|
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:
MO: Papa John's worker acquitted for shooting would-be intruder outside St. Louis restaurant
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Clinton Eckenrodt fatally shot an intoxicated man last year outside a Papa John’s pizza store on South Grand Boulevard.
After Ollie E. Upchurch Jr., 31, tossed a cinder block through the store’s front window, Eckenrodt confronted him outside and opened fire, killing him.
Prosecutors said shooting Upchurch was reckless and charged him with involuntary manslaughter. Eckenrodt, 32, claimed self-defense from the start in a case testing Missouri’s self-defense statutes.
A St. Louis judge ruled late Tuesday that Eckenrodt had no duty to retreat, acquitting him of the charge after an Oct. 18 bench trial. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/14/2019)
|
“You straight shot that (slur),” Eckenrodt said. “Give me all your pizza. Pow, pow, pow. That was (expletive) sweet. That was like watching a movie, man. … Still think he’s a (expletive) idiot. Pow, pow, pow pow. (Expletive) you. I did everything right. Pop, pop pop. And then he goes down. This guy is a piece of work. Pop, pop, pop.”
“In hindsight, I imagine Eckenrodt himself wishes he’d held off longer before pulling the trigger.” - shooter's lawyer
'Doesn't sound like it, correct verdict notwithstanding. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|