|
|
|
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:
FL: How might ‘Stand Your Ground’ changes have affected the theater shooting case?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The story is a familiar one by now: A retired Tampa police captain asked a fellow moviegoer to shut off his phone. Popcorn flew. The ex-cop pulled a gun.
Curtis Reeves, 74, claimed it was self-defense in 2014 when he killed Chad Oulson in a Pasco County movie theater. But he couldn’t prove it to a judge earlier this year.
The Florida House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday making it less difficult for people like Reeves to make such claims using the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The burden, instead, would be on prosecutors to prove that a criminal case should proceed if a person accused of violence against someone else claims they acted in self-defense. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/6/2017)
|
| That IS how our system is supposed to work. Innocent UNTIL proven guilty!!!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/6/2017)
|
| McCabe is admitting that the courts ran roughshod over the original law, which is what we've been saying all along. The original law statutorily placed the burden on the state, and the courts turned that provision on its head. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
