|
|
|
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:
NY: Police: Retired police officer acted in self-defense in North Bellmore road rage shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Police say a retired law enforcement officer acted in self-defense when he shot a North Bellmore man who was beating him over the head with a metal flashlight.
The road rage incident took place just after 11 p.m. Tuesday on Bellmore Road near Magnolia Road.
Police say 47-year-old Michael Bua cut off a 62-year-old retired police officer, prompting the drivers to get out of their cars and start arguing. Police say Bua then started hitting the retired officer in the head with the flashlight. That’s when the unnamed retired officer pulled out his licensed gun. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/17/2019)
|
"The retired officer has had his license permit suspended pending an investigation."
Newsflash: Per federal law, he doesn't NEED a permit. His retired credentials are sufficient, and they cannot be 'suspended'. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
