D.C. gun owner saves boy from pitbull, now investigated for "discharging firearm"

Status
Not open for further replies.

NickEllis

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
4,979
Location
Arlington, TX
Anything we can do to advocate for this guy, pressure the DA, etc.?


http://www.cato.org/blog/gun-owner-...ack-wait-police-say-actions-could-be-criminal

Today’s Washington Post reports that a boy in a DC neighborhood was out riding a new bike that he received on Christmas. As he was riding through his neighborhood, he turned a corner and suddenly came upon three unattended pit bulls who proceeded to maul him. Fortunately for this 11-year old boy, a neighbor saw what was going on, ran into his house, got his handgun, and then returned and shot one of the pit bulls. A DC police officer, nearby on bicycle, heard the shot, got to the scene, and then shot the other two pit bulls.

Is the unidentified neighbor hailed as a hero? No – just the opposite – he apparently needs a lawyer because he is reportedly under “investigation” for violating our capital city’s firearms laws! You see – he may have discharged his weapon beyond his property line. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.
 
This is what Tom Gresham, Massad Ayoob, and others warn about. What to do when you see someone needing the benefit of your gun ownership. As Gresham says, there are three or four things that can happen when you display a handgun, and they are mostly bad for you. Your first obligation is to yourself and your family, and coming to the defense of someone else, can put your family's financial future at risk.

That said, I don't think I could stand by and not try and stop pit bulls attacking a child.


Sent using Tapatalk...so please excuse the typos!
 
Here's the Washington Post article on the incident. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...07c43ee-63ea-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

We can enter comments, but I have to point out that there's nothing in the article critical of the person that intervened to save the child and that there's no indication that the District is looking into charging them so our comments and support should include wishes for a rapid recovery for the child and praise of the gunowner as a hero.
 
Can't he just say he was exercising his first amendment rights against the mauling of children by dogs?
 
Can't he just say he was exercising his first amendment rights against the mauling of children by dogs?

I don't see how this is related to 1A.
 
What a world we live in. 10 years ago, this person would have been praised and the pit bulls vilified.

But because a gun was used... Disgusting.
 
I couldn't stand by and watch as pitbulls savaged a child either.

Seems that the liberals would have it both ways- either you dispatch the animal and save the child only to be prosecuted or you stand by and watch the dog devour the child and be vilified as an insensate monster.

What a fine bunch, the Left.
 
While this is horrible what else can you do? Not save him? It's just sad he had to run all the way into the house to get it or he might have saved the kid from even getting hurt that bad.

Maybe this is something we push on a federal level, a Bill that says unless there's good cause to believe it was anything other than defense, no investigation can be undergone.
 
Skribs said:
I don't see how this is related to 1A.

Kind of a joke, figured if the reporter in DC could use this defense for a 30 round mag when specifically told he couldn't, why not try to apply it in this case.
 
Great, another story proclaiming that pitbulls are attack dogs...

Dogs are what you make of them. Pitbulls aren't inherently evil or aggressive.

That being said, I agree on the 1st Amendment defense above. Sounds like a bulletproof argument to me with precedent.
 
Not sure if it was the citizen or the cop, but the kid was hit by a bullet in the foot. If it turns out that the citizen did that, he may well be looking at a lawsuit from the child's family too.
 
Not sure if it was the citizen or the cop, but the kid was hit by a bullet in the foot. If it turns out that the citizen did that, he may well be looking at a lawsuit from the child's family too.

This may or may not be true. Another post article noted that "police said they had no record that either a shot fired by the officer or the neighbor struck the boy."

Hopefully they will investigate the firearms owner to the same level they investigated Dick Gregory.
 
This may or may not be true. Another post article noted that "police said they had no record that either a shot fired by the officer or the neighbor struck the boy."

Hopefully they will investigate the firearms owner to the same level they investigated Dick Gregory.

You mean David Gregory.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/jan/11/miller-david-gregory-gets-scott-free/

IMO, if the hero in the OP is investigated, he should call Mr. Gregory for advice on how best to avoid charges.
 
Help someone in need and the public calls you a vigilante.

Sit back and watch, and the public calls you a terrible human being.
 
I couldn't stand by and watch as pitbulls savaged a child either.

Seems that the liberals would have it both ways- either you dispatch the animal and save the child only to be prosecuted or you stand by and watch the dog devour the child and be vilified as an insensate monster.

What a fine bunch, the Left.

They'd say the gun owner should've rushed the dogs with his bare fists
 
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect the right to use them so that is subject to regulation, for better or worse.
 
The problem is that he shot the DMD ( Dog of Mass Destruction) with a ROG (Regular Ol Gun) instead of using an WMD (Ar15).

Perhaps he should have taken the non politically correct route of using a HKBB ( Hello Kitty Bubble Blower) since the little girl is on suspension and can't use it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top