|
|
|
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:
MD: Maryland Cops Pulled An Amber Guyger, Only This Time The Resident Shot Police In Self Defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two police officers in Maryland were shot by a resident in his own home after they forced their way into the wrong apartment while trying to serve a search warrant, according to a new report. The episode on Wednesday night in suburban Washington was eerily reminiscent of another earlier this month when an off-duty officer in Texas shot and killed a resident in his own home because she said she confused it with her own apartment.
A team of officers from the Prince George’s County’s Police Department were reportedly tipped off that a drug dealer lived in the District Heights apartment they targeted, NBC Washington reported Thursday afternoon. But they weren’t expecting an innocent, armed father to be inside protecting his children. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/21/2018)
|
Another no knock intrusion begging for someone to end up dead.
Lucky that the homeowner survived. Most of the time they end up dead if they dare to confront the police with a gun.
Someone from the police department should be fired for incompetence, but don't expect any consequences. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
