|
|
|
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: Man shot intruder, called 911
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Before deputies arrived, Setti told the dispatcher he armed himself and shot the alleged intruder.
Deputies arrived within 10 minutes, and found a car with Georgia tags in the driveway and Setti’s front door, partially obscured by a bush on the right, ajar.
The door was broken at the hinges and a man’s body, later identified as his neighbor, James Sasser, 31, of Sarasota, was lying in the doorway.
No charges have been filed in the case, which remains under investigation. According to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or bodily harm. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/29/2016)
|
Yep, keep beating that SYG drum, especially when it's not going to be used as a defense in court.
Zimmerman-Martin wasn't a SYG case, Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat when being straddled on the ground.
This isn't a SYG case, it's a Castle Doctrine case. As such, prosecution is not even possible. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
