Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Man may face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in

  1. #1
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Man may face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...gets+arressted

    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.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  2. #2
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    And it sounds like the cop shot the kid in the foot.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    And it sounds like the cop shot the kid in the foot.
    I smell a promotion coming up ....

    Isn't this story old though?? Wonder what happened..

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I smell a promotion coming up ....

    Isn't this story old though?? Wonder what happened..
    Well Dave, based on what I read and how I read it, the story was written on Wednesday Jan23, 2013 and the reporter referred to this event happening on, Sunday. So according to my calculations, I'd say this happened on Sunday, Jan 20 2013. But I guess "old" is subjective.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    The cops want to know if the gun was "legal". There is nothing wrong with that.

    And even if he did jump through all the DC hops to legally posses the gun, it is still illegal (except in limited cases like going to the range) to take it outside the home. So using it outside to shoot the dogs would be an illegal act. (Should have shot through his window.)

    And yet, the DC cops are looking into everything to decide if they will in fact charge the guy with any criminal violation.

    So - what's all the fuss about?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The cops want to know if the gun was "legal". There is nothing wrong with that.

    And even if he did jump through all the DC hops to legally posses the gun, it is still illegal (except in limited cases like going to the range) to take it outside the home. So using it outside to shoot the dogs would be an illegal act. (Should have shot through his window.)

    And yet, the DC cops are looking into everything to decide if they will in fact charge the guy with any criminal violation.

    So - what's all the fuss about?

    stay safe.
    I would say the fuss should be that someone should never be charged with a crime while acting to save another persons life. Ever.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    Maybe they would rather have the head line "boy mauled by pit bulls dies of his injuries, man who could have interviened did nothing". You know the cops are there to protect us and all........ did he place the 911 call and wait for them to show up before he shot the dog? Now really, did he really need to use a gun ? Its just a itty bitty dog. geeze.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The cops want to know if the gun was "legal". There is nothing wrong with that.

    And even if he did jump through all the DC hops to legally posses the gun, it is still illegal (except in limited cases like going to the range) to take it outside the home. So using it outside to shoot the dogs would be an illegal act. (Should have shot through his window.)

    And yet, the DC cops are looking into everything to decide if they will in fact charge the guy with any criminal violation.

    So - what's all the fuss about?

    stay safe.
    "Here, Citizen, allow me to confiscate that bicycle you're riding. It might be stolen! What's the fuss?"

    I hope your post was sarcastic, skidmark.

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    I have zero problems with the State or its representatives WANTING to know if a firearm or other property that I own is legal, my frustration and resistance begins when the State and its Representatives violate the law and/or are UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the methods they utilize to this end!!!!!

    As to firearms, the Constitution and law would require that the State and its representatives would have at a minimum a "Reasonable articulable suspicion"
    that I was about to commit, was committing, or just did commit a crime before interrupting me in any manner as I go on about my life!!!!

    Now, if there are laws that cannot be enforced in compliance of the preceding paragraph then those laws need and must be repealed.
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 02-04-2013 at 01:15 AM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  10. #10
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I hope your post was sarcastic, skidmark.

    1+

    The man saved a child's life. Unless the gun has been used in a crime or the man is a convicted felon, it is a legal gun. Period.

    Maybe skidmark was doing his Jon Stewart impression when replied...
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    The big issue is posession off of his own property

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The cops want to know if the gun was "legal". There is nothing wrong with that.

    And even if he did jump through all the DC hops to legally posses the gun, it is still illegal (except in limited cases like going to the range) to take it outside the home. So using it outside to shoot the dogs would be an illegal act. (Should have shot through his window.)

    And yet, the DC cops are looking into everything to decide if they will in fact charge the guy with any criminal violation.

    So - what's all the fuss about?

    stay safe.
    This case might be very important or it may mean nothing when the dust settles. This is my take on the whole issue:

    The registered/not registered issue is important, but not the biggest issue.

    The biggest issue is whether he will be charged with carrying off of his own property. That case shows why the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to one's own property. It also shows why limited magazine capacity is bogus.

    I pray that this good citizen is charged by the brain dead ant-gun facists in D.C., and that Alan Gura takes up the case.

    I mean really, can you imagine a charge against the man for taking a firearm off of his own property, to defend an innocent child whose life is in imminent danger?

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ctclassic View Post
    Well Dave, based on what I read and how I read it, the story was written on Wednesday Jan23, 2013 and the reporter referred to this event happening on, Sunday. So according to my calculations, I'd say this happened on Sunday, Jan 20 2013. But I guess "old" is subjective.
    I thought I read a similar incident several months ago ....so this one isn't old ... if the facts are correct which I am assuming.

    Keep the Faith!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    99
    The 'hero' of this story will not be charged, but will be fined $1000. A difference without a distinction.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ource=RSS_Feed


  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Defrock View Post
    The 'hero' of this story will not be charged, but will be fined $1000. A difference without a distinction.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ource=RSS_Feed

    We should all chip in to pay his fine.

    ETA, reimburse his fine.
    Last edited by sharkey; 05-20-2013 at 11:56 PM.
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •