D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges


TDC20
01-24-2013, 20:35
This may win the "Most Stupid Prosecution Award" for 2013.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/man-who-shot-dogs-biting-boy-could-face-charges/

This could have been posted in other forums, but since the last paragraph stated that he could also be charged with carrying a pistol without a license, I posted it here.

ChiTownPicaro
01-25-2013, 01:16
If he is charged it will be ridiculous.

SouthernBoyVA
01-25-2013, 03:11
That's DC for you. Anyone who loves freedom and lives in this area, does not live in DC or Maryland. Virginia is the way to go. HUGE difference.

dwhite53
01-25-2013, 04:48
David Gregory got a pass on posessing a thrity round mag. No?

DC Metro motto:
"One City,One Future, (added) Two Sets of Rules"

All the Best,
D. White

tacticalG23
01-25-2013, 11:03
This man should have just watched and been a good witness while calling police and waiting the 5-10 minutes for them to respond. Surely the kid could survive another couple of minutes of being bitten and torn while properly trained and certified help was on the way. :upeyes:
Whomever was the assclown that decided prosecution was even in the realm of possibility needs a high five right in the mouth.
I wonder if they could imagine themselves or a family member in the shoes of this kid, unarmed, helpless, looking at a man just standing there on his phone as you screamed for help. Help is on the way....just try to calm down...

LA_357SIG
01-25-2013, 11:18
Carrying a pistol without a license, I could understand if he wasn't on his property. The fact that he used a firearm to save a life doesn't null an actual infraction of the law. That goes along the same lines as if I used my CCW to stop a robbery or assault in a resturaunt that had a properly posted Weapons Prohibited sign at the entrance. I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.

And finally, if the guy does get convicted, I hope the US Attorney's office can live with the resulting attitude of citizens being reluctant to help others out of fear of prosecution.

Sent from my ADR6350

SouthernBoyVA
01-25-2013, 12:22
Carrying a pistol without a license, I could understand if he wasn't on his property. The fact that he used a firearm to save a life doesn't null an actual infraction of the law. That goes along the same lines as if I used my CCW to stop a robbery or assault in a resturaunt that had a properly posted Weapons Prohibited sign at the entrance. I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.

And finally, if the guy does get convicted, I hope the US Attorney's office can live with the resulting attitude of citizens being reluctant to help others out of fear of prosecution.

Sent from my ADR6350

I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.

It does where I live.


And finally, if the guy does get convicted, I hope the US Attorney's office can live with the resulting attitude of citizens being reluctant to help others out of fear of prosecution.

Maybe this is what needs to happen for people to wake up and see how ridiculously stupid the laws in places like DC are. Perhaps if someone sees an attack and refuses to use their firearm to help, then things might change.

cowboywannabe
01-25-2013, 12:30
its D.C., you cant expect common sense to rule the day.

poodleplumber
01-25-2013, 14:24
The prosecutor should be required to wear bologna underwear.

EAJuggalo
01-26-2013, 07:17
Carrying a pistol without a license, I could understand if he wasn't on his property. The fact that he used a firearm to save a life doesn't null an actual infraction of the law. That goes along the same lines as if I used my CCW to stop a robbery or assault in a resturaunt that had a properly posted Weapons Prohibited sign at the entrance. I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.

It certainly does in most places in the country. Look into the Aldi's shooting in WI last year, no charges were filed even though they had a slam dunk on carrying in a prohibited place.

And if DC is really going to charge him with carrying without a license because he went off his property to save a kids life I'm adding it to the list of places I won't go, up until now certain things have kept it on the list I might go to.

mknpwr
01-26-2013, 07:45
Perhaps he should have stopped running and acted as the alpha of the pack, been all conversational and used his head, that would have solved everything. Everyone knows guns aren't the answer....:rolleyes:

Sent from my rotary dial phone

TDC20
01-26-2013, 09:08
Carrying a pistol without a license, I could understand if he wasn't on his property. The fact that he used a firearm to save a life doesn't null an actual infraction of the law. That goes along the same lines as if I used my CCW to stop a robbery or assault in a resturaunt that had a properly posted Weapons Prohibited sign at the entrance. I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.
I don't blame the police necessarily for doing their job and referring charges for criminal prosecution. Personally, if a law is a bad law, I would rather see it removed from the books than to have the police routinely not enforce it, or have the option to selectively enforce it. That's a bad precedent, and how the old Jim Crow laws were abused.

