TraumaRN
Regular Member
I apologize if this has been mentioned in another thread, but did anyone else's jaw drop to the floor when they read this qoute from the commonwealth Attorney for Henrico:
"It is not essential to the right of self-defense that the danger should in fact exist".......
Given this is only an administrative statement, not admissable in court I assume, but wow. I wonder if she would apply such a stance against an accused citizen exercizing the same right as the police officer in question?
Link to article:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...of-unarmed-man-was-justified-says-ar-2099297/
"It is not essential to the right of self-defense that the danger should in fact exist".......
Given this is only an administrative statement, not admissable in court I assume, but wow. I wonder if she would apply such a stance against an accused citizen exercizing the same right as the police officer in question?
Link to article:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...of-unarmed-man-was-justified-says-ar-2099297/