DC: Save a child's life and face charges.

[Nikos 31]

Poor fella. Right intentions, wrong consequences.

 

If he just called the cops and waited instead of taking action, the boy may have died. Stupid lawmakers, stupid laws, stupid enforcements, stupid voters.

 

 

http://www.washingto...d-face-charges/

 

 

D.C. police are investigating whether a man will face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in his neighborhood.

 

The incident unfolded Sunday afternoon, after three pit bulls attacked an 11-year-old boy as he rode his bicycle through the Brightwood neighborhood of Northwest, according to a police report.

 

When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy.

 

The police report, which did not identify any of the people involved, said the boy suffered severe lacerations. The Washington Post, which first reported the details of the shooting, quoted the boy’s uncle as saying the boy was also shot in the foot.

Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said Wednesday that the entire case, including whether the man legally owned the gun he used to kill the dog, is under investigation.

 

While public opinion might be supportive of the man’s actions, he could still face significant charges depending on the outcome of the investigation, criminal defense attorney Daniel Gross said.

 

“I’ve seen cases where people used weapons in defense of others, but the U.S. attorney’s office is not always so understanding,” said Mr. Gross, who represents many clients charged with firearms-related crimes in the District. “There are certain defenses one could try, like self-defense or defense of others, but that wouldn’t really go to whether they charge you.”

The man could face a host of charges depending on the specifics of the case, including whether the gun used is a registered firearm that the man was legally permitted to own, Mr. Gross said. Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine, and determining whether the man legally possessed the gun used will likely have greater bearing on the way the case is handled, Mr. Gross said.

 

Low-level unregistered firearms and ammunitions charges generally are prosecuted by the D.C. office of the attorney general, but additional charges could mean the case is bumped up to the U.S. attorney’s office.

 

“In this case, it would likely be the U.S. attorney’s office, and their discretion is sometimes less than local prosecutors,” Mr. Gross said.

 

Also to be taken into consideration is whether the man was within his property line when he fired the weapon — a small but significant distinction. Mr. Gross said it could mean the difference in whether he could be charged with carrying a pistol without a license.

[NicePants 58]

What the hell man? This guy saved a kid and they want to throw him in jail? My faith in humanity is already in the negatives.

[tony357 386]

I did not realize their was a registration of gun ownership?

What about the cop he discharged his firearm also.. Seems like a double standard to me!!

[Tango Charlie 0]

Where was the U.S. Attorney when David Gregory illegally carried a 30 round magazine on live TV?

[PhilipJFry 4]

i wanna know which one shot the kid in the foot!

[TK421 2]

i wanna know which one shot the kid in the foot!

 

First thing I thought of.

[pbkid6974 1]

This is like that story of the autozone employee that saved his boss from an armed robber and still got fired. Apparently doing nothing and letting people get maimed or killed is better than saving them. un-f'in-believable! This guy should get a medal not orange pajamas. The prosecutors should look the other way like they did for that jackass on tv with the "30 boolit assault clip"

[Handyman 5,682]

Formerly land of the free, home of the brave, now the "don't get involed" country.

[fishnut 2,358]

Sorry i hate to be the bad guy here but if the guy was not a legal gun owner then i DO think he should be charged. Yes he did a good thing but the fact is that he had a gun and for what ever reason he did not leagally owne it. Just because a bad guy dose a good deed dosent make him a good guy all of the sudden. If he wanted to help he could have gone out and attacked the dogs with a bat or something elce and that probably would have been more effective anyway.

 

Flame suit on

[Soju 153]

Sorry i hate to be the bad guy here but if the guy was not a legal gun owner then i DO think he should be charged. Yes he did a good thing but the fact is that he had a gun and for what ever reason he did not leagally owne it. Just because a bad guy dose a good deed dosent make him a good guy all of the sudden. If he wanted to help he could have gone out and attacked the dogs with a bat or something elce and that probably would have been more effective anyway.

 

Flame suit on

 

Glad you have your flame suit on.

 

Owning a gun that isn't "legally registered" in DC doesn't make you a bad person when the laws regarding firearm ownership in DC are bad laws. Being a bad person makes you a bad person. If you wish to imply that simply breaking a law means you are a bad person then you are suggesting that all laws are just and have moral standing. I would also assume that you would believe any NY residents who don't register their guns after the passing of the recent bill there, means all those are bad people too, correct? What about the police who said they will chose to not enforce it? Are they criminals also?

 

Just because a bad guy dose a good deed dosent make him a good guy all of the sudden.

 

Just because a good guy breaks a bad law doesn't make him a bad guy all of the sudden.

[fishnut 2,358]

personally i dont care much as to weather the gun was "legallly registered". But it was also stated in the article that there is question as to weather the man was legally allowed to owne a gun. There are 2 different points to this article, 1-weather the gun was "legally registered", 2-weather the man posessing the gun was legally allowed to owne a gun. If it turns out that the the guy was a convicted fellon or some other type of prohibited person then i hope he goes to jail. If it turns out that he just dident register a gun that he legally owned then i am an a**hole. to be honest i skiped over the whole legally registered thing and focused on weather he legally was allowed to owne firearms or not.