Instead, I believe the State's Attorney, in this case it will be the U.S. Attorney, can decide whether or not to prosecute any charges brought forth. Also, since it would be in federal court, there would have to be a grand jury, and the grand jury would have the opportunity to "no bill" the charges. Finally, if it did go to trial, and trial by jury was requested, the jury could nullify the verdict.

If it got through that whole process, and the guy was convicted of anything, then I've totally lost my faith in humanity and our legal/justice system. Actually, even if the U.S. Attorney proceeded to charge this man, causing him loss of money, time, maybe his job, that would be a travesty. But in reality, because it happened in D.C.,the case is already a political football.

RPVG
01-26-2013, 10:18
I don't blame the police necessarily for doing their job and referring charges for criminal prosecution. Personally, if a law is a bad law, I would rather see it removed from the books than to have the police routinely not enforce it, or have the option to selectively enforce it. That's a bad precedent, and how the old Jim Crow laws were abused.

Instead, I believe the State's Attorney, in this case it will be the U.S. Attorney, can decide whether or not to prosecute any charges brought forth. Also, since it would be in federal court, there would have to be a grand jury, and the grand jury would have the opportunity to "no bill" the charges. Finally, if it did go to trial, and trial by jury was requested, the jury could nullify the verdict.

If it got through that whole process, and the guy was convicted of anything, then I've totally lost my faith in humanity and our legal/justice system. Actually, even if the U.S. Attorney proceeded to charge this man, causing him loss of money, time, maybe his job, that would be a travesty. But in reality, because it happened in D.C.,the case is already a political football.What ^^^ he ^^^ said.

oldman11
01-26-2013, 10:43
So in D.C. y'all have to stand around and watch the kid get chewed up. What a cesspool. So their BS about protecting the kids is a bunch of BS, isn't it?

ScottieG59
01-26-2013, 17:55
In D.C., people are not allowed to protect themselves or others. The official position is that your injuries may heal and you should never resist an attack or robbery (I saw it explained in a press conference. It is probably somewhere on YouTube now).

If you are going to carry illegally, you will have to deal with the ramifications. In the high crime areas, the honest citizen is helpless and the protected elite feels threatened by empowered citizens.

GlockRik
01-26-2013, 18:57
according to some on another dog bite thread running here, the shooter only needed to speak to the poor dogs in a stern voice and they would have run away.

hope the boy is ok and he is very fortunate that someone was close by with a firearm.

screw D.C.

Lord
01-26-2013, 21:58
Carrying a pistol without a license, I could understand if he wasn't on his property. The fact that he used a firearm to save a life doesn't null an actual infraction of the law. That goes along the same lines as if I used my CCW to stop a robbery or assault in a resturaunt that had a properly posted Weapons Prohibited sign at the entrance. I willfully broke the law and the "good deed" won't cancel the law I did break.

And finally, if the guy does get convicted, I hope the US Attorney's office can live with the resulting attitude of citizens being reluctant to help others out of fear of prosecution.

Sent from my ADR6350

You're out of your mind. First, he wasn't carrying the pistol... the article clearly says he went back inside his house to get his gun to defend the boy. I applaud him for this. Additionally, not sure where you are, but here in TX we are prohibited from carrying certain places, but there is an exception if you leave the place and return with your gun to aid in a crisis or defend someone's life. That's called COMMON SENSE... I mean seriously... make it a point to abide by the letter of the law even when someone's life is in danger? Even the nearby police officer came and fired on the remaining dogs. There was clearly a need for deadly force.

this man acted responsibly and appropriately. it's not about "oh I committed a good deed, so forgive my breaking the law". That is a ridiculous statement. Try more along the lines that there is a law, but can REASONABLY be ignored as long as the circumstance supports it. To back this up... let's take homicide. The law says we are not to kill anyone, but even that law gives way to common sense in that there is a such thing a JUSTIFIABLE homicide when defending one self, or third party. Speaking of common sense, GET SOME

Brian Lee
01-26-2013, 22:34
You gotta be one nasty POS to want to crucify a guy for saving a little boys life.


