|
|
|
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:
WV: Deputies Acted In Self-Defense In Weekend Shooting
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 6 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Monongalia County Sheriff’s Department says deputies were acting in self-defense when they shot and killed a suspect while serving a search warrant early Saturday morning. According to a press release, deputies were attempting to serve an arrest warrant on an individual on Price Hill Road when the unarmed suspected accosted the deputies. The suspect was armed with a handgun and was threatening to shoot the deputies. Deputies responded by shooting the suspect. He was taken to Ruby Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/30/2016)
|
Sounds like they broke in to make an arrest.
Was the warrant for the guy who confronted them with a handgun?
If not, was it his home, or did they just break into some random place and pat themselves on the back for killing the resident?
It would be nice if the lamestream media would find out what happened and report on that instead of just repeating whatever spin the department's press officer put on it. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(8/30/2016)
|
| Sorry Mickey... you missed it. The first line of the article says "search warrant", not "arrest warrant". With a warrant to search the address, it doesn't matter who then, armed, threatens to shoot the officers. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(8/30/2016)
|
First it was "search warrant", then it was "arrest warrant". First it was "unarmed suspect", then it was "suspect armed with a handgun".
WTF???? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/30/2016)
|
" ... when the unarmed suspected ... " =/= " ... The suspect was armed with a handgun ... "
Oooooookaaaaaayyyy ...... |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/30/2016)
|
Why is it that "the names of the deputies involved in the incident are being withheld"?
They are public employees and their names should be on the public record because ...
"This is the third deputy-involved shooting within the last year in Monongalia County."
Who among the deputies were involved in one, two or all three of the shootings?
The public has the right to know but I'm not optimistic that the local media has what it takes. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/30/2016)
|
When you start with a BS report authored by the cops who just shot somebody in his home, then filter it through the department's spin doctor who writes the press release, then filter it through 'professional journalists', don't be surprised if the story is full of holes and self-contradictory.
That said, is "unamed suspect" unnamed or unarmed or both? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
