Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TDC20, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
  2. ChiTownPicaro


    Jul 16, 2012
    If he is charged it will be ridiculous.

  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. tacticalG23

    tacticalG23 Darkside Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    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...
  6. LA_357SIG

    LA_357SIG Milspectacular

    Aug 28, 2006
    Not Los Angeles.
    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
  7. 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.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
  8. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    Jan 26, 2001
    its D.C., you cant expect common sense to rule the day.
  9. poodleplumber


    Apr 23, 2009
    The prosecutor should be required to wear bologna underwear.
  10. EAJuggalo


    Jan 17, 2005
    Eagan, MN
    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.
  11. mknpwr


    Jul 18, 2011
    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
  12. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    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.
  13. RPVG


    Oct 6, 2012
    Orlando, FL
    What ^^^ he ^^^ said.
  14. oldman11


    Mar 1, 2012
    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?
  15. 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.
  16. GlockRik


    Sep 14, 2001
    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.
  17. Lord

    Lord Senior Member

    Jun 28, 2006
    San Antonio, Texas
    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
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  18. Brian Lee

    Brian Lee Drop those nuts

    Jul 28, 2008
    Up a tree.
    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.
  19. GlockRik


    Sep 14, 2001
    well, nothing I can add to that, except :thumbsup:
  20. Gallium

    Gallium CLM

    Mar 26, 2003
    Where are the people who very piously claim "if it saves even one child's life".