|
|
|
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:
MI: Wife shoots back at suspects robbing her husband during medical marijuana sale
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Detroit police are investigating a shooting that injured at least one person on the city's east side Wednesday morning.
It happened in the 19300 block of Algonac, which is near Seven Mile & Outer Drive, at a home where the victim is a medical marijuana caregiver.
Police say two suspects were allowed into the home to purchase marijuana, but then one of them tried to rob the homeowner and fired several shots at him.
The homeowner was hit, and his wife saw what was happening and shot back at the suspects.
The suspects were able to escape from the home and it's not known right now if either of them were hurt.
The husband, who we're told is 61 years old, was taken to the hospital and is in temporary serious condition right now. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/13/2019)
|
| She obviously needs more range time. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