[TK421 2]

Glad you have your flame suit on.

 

Owning a gun that isn't "legally registered" in DC doesn't make you a bad person when the laws regarding firearm ownership in DC are bad laws. Being a bad person makes you a bad person. If you wish to imply that simply breaking a law means you are a bad person then you are suggesting that all laws are just and have moral standing. I would also assume that you would believe any NY residents who don't register their guns after the passing of the recent bill there, means all those are bad people too, correct? What about the police who said they will chose to not enforce it? Are they criminals also?

 

 

 

Just because a good guy breaks a bad law doesn't make him a bad guy all of the sudden.

 

If he is a convicted felon he's done but this could be a good test case if he is not. Question do your rights supersede some sort of registration shame? Can you be denied the ability to exercise your rights by failing to follow some sort of registration that is in essence a prior restraint? I hope and pray he is not a felon. After all if it saves the life of just one child... Isn't that their mantra?

[fishnut 2,358]

Just for the record i am completly agenst any form of firearm regsitration. Just as much as i am agenst ANY prohibited person from haveing a firearm even if that person dose good with it

[Soju 153]

So if it turns out the guy was not a criminal, the gun was registered, yet the shooting took place on the other side of his property line, making the possession now illegal, should he be charged too? I mean, he broke the law...

 

After all if it saves the life of just one child... Isn't that their mantra?

 

 

Only if it fits their agenda right...

 

 

Just as much as i am agenst ANY prohibited person from haveing a firearm even if that person dose good with it

 

Seriously? How sad...

[fishnut 2,358]

Bonesinium- would you, being a legal gun owner have gone out and shot the dogs? Me personally i would have grabbed a bat or a 2x4 or some other sort of club type wepon and attacked the dogs. I would never shoot them for the sole reason that i know the gun laws, and i know that i would be breaking them and i would not want to chance looseing my right to owne a firearm. and its not really sad that i am agenst prohibited people owneing guns. are you really implying that its ok for prohibited people to illegally have guns? Thats not even sad, thats reckless.

[Soju 153]

Bonesinium- would you, being a legal gun owner have gone out and shot the dogs? Me personally i would have grabbed a bat or a 2x4 or some other sort of club type wepon and attacked the dogs. I would never shoot them for the sole reason that i know the gun laws, and i know that i would be breaking them and i would not want to chance looseing my right to owne a firearm.

 

1. What you would have done, or what I would have done, has no relevancy to what happened. I don't know what I would have done. But for a second persons viewpoint who was there, guess what that person did? He also shot the dogs. That person is of course a responding officer. So that 2 different people shot the dogs certainly helps substantiate the legitimacy of it, and the danger of the situation.

 

2.I would rather a 'prohibited person' have a firearm and use it for good then have a law abiding citizen who is too scared to use it put themselves and a kid in a deadly situation. I don't have much faith in my ability to fend off a pack of 3 pitbulls with 2x4.

 

are you really implying that its ok for prohibited people to illegally have guns? Thats not even sad, thats reckless.

 

I was saying that it is sad you are against people from doing good things...just because they are considered 'prohibited'.

 

I'm against people with bad intentions doing bad things.

 

Maybe the police should be looking at the person who let their pack of pitbulls run around free. That is reckless.

[JDemented 0]

I was just thinking about a recent case in New York about a drug overdose that happened but because they called for help they were not charged for the drugs. The only context I can apply is wrong is wrong...but doing right make its alright?

 

Mind you.. I think he did the right thing no matter his status.. Nice to know some folks still have a shred of humanity to think of others first when it matters.

[IronPriest 2]

Yes he did a good thing but the fact is that he had a gun and for what ever reason he did not leagally own it.

 

The article didn't say that he did not legally own the gun. The article stopped short of admitting they had no idea whether or not it was legally owned. It is not a fact.

 

That said, we'd all be better off risking a serious mauling by man-handling the dogs or just letting the kid get eaten. With gun laws the way they are, gaining some facial scars and losing a few fingers to a pack of dogs seems preferable to the amount of trouble you might find yourself in if you use your firearm to save a child's life. Sad.

[P4Plenty 1]

Unconstitutional laws are not laws! The guy did nothing wrong except for maybe shooting the kids foot off if that's the case.

[P4Plenty 1]

Malum prohibitum vs malum in se

[Candide 0]

Bonesinium- would you, being a legal gun owner have gone out and shot the dogs? Me personally i would have grabbed a bat or a 2x4 or some other sort of club type wepon and attacked the dogs. I would never shoot them for the sole reason that i know the gun laws, and i know that i would be breaking them and i would not want to chance looseing my right to owne a firearm. and its not really sad that i am agenst prohibited people owneing guns. are you really implying that its ok for prohibited people to illegally have guns? Thats not even sad, thats reckless.

 

Monday morning quarterbacking right there. I would do this, I would do that.

 

3 pitbulls attacking someone? This scenario is one of the exact reasons to have a gun.

[incinerator950 0]

Formerly land of the free, home of the brave, now the "don't get involed" country.

 

Nonsense, we are to get involved if money is in it.

