|
|
|
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: Self-defense or murder? Florida case divides law enforcement
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Florida homicide detective believes an Army veteran committed murder when he pursued and fatally shot a drunk, unarmed neighbor who pounded on his door after midnight, saying prosecutors should have rejected the shooter's self-defense claim.
Lee County sheriff's Lt. David Lebid recently disputed prosecutors' contention that Steve Taylor's 2016 shooting of Ryan Modell is protected under Florida's controversial “stand your ground" law. Modell's father wants Gov. Ron DeSantis to appoint a special prosecutor to review the local state attorney's decision not to charge Taylor. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/26/2021)
|
This is nonsense.
Of course it's homicide. Taylor should never have pursued Modell. There was no imminent danger of death or egregious physical harm.
The locals dropped the ball.
This kind'a **** aint' good for our cause. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
