|
|
|
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: Court Rules for Man Who Killed Relative While Looking for Proof of Child Porn
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Wisconsin man who shot and killed his brother-in-law when caught searching the victim’s computer for evidence of child pornography is entitled to have jurors consider his claim of self-defense, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held Wednesday.
Alan M. Johnson was convicted by a Walworth County jury of first-degree reckless homicide for the shooting death of his sister’s husband, identified as K.M. in court documents. Johnson had broken into K.M.’s home to search his computer for child pornography. Johnson said he shot K.M. five times to protect himself after K.M. discovered him in the house and physically attacked him. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/17/2021)
|
| I have to say, as distasteful as I find this, I'm forced to agree with the dissent. For good or bad, this guy broke into his brother-in-law's home; the motive is irrelevant. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
