Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearms in the Media' started by chrishiggin29, Jan 27, 2013.
Pretty sad if they push a charge on that one.
Yeah that's Washington, D.C. For ya!
The man shot one of the dogs. A cop shot the other two. And now the man may face charges for shooting inside DC? Wait, The cop shot also and he is not facing the same charges? NO NO NO! This is VERY WRONG. Cops enforce the law. They are not "the" law nor are they above the law. If exigent circumstances justify the cop's shots, they certainly justify the man's shot.
The same police that won't press charges on what's his face for bringing a 30 round magazine on TV?....
And AGAIN, gentlemen, THIS is why you oppose ANY and ALL gun laws.... they always come for the law abiding citizens....
Well I wonder who reported the circumstances of the first dog being shot. I'd bed dollars to donuts that the LEO that shot the second and third dogs reported this good Samaritan and set this tragic direction in motion.
There's a time to look the other way.
And good Samaritans, don't hang out to be media heroes. Do the job and leave quietly, there is no need for a press release.
Very good point, Robo.
So I guess that means if someone breaks in to your house and you shoot um you can be charged with firing a gun in city limits!
Not exactly. The problem with this situation was the man who shot the dog was not on his own property. Read the article.
Interesting that this should appear in the Huffington Post which is one of the most liberal news outlets in the country.
When does good sense come into play in this world?
i bet they will drop this one the nra, fox, hanitey, glen beck, rush limbo will have a field day parading the hurt boy infront of the tv cameras no way for dc to look goos especially if the shooters black
I wonder where the charges are for the owner of the pitbulls for letting 3 extremely lethal weapons run loose. No different than turning a lion loose.
Those dogs could have eaten a child!!!! Think of the children!!!!
It also said the boy was shot in the leg but it was undetermined as to whether it was the Good Samaritan or the cop who shot him. I wonder if that will ever come to light. My bet is that if it was the former it will, if it was the latter it won't.
The cops in DC are not making any allies on the streets. Not smart.
To be devils advocate here, maybe it was determined and it was the good Samaritan, and thats why the case is being pushed.
We can argue about it forever buy the fact of the matter is the kid could have been killed if the bullet went higher. Realistically, of course it was an accident but I wouldnt risk shooting the kid to save him, I would have positioned myself better or went and kicked the dog (or intervened as best as possible) or got point blank body shots or rear shots or anything.
I am strictly assuming he was shooting for the head and missed when he shot the kid.
Like I said we could argue 10000000 different senarios but you can risk someones life to save them is all I am saying.
In other news I still think he did a good job and probably should not be pressed with any charges. Accidents happen, he saved a life and it was as close as possible to the best possible outcome.
I know laws are different everywhere, but wouldn't the LEO be obligated to arrest someone who shot something it was against the law? Wouldn't it be the DA's responsibility to do the investigation and then to drop the charges? I wondering how much latitude a LEO on the scene has. I mean if a LEO comes upon homicide, or something, is a LEO really supposed to take someone's word that it was a SD situation and the shooter the good guy?
Well, whatever, I'm just going to stand around and watch rape/murder/slaughter until I get a lawyers written statement on my right to defend another person. Hey! It's the lawyerly American way.
There were three dogs attacking this boy.
I didn't read anything where the boy was shot?