It doesn't matter about provocation. They're going to jail," said Bradenton attorney Charles M. Britt III, who says he has handled 50 "stand your ground" cases. "The statute says that before law enforcement can make an arrest, they have to determine that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply. It's right there in the statute, but I've never once seen them do it." |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/8/2015)
|
| And they won't begin obeying the law until you start suing them for false arrest, and find a way to penetrate 'qualified immunity' so that it affects THEIR wallets. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
