|
|
|
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:
NC: Boiling Spring Lakes shooting determined act of self-defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A dispute over a lost dog that escalated into a shooting that injured one person Friday night has been determined an act of self-defense.
Officers with the Boiling Spring Lakes Police Department responded to a shooting at 10:05 p.m. Friday in the area of Bet Lane and New Hanover Road, where they found a victim suffering from a gunshot wound.
According to a release, prior to the shooting, William Christman, 28, of Ladson, S.C., was with a group of hunters who were looking for a hunting dog using a GPS device. The device had indicated the area of Bet Lane as the last location of the dog. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/1/2016)
|
I don't think the word "victim" means what you think it means.
"Police: Charges expected against victim...
Officers with the Boiling Spring Lakes Police Department responded to a shooting at 10:05 p.m. Friday in the area of Bet Lane and New Hanover Road, where they found a victim suffering from a gunshot wound...
Stephens was transported to New Hanover Regional Medical Center where he was treated and later released.
The release stated that criminal charges are expected in the near future against Stephens." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
