|
|
|
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:
WI: Family questions releasing the suspect in deadly Madison shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Dist. Atty. Ismael Ozanne explained his office determined Reifert was in the room he rented when the person who died in the shooting entered “forcibly and unlawfully,” then, that person reportedly refused to leave and took an aggressive stance against Reifert.
Based on that, the district attorney stated the state’s self-defense statute that is commonly known as the Castle Doctrine applied.
“The law does not permit me to consider whether Mr. Reifert had an ability to flee or retreat from this situation and I am required to presume that Mr. Reifert reasonably believed the force used was necessary,” Ozanne wrote in the statement. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/30/2021)
|
| Condemned by his own behavior: Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
