chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Cross the line?D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges. City wants to know if gun he used was legal. By Andrea Noble The Washington Times, Wednesday, January 23, 2013 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 ammunition 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. www.washingtontimes.com |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Of course, the gun's legality needs to be determined. Of course, there may be liability for the boy as well. Of course, we must determine what other laws might have been violated. |
||
|
Aussie The liberal view is that if a good Samaritan sees a child being mauled by three pit bulls and pulls out a gun and stops the kid from being killed, the liberal feels that the good Samaritan should be investigated for possible paperwork violations about the gun. He should face loss of his weapon, large monetary fines, and possible jail time. The conservative view is that the good Samaritan should be thanked for his civic duty and then told to go about his business. That contrast is about in line with many of the other asinine views liberals have too. It is consistent with their stupidity (imho). |
||
|
They obviously need to pull the shooter's medical and psychological records in order to 'understand' if there were any warning signs of potentially violent tendencies. They need to do a thorough background check on him to find any wrongdoing of any kind. They need to toss (search) his house in case there are any more weapons, contraband, prescription drugs or ammunition present. They need to trace the gun's serial number in order to know which FFL dealer to raid. Everyone in his family and circle of friends needs to have a thorough background check and investigations conducted on them to determine if they have any weapons he may have access to or if they have any medical or psychological problems the authorities need to know about. There are also noise ordinance, disturbing the peace, animal cruelty and child endangerment laws as well as a slew of other laws, rules and ordinances that could well have been violated by this wanton and reckless act. We can't have such obviously violence prone people running around with deadly weapons thinking they can take the law into their own hands. Something has to be done to curb such lawlessness. Even though Heller struck down D.C.s handgun ban and ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, D.C. City Council immediately after the fact enacted a broad set of 'rules' regulating, controlling and micromanaging the possession of handguns that have yet to 'work their way through the courts'. Who is this guy to break those rules, enacted for his, all the people around hims good? God I love this free country we live in. |
||
|
I suppose its pointless to even ask but what if the man had thrown knives or darts at the dogs, or had a crossbow? Or a bag of angry cats with paws full of talons? |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
The man |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Stinky |
||
|
chaz But, are you implying some sort of blame on the shooter? Because THAT is exactly what it seems like. |
||
|
|
Log in 
