|
|
|
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: Attorney: Charges dismissed in bar shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The law office of Kimerer and Derrick announced that a Yuma County Superior Court judge has dropped all the charges against their client, who had been accused of shooting a man following an incident that happened at the LZ Bar and Grill more than two years ago.
According to a news release issued by the Phoenix-based law firm, on May 17 Superior Court Judge David Haws ruled that the prosecution had failed to make a showing of probable cause that Barry Douglas Todd had violated any law and dismissed the case in its entirety. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/27/2016)
|
Frightening that it took two years and a judicial override of the persecutor's office to reach the obvious conclusion.
Hey, Jon Smith, how are you going to give Mr Todd the last two years of his life back?
Maybe if you give him the last two years of your salary it would be a good start. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
