You can talk about it all you want. Your Constitution affords you that right.
You can talk about it all you want. Your Constitution affords you that right.
If I get attacked with a deadly weapon and I also have a deadly weapon, I’m probably going to use it. It’s really as simple as that for me.
I wasn’t attempting to say both are equally dangerous, just that he would have been justified in defending himself. I’m not religious, I’m not a conservative, not a gun owner or pro-gun, but I believe that if a man is attacked on his own property with a deadly weapon (you can argue how deadly the knife is but the…
How have you arrived at this conclusion that this guy was completely cognizant of the fact that any injuries he sustained would be non-life-threatening as the fight was occurring? He was being attacked with a weapon that could very easily have been deadly.
It would have been better if one man hadn’t attacked another with a knife. This was the best outcome for all parties I’m sure but this gentleman would have been completely justified in defending himself from an attack with a potentially deadly weapon.
In 5 years Matt Murray will be one of the top goalies in the NHL. Dumb comment.