But on the other hand, if you're dumb enough to live in DC and not comply with the details of their stupid gun laws, you should expect they'll try to pounce on you for it no matter how your ownership of the gun came to light. Especially since there seems to be some question about whether this guy was allowed to legally own a gun at all in DC.

GlockRik
01-26-2013, 22:47
You gotta be one nasty POS to want to crucify a guy for saving a little boy.

well, nothing I can add to that, except :thumbsup:

Gallium
01-27-2013, 01:53
Where are the people who very piously claim "if it saves even one child's life".

:headscratch:

Drain You
01-27-2013, 02:14
Where are the people who very piously claim "if it saves even one child's life".

:headscratch:



:bowdown:


I'm thinking that if the guy was fully compliant with the local laws he probably only had a 6 shooter. A 17 round mag would have been a better option.

Finally, I'll go ahead and put this out here: since he's not being charged with attempted 1st degree manslaughterocide, I'm calling out the cop for shooting the kid in the foot :rofl:

HerrGlock
01-27-2013, 02:36
In D.C., people are not allowed to protect themselves or others. The official position is that your injuries may heal and you should never resist an attack or robbery (I saw it explained in a press conference. It is probably somewhere on YouTube now).

Just listen to this. This is the thinking of the whole DC council, basically:
Ward 3 Public Safety Meeting - YouTube

and from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/

When anyone who has been near DC who has actually heard what's going on in DC tells what they've heard and seen, those people get lambasted for exaggerating and "No, NOONE can be that blind."

Yes. They can.

Berto
01-27-2013, 02:52
I guess I'd have been charged then. I sure as hell would have shot the dogs in that situation.

mknpwr
01-27-2013, 15:57
Just listen to this. This is the thinking of the whole DC council, basically:
Ward 3 Public Safety Meeting - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT8HjqkCWFo)

and from the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim/

When anyone who has been near DC who has actually heard what's going on in DC tells what they've heard and seen, those people get lambasted for exaggerating and "No, NOONE can be that blind."

Yes. They can.

I remember this when it happened, had the conversation with my wife, how can they be so stupid? She couldn't believe it either!

itstime
01-27-2013, 16:07
So he would have been better off pulling out his cellphone and getting a quick video of it??????

HerrGlock
01-27-2013, 16:27
I remember this when it happened, had the conversation with my wife, how can they be so stupid? She couldn't believe it either!

You see it as self defense and possibly killing a criminal.

The city council sees it as losing a democrat voter.

LA_357SIG
01-28-2013, 20:25
You're out of your mind. First, he wasn't carrying the pistol... the article clearly says he went back inside his house to get his gun to defend the boy. I applaud him for this. Additionally, not sure where you are, but here in TX we are prohibited from carrying certain places, but there is an exception if you leave the place and return with your gun to aid in a crisis or defend someone's life. That's called COMMON SENSE... I mean seriously... make it a point to abide by the letter of the law even when someone's life is in danger? Even the nearby police officer came and fired on the remaining dogs. There was clearly a need for deadly force.

this man acted responsibly and appropriately. it's not about "oh I committed a good deed, so forgive my breaking the law". That is a ridiculous statement. Try more along the lines that there is a law, but can REASONABLY be ignored as long as the circumstance supports it. To back this up... let's take homicide. The law says we are not to kill anyone, but even that law gives way to common sense in that there is a such thing a JUSTIFIABLE homicide when defending one self, or third party. Speaking of common sense, GET SOME

The article also stated that:
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.


