# guy who shoots dogs mauling child faces charges



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I haven't seen this posted here:D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges - Washington Times

Can you believe this crap? I guess the guy should have just let the boy die.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

I would be thanking the guy !! 

then the cops arrived and had to do the same thing. So there were 3 dogs -- clearly dangerous (no matter what breed) and not contained .

"The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy

Read more: D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## ShenzisMom (Apr 27, 2010)

What the ...!! This man deserves an award for saving the boy, not being investigated!


----------



## Tom888 (Nov 18, 2012)

selzer said:


> I haven't seen this posted here:D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges - Washington Times
> 
> Can you believe this crap? I guess the guy should have just let the boy die.


Maybe, maybe I could agree with the man being charged for Possession of an unregistered firearm as it has nothing to do with the dog attack, the guy owned it long before. But much rather not as the only reason the authorities know about that gun is the fact that he saved a life with it - not exactly the behavior I'd discourage no matter what the circumstances...

One's for sure: any other charge, like carrying a pistol without a license, etc. would be eye waterlingly stupid, ridiculous.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

lol -- well at least he had to run into the house to get the gun


----------



## mandiah89 (Jan 18, 2013)

The possible charge has nothing to do with him actually shooting the dogs, it is a case of whether or not his gun is LEGALLY owned, which I can understand as the gun laws in the states really needs to start tightening and getting these illegal guns "off the streets". I do believe this was the right thing for this man to do to save the boys life, and even the officer needed to shoot the other two dogs to stop the attack. The man should be given leeway and just get a fine for an unregistered gun but should not be charged.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

mandiah89 said:


> as the gun laws in the states really needs to start tightening and getting these illegal guns "off the streets"


What blatant lack of logic. LAWS can correct those who DISREGARD laws?  Gun laws don't need tightened; enforcement of existing laws needs to happen-- as it is in this case.


----------



## fuzzybunny (Apr 29, 2011)

mandiah89 said:


> The possible charge has nothing to do with him actually shooting the dogs, it is a case of whether or not his gun is LEGALLY owned, which I can understand as the gun laws in the states really needs to start tightening and getting these illegal guns "off the streets". I do believe this was the right thing for this man to do to save the boys life, and even the officer needed to shoot the other two dogs to stop the attack. The man should be given leeway and just get a fine for an unregistered gun but should not be charged.


Agreed.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I don't know. The guy owned an unregistered gun in his home. Which may be illegal where he is. I own an unregistered gun. But it's a shot gun and it is not illegal, but still. I would have a heck of a time stopping a dog from mauling a boy with a shot gun. 

He saved the kid's life possibly, and probably saved him from more damage. He deserves a medal. 

I would not have investigated whether the guy's gun was registered or not. Not significant to the problem at hand. Perhaps if the uncle thought the boy was shot as well, then there would need to be an investigation, but I think that even if the guy did injure the kid in the foot in the attempt of saving him worse damage by the dogs, it would be a bloody shame for the guy to be criminally charged for doing a good deed.


----------



## Tom888 (Nov 18, 2012)

mandiah89 said:


> The possible charge has nothing to do with him actually shooting the dogs, it is a case of whether or not his gun is LEGALLY owned, which I can understand as the gun laws in the states really needs to start tightening and getting these illegal guns "off the streets". I do believe this was the right thing for this man to do to save the boys life, and even the officer needed to shoot the other two dogs to stop the attack. The man should be given leeway and just get a fine for an unregistered gun but should not be charged.


It would be enough if they just took his gun and ammo, I don't think he should even get a fine. As I said, they wouldn't even know about that gun if he wouldn't save that child and you want someone to save the next child too, doesn't matter if with a legal or illegal gun.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

selzer said:


> I would not have investigated whether the guy's gun was registered or not. Not significant to the problem at hand.


DC has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I'm fairly certain that they DO have to register firearms there, (and if true- which I think it is) possession of the firearm (in the street, no less, which is off of his own property- meaning he is now carrying) would have to be addressed. Not to mention that most likely _anywhere_ in America where a firearm is discharged (outside of a range) there's going to be an investigation.

It's unfortunate that this guy's good deed will be squashed through senseless laws. It's a real shame.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

Part of the problem is that the neighborhood were this happened has a lot of problems with gun violence and gang activity. Guessing DC PD is happy to get any illegal gun off the street, even though it was used for a good purpose.

And - it is really difficult to obtain a gun license here in DC.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

mandiah89 said:


> .. which I can understand as the gun laws in the states really needs to start tightening and getting these illegal guns "off the streets".


Boo..Hiss..which is all I can say with out stepping over 'political' lines..

Sadly, the spot light is going to taken off the trash who allowed their dogs to attack the child in the first place.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

Lilie said:


> Sadly, the spot light is going to taken off the trash who allowed their dogs to attack the child in the first place.


 
Think he is getting away with a fine..I was told it was $311.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

$311 that he would not have had to pay if he just sat in his house and waiting for the police to come and rescue the boy. 

I wish the world would stop already so I could get off.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

The $311 is the fine for letting the dogs run loose..


----------



## mandiah89 (Jan 18, 2013)

DinoBlue said:


> The $311 is the fine for letting the dogs run loose..


That man should also be charged with "reckless endangerment"! Not just some petty fine


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

The article doesn't really mean anything, IMO. He "could" face charges....OK. If the gun was not legally owned then that's a separate incident. Like Willy said anytime a gun is fired if the police find out, there is some kind of investigation. I've been involved in two in my lifetime because I've been shot at twice (one intentional, one most likely accidental but I had to give statements to two different state police agencies). He can't be surprised. If the boy was in serious danger and he's a human being with a soul then I'm sure he thought it was worth the $300 fine to save his life from the attacking dogs.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Isn't the $311 fine for the OWNER of the dogs (who was a different person than the person with the gun)? I'm pretty sure that's what DinoBlue was saying.

[EDIT]- reread the article. It said:


> When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred.


I assumed that meant a neighbor to the dog owner. And also- cop must have been close, or maybe the shooter only had one bullet. Wonder how long it takes a cop to hear a gun shot, turn his car around, find the location, get out and access the situation, and decide to shoot the other two dogs. Man- this must have taken TIME. I wonder why the shooter didn't shoot the other two dogs? Maybe he _did_ accidentally hit the kid's foot and didn't want to keep shooting? Kind of some unknowns in the story (as usual).

But Lilie's totally right. No mention on negligent dog owner in the article. What a shame!!


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

Being that this is DC, it is quite possible that when things die down, ie press coverage and such, PD will just keep the gun and not fine him for having a unregistered gun. Usually how things work around here.



wildo said:


> Isn't the $311 fine for the OWNER of the dogs (who was a different person than the person with the gun)? I'm pretty sure that's what DinoBlue was saying.


Correct, the $311 is the fine for the owner of the dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Only $311 for letting your dogs EAT someone??? See, this is the whole problem with BSL. People get dogs they can't or won't contain, and if they don't it's a slap on the wrist -- if they are caught. But the public and legislators see PIT BULL and immediately want to make laws against pit bulls, or German Shepherds or Rottweilers. Doesn't matter. 

Someone who lets three formidable run loose needs