|
|
|
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:
OH: West Toledo man not guilty in fatal shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Jailed since the April 6 shooting, Mr. Kirby maintained he shot Charles White in self-defense and in defense of Mr. White's girlfriend, Danielle Reddick, who had ended her relationship with Mr. White and had met him at the apartment that day so that he could get his clothes.
Witnesses testified that the 6-foot, 260-pound Mr. White was yelling at Ms. Reddick, had punched a hole in a door, and — after Mr. Kirby walked in from his apartment across the hall — began begging Mr. Kirby to shoot him.
When Mr. White suddenly turned around and lunged toward Ms. Reddick, Mr. Kirby did just that, firing one shot that struck him in the abdomen. Mr. White died the next day. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/29/2018)
|
Lucas County's County Attorney needs to face a recall election.
To buy the prosecution's reasoning, you'd have to agree that a woman is required to:
1. Leave her apartment and not come back when her ex-boyfriend is in it.
2. Call the cops and let them rummage through her apartment.
You also need to agree that if she does come back while he's still in there, her neighbor has to stay away and let the ex-boyfriend kill her.
Not to mention, you'd have to agree that it's the job of the police to kill an aggressive man who attacks a woman after telling them to kill him, but it's a serious crime for a neighbor to do exactly the same thing a 'trained LEO' would 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) |
|
|
