|
|
|
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: Black Woman Who Shot Unannounced Cop Serving Warrant Stood Her Ground, Lawyer Says
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Black woman in Florida is fighting to clear her name after she shot a police officer she suspected to be an intruder after he didn’t immediately identify himself while serving a warrant at her home.
Diamonds Ford was ultimately charged with attempted murder in the September shooting of a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office SWAT team member. But she and her lawyer claim her 911 call during the incident will prove her innocence and show she did not intend to shoot a police officer. Instead, they argue, she was simply standing her ground, which is acceptable under Florida law. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/19/2020)
|
"No statutory authority exists under Florida law for issuing a no-knock search warrant."
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Earl R. BAMBER, Respondent.
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1994/79263-0.html |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