[JustJoe 0]

I was just thinking about a recent case in New York about a drug overdose that happened but because they called for help they were not charged for the drugs.

 

NY has "good Samaritan" laws that specifically allow for escaping prosecution in such cases.

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/29/new-york-state-passes-good-samaritan-law-to-fight-overdose/

[fishnut 2,358]

Monday morning quarterbacking right there. I would do this, I would do that.

 

3 pitbulls attacking someone? This scenario is one of the exact reasons to have a gun.

Uh not really I am an animal control officer and i HAVE taken on multiple large aggressive dogs at the same time and i captured all of them. Animal control officers do not carry a guns on them in nj so it is not nessary to use a gun to defend yourself from dogs. We are talking about dogs here not lions or bears if you hit the alpha dog the others will stop the attack. Its a pack mentality take out the leader and the rest get right in line. SO no "monday morning quarterbacking" here just my training and personal experince from working in the field.

[TK421 2]

Uh not really I am an animal control officer and i HAVE taken on multiple large aggressive dogs at the same time and i captured all of them. Animal control officers do not carry a guns on them in nj so it is not nessary to use a gun to defend yourself from dogs. We are talking about dogs here not lions or bears if you hit the alpha dog the others will stop the attack. Its a pack mentality take out the leader and the rest get right in line. SO no "monday morning quarterbacking" here just my training and personal experince from working in the field.

 

I have no fear of dogs, I grew up around junk-yard dogs and have never had a problem gaining the upper hand even on the two occasions I was attacked by strays and a friend's neighbor's pit. I know their weaknesses and how to disable and incapacitate then quickly. 90% is showing them no fear and standing your ground or even being more aggressive then they are. That said not many people are as knowledgeable, comfortable and confident to handle such a situation.

[jackandjill 683]

Not to nit pick on anyone in specific, but this is exactly the type of mentality plaguing the generations.

 

Someone trained to do something thinking that everyone should be able to do, or

Some people thinking that they are more "pure" than others, so deserve better 2A rights or

Someone who never had to face home invasion (Feinstein and gang) arguing how people should be able to protect themselves with bats and clubs

Every time something happens on the other side of country, we have to make a Federal Law.

 

on and on and on....

 

How about we say "thank you" to the guy who saved the kids life and move on.

No wonder, our society is going to choke and drown in its own laws.

[Nikos 31]

Uh not really I am an animal control officer and i HAVE taken on multiple large aggressive dogs at the same time and i captured all of them. Animal control officers do not carry a guns on them in nj so it is not nessary to use a gun to defend yourself from dogs. We are talking about dogs here not lions or bears if you hit the alpha dog the others will stop the attack. Its a pack mentality take out the leader and the rest get right in line. SO no "monday morning quarterbacking" here just my training and personal experince from working in the field.

 

The neighbor shot and killed one dog attacking the boy. The police officer arrived, he shot and killed the other 2 dogs still attacking the boy. Per your logic, when 3 dogs are viciously attacking a child, you're going save the day by figuring out which dogs is the alpha and neutralize the situation with a rope on stick?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the neighbor is a hero. The only person that should face charges is the owner of the dogs.

[TK421 2]

The neighbor shot and killed one dog attacking the boy. The police officer arrived, he shot and killed the other 2 dogs still attacking the boy. Per your logic, when 3 dogs are viciously attacking a child, you're going save the day by figuring out which dogs is the alpha and neutralize the situation with a rope on stick?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the neighbor is a hero. The only person that should face charges is the owner of the dogs.

 

I'll bet the sound of the gunshots got the cop there a hell of a lot faster than a 911 call of three dogs attacking a kid would have. Either way it was the good samaritan that save the kid.

[fishnut 2,358]

The neighbor shot and killed one dog attacking the boy. The police officer arrived, he shot and killed the other 2 dogs still attacking the boy. Per your logic, when 3 dogs are viciously attacking a child, you're going save the day by figuring out which dogs is the alpha and neutralize the situation with a rope on stick?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the neighbor is a hero. The only person that should face charges is the owner of the dogs.

nope i would go after all 3 of the dogs and hit them with my "rope on a stick" and they would stop. they did not stop when 1 of the dogs got shot because dogs dont know what guns and bullets are and dont see any actual thret. And you are correct the neighbor is a hero but i still stand by my opinion that if he was prohibited to owne a gun he should be charged accordingly hero or not. The owner of the dogs should also be charged for 3 potentially dangerous dogs running at large and be sued for all the injurys that the dogs caused the kid i totally agree with you there.

[fishnut 2,358]

Not to nit pick on anyone in specific, but this is exactly the type of mentality plaguing the generations.

 

Someone trained to do something thinking that everyone should be able to do, or

Some people thinking that they are more "pure" than others, so deserve better 2A rights or

Someone who never had to face home invasion (Feinstein and gang) arguing how people should be able to protect themselves with bats and clubs

Every time something happens on the other side of country, we have to make a Federal Law.

 

on and on and on....

 

How about we say "thank you" to the guy who saved the kids life and move on.

No wonder, our society is going to choke and drown in its own laws.

my training was 7 days and we never even saw a live animal i am pretty sure anyone elce can do what i do