|
|
|
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:
Canada: Judge: Stabbing an Intruder to Death Exceeds Self-Defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Defending yourself from someone who broke into your house is justified, a judge in Canada decided, but stabbing him 13 times, killing him, is not. The Manitoba judge sentenced Dakota Pratt, 28, to five years in prison Thursday; Pratt had been convicted of manslaughter by a jury in April, CBC News reports. Pratt woke up in the early-morning hours with the feeling he was being stabbed, and found Vincent Bunn, who was holding a knife, in his room. Pratt chased and struggled with Bunn throughout the house and out onto the deck. Pratt "knew he was in a struggle for his own life," the judge wrote. There, Bunn was stabbed; the last stab, to Bunn's heart, was fatal, court records show. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(6/8/2019)
|
| Another sickening example of someone who has been attacked, then turned from being the actual Victim, into the Perpetrator, and the actual Perpetrator turned into the poor, poor Victim. Disgusting..... |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/8/2019)
|
Apparently it is better if the victim is killed than the criminal intruder.
It would have been OK if he only stabbed him five times?
When under attack, I doubt that the victim was counting. You are supposed to continue shooting (stabbing) until the threat has been neutralized. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(6/9/2019)
|
| You can only hope that this idiot judge someday finds himself in that situation. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
