|
|
|
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:
East Wheeling Shooting: Self-Defense or Murder?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Several hours of police testimony and surveillance video from the scene were all a part of Day 2 in a murder trial for Dallas Acoff on Tuesday in Ohio County. The defense claims the East Wheeling shootout was self-defense for the defendant, but prosecutors disagree. They’re trying to establish that Acoff, in fact, was not threatened, and they insinuated he could have left the Legion bar at any time. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/28/2016)
|
"They’re (persecuting attorneys) trying to establish that Acoff, in fact, was not threatened, and they insinuated he could have left the Legion bar at any time."
Since WV is a stand your ground state and persecutors are arguing he had a duty to retreat, the judge should sanction the prostitutors and declare a mistrial.
Why do we pay government attorneys to mislead the jury when the fact is two drug offenders got in a shooting match? Is it because lying is all they know how to do? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
