|
|
|
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:
WI: Oconto Co. DA: 17-year-old 'did not intend to kill Jason Fotopoulos'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What was once a possible murder case in Oconto County is now being described as self defense.
After 11 days in jail, the Oconto County district attorney decided to release a 17-year-old boy Wednesday. But district attorney Edward Burke says the teen could still face charges for the fight that killed 36-year-old Jason Fotopoulos.
FOX 11 is not naming the teen because he is not facing charges right now.
In a statement Thursday afternoon, district attorney Edward Burke said an investigation concluded the teen was acting in self defense when he punched and killed Fotopoulos. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/30/2016)
|
| The investigation concluded that he acted in self defense, but we still might charge him, because, hey, we're persecuting attorneys, ruining lives is what we do for a living... |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
