|
|
|
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:
AZ: Fraternity holds vigil in wake of shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A prosecutor says there is no indication of self-defense on the part of the 18-year-old suspect in the deadly overnight shooting at Northern Arizona University.
Deputy County Attorney Ammon Barker said Steven Jones could have easily walked away from a fight early Friday and instead retrieved his gun and "went back into the fray."
Jones claims he was chased by several people as he ran to his car and then he yelled at them that he had a gun. Barker says Jones gave "self-serving statements to police."
Barker says the student who died was hit with two bullets, one in the chest and one in the shoulder. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/10/2015)
|
Arizona lawmakers expanded this idea, known as the Castle Doctrine, to include your car. Even if you are able to get out of your car, you can stand your ground with a weapon in self-defense against a carjacker, Bloom said.
In murder cases inside a home or car where the defense argues self-defense, Bloom said prosecutors in Arizona face an uphill battle convincing the jury to convict.
Arizona's law also states you can defend yourself with deadly force in any place you have the right to be as long as you are not breaking the law, Bloom said. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
