|
|
|
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 |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