Discharging a firearm within city limits, possessing a firearm in prohibited areas, and killing an animal are all illegal acts. It is up to the prosecuting attorney to decide if they will go ahead and prosecute. Those charges are not automatically dropped for any good deed. I didn't say he was guilty or did anything wrong, did I. I did say I can see him getting charged for possession outside of his property. I'll keep my common sense. You should up your cognitive skillset, and post off that skillset instead of blind emotion.

SCmasterblaster
01-29-2013, 06:52
The prosecutor should be required to wear bologna underwear.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Lord
01-29-2013, 21:42
The article also stated that:


Discharging a firearm within city limits, possessing a firearm in prohibited areas, and killing an animal are all illegal acts. It is up to the prosecuting attorney to decide if they will go ahead and prosecute. Those charges are not automatically dropped for any good deed. I didn't say he was guilty or did anything wrong, did I. I did say I can see him getting charged for possession outside of his property. I'll keep my common sense. You should up your cognitive skillset, and post off that skillset instead of blind emotion.

My cognitive skillset is well intact, thank you. You DID say he did something wrong if you can justify his being charged with crimes. While all of those things you list are indeed against the law in and of themselves, you are forgetting the mitigating factor to them in that it is a defense to prosecution if while in the course of discharging that firearm within city limits, shooting the animal, and possessing the firearm in an illegal area WAS IN DEFENSE TO SELF OR THIRD PARTY. This is why in my earlier post I point out the homicide scenario... it is very clear here that the "intent", which is needed in many prosecutions, was not to cause alarm, damage, great bodily harm, or death without the sole intention being to protect or preserve life or limb.

My "blind emotion" was nothing more than incredulity at the fact that there is a prosecutor anywhere that would prosecute a man for this action, and at your acknowledgement of the charges that are possible.

Tarheel72
01-30-2013, 15:43
Well what about his pending charges of cruelty to animals? I suspect the PETA and the SPCA will be on top of this one and demand he be held accountable for killing that puppy!

I believe the proper response was throwing his hands in the air and running in circles shouting "help me help me, somebody help me" until suitable help was on the scene.

Honestly makes me ashamed to be an American sometimes. What have we become?

TX OMFS
01-31-2013, 02:34
Just listen to this. This is the thinking of the whole DC council, basically:
Ward 3 Public Safety Meeting - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT8HjqkCWFo)

When anyone who has been near DC who has actually heard what's going on in DC tells what they've heard and seen, those people get lambasted for exaggerating and "No, NOONE can be that blind."

Yes. They can.

Wow. That may be the dumbest thing I've heard in years. How...I mean...why...make it stop...

:tequila:

SCmasterblaster
01-31-2013, 07:33
Well what about his pending charges of cruelty to animals? I suspect the PETA and the SPCA will be on top of this one and demand he be held accountable for killing that puppy!

I believe the proper response was throwing his hands in the air and running in circles shouting "help me help me, somebody help me" until suitable help was on the scene.

Honestly makes me ashamed to be an American sometimes. What have we become?

We have become a nation run by anti-gun liberal democrats.

John Rambo
01-31-2013, 09:21
Impossible. Pitbulls are sweethearts who would never attack a person. They're not human aggressive!

SCmasterblaster
01-31-2013, 10:50
He should have drawn out a Glock 19 and shot the sick bastards.

TexasFats
01-31-2013, 15:08
What the leftists think that we peasants should do when confronted by some sort of attack by either two- or four-legged animal is, "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout".

jack76590
02-01-2013, 14:11
If it goes to trial I hope someone on jury has heard about Jury Nullification.

intheshaw
02-01-2013, 14:59
It certainly does in most places in the country. Look into the Aldi's shooting in WI last year, no charges were filed even though they had a slam dunk on carrying in a prohibited place.

The charges for carrying in a prohibited place were not slam dunk in the Aldi's shooting. The posting was inside, and covered by I believe a sales sign. Even the police first on the scene said they never saw the posting until one of the workers pointed it out.