|
|
|
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:
IN: Attacker’s Mistake: Brought Nunchucks to a Gun Fight
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The ex gets out of his car wielding a pair of nun chucks. Apparently in a rage, the ex charged toward the couple. The current husband warned the attacker off while pointing his pistol at him.
As the ex closed the distance swinging his nun chucks, the husband fired a number of shots, hitting the ex six times. As of this writing he was in critical condition in the ICU at a local hospital.
Since they have two children together, the wife calls the shooting bittersweet. “I think it’s finally over. Unfortunately it came to this but, he is in the situation he’s in because he put himself there.”
Police say the husband does not face criminal charges at this time, because he was acting in self-defense and defense of his wife. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/10/2016)
|
You meant to link Ammoland?
http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/attackers-mistake-brought-nunchucks-to-a-gun-fight
Original source:
http://wishtv.com/2016/05/24/hendricks-county-authorities-respond-to-shooting/
Obviously NOT the Indy Star.
The Star would never forget to call the attacker (with a restraining order against him) the 'victim'. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
