|
|
|
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:
MO: Papa John's worker acquitted for shooting would-be intruder outside St. Louis restaurant
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Clinton Eckenrodt fatally shot an intoxicated man last year outside a Papa John’s pizza store on South Grand Boulevard.
After Ollie E. Upchurch Jr., 31, tossed a cinder block through the store’s front window, Eckenrodt confronted him outside and opened fire, killing him.
Prosecutors said shooting Upchurch was reckless and charged him with involuntary manslaughter. Eckenrodt, 32, claimed self-defense from the start in a case testing Missouri’s self-defense statutes.
A St. Louis judge ruled late Tuesday that Eckenrodt had no duty to retreat, acquitting him of the charge after an Oct. 18 bench trial. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/14/2019)
|
“You straight shot that (slur),” Eckenrodt said. “Give me all your pizza. Pow, pow, pow. That was (expletive) sweet. That was like watching a movie, man. … Still think he’s a (expletive) idiot. Pow, pow, pow pow. (Expletive) you. I did everything right. Pop, pop pop. And then he goes down. This guy is a piece of work. Pop, pop, pop.”
“In hindsight, I imagine Eckenrodt himself wishes he’d held off longer before pulling the trigger.” - shooter's lawyer
'Doesn't sound like it, correct verdict notwithstanding. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
