Indians For Guns

spin_drift wrote:

bennedose wrote:
This hinges on whether the lady was a legal owner of the the property or was otherwise employed to defend the property.

As far as I know she was legally entitled to be in that property... she had not been served with an eviction notice.. it does not matter if she was the owner of the property or not...

None of the news items that I have posted on this page and earlier pages supports this view.

The properrty was owned by a man whose descendants inherited it and apparently sold it. After that the exact status of the property after that is confusing (details in earlier reports posed by me) but the occupant of the property may or may not have been the legal owner. The lady who did the shooting is either the "assistant" or the "niece" of the man who occupied the property (legally or illegally). That man was in hospital when this incident occurred.

I think the lady is in deep trouble. This case may be the worst possible case to support and adverise the right to use firearms for self defence. It may simply be a self goal.