|
|
|
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:
NH: Kyle’s Law is wrong for New Hampshire
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Kyle’s Law” would require the jury instruction on self-defense include a special question to the jury: “If you the jury are acquitting this defendant on the grounds of self-defense, do you also find that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense by a majority of the evidence?”
If the jury answers this in the positive, the defendant is entitled to compensation not only from the state but also from the prosecutor personally. Additionally, the charging police officer will be held accountable as well. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/26/2021)
|
"A prosecutor is acting in good faith, within the scope of the authority they possess, based on evidence, case law and precedence."
That assumes facts not in evidence, and prosecutors are notoriously political. Look at what NY is doing to the NRA and Donald Trump, motivated purely by political ideology.
If public officers ask us to trust them with such overwhelming power, we must be able to hold them accountable when they abuse it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
