|
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: No Charges in Missouri Woman's Shooting by Ex-Boyfriend
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Prosecutors say a Kansas City man won't be charged in his ex-girlfriend's shooting death after he cited self-defense in a case that has sparked outrage from the woman's relatives.
Jessika Peppers, 32, of Osceola, was killed about three months ago after she went to David Love's home in the middle of the day to retrieve an iPhone and laptop, The Kansas City Star reports. Love told investigators he was sleeping when he heard someone breaking in and pulled his gun out from under his bed, a police report says. He said he fired as soon as he saw someone coming into his room and that he hadn't recognized his ex-girlfriend. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/8/2017)
|
"She didn't deserve to be taken out this way."
Well, maybe she shouldn't have broken in on a sleeping resident like a thief, armed with a hammer.
'Seems to me that's a really effective way to get legally shot. |
|
|
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) |
|
|