|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/17/2018)
|
"[W]e can't assume just because someone is in our home they're going to hurt us."
That's EXACTLY wrong. The Castle Doctrine provides that an intruder in the home is automatically presumed to present an immediate and unavoidable danger of death or egregious bodily harm.
AUTOMATICALLY.
That's what Castle Doctrine is all about, why it exists in the first place. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/17/2018)
|
The homeowner told the trespasser to leave and he didn't leave. A 79 year old can't physically defend himself and shot the intruder before he was close enough to cause him physical harm.
It seems like a pretty clear case of self defense to me.
Hopefully turning this over to the prosecutor is strictly a formality and they will make the correct decision to not charge the homeowner. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
