The spam filter installed on this site is currently unavailable. Per site policy, we are unable to accept new submissions until that problem is resolved. Please try resubmitting the form in a couple of minutes.
Submitted by Lisa Graves on June 20, 2012 - 1:50pm.
Dear Mr. Stookey:
I think you may have a misunderstanding about the difference between the long-standing right of self-defense under what the Castle Doctrine has been before the NRA attempted to rebrand its efforts under the same name.
More information is available in the comments here: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11553/wal-mart-18th-corporation-dump-alec-becomes-22nd-private-sector-member-leave
It's possible someone thought to be an intruder is a confused neighbor or drunk teen who poses no threat to life or limb. A shoot first act questions later approach can leave an unarmed person who has no intent to harm you dead. Juries should be allowed to consider the facts and evidence when someone is shot down.
Castle
Dear Mr. Stookey:
I think you may have a misunderstanding about the difference between the long-standing right of self-defense under what the Castle Doctrine has been before the NRA attempted to rebrand its efforts under the same name.
More information is available in the comments here: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11553/wal-mart-18th-corporation-dump-alec-becomes-22nd-private-sector-member-leave
It's possible someone thought to be an intruder is a confused neighbor or drunk teen who poses no threat to life or limb. A shoot first act questions later approach can leave an unarmed person who has no intent to harm you dead. Juries should be allowed to consider the facts and evidence when someone is shot down.