|
|
|
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:
IN: Johnson County Shootout Video Raises Questions About Indiana's Self-Defense Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Johnson County Prosecutor Brad Cooper said the video, which was taken on a hidden camera in Keller’s yard, was a key piece of evidence used to make his decision on the case.
“We watched every bit of it back and forth,” said Cooper. “And pretty much uniformly between myself and all my deputy prosecutors and the investigators involved it looked like a clear case of self-defense on the part of Mr. Keller.”
Indiana law states that a person is not required to retreat before pulling the trigger in self-defense and shooting is justified if the shooter reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/7/2017)
|
Typical liberal pap.
Even when there is no question, the liberals have "questions". |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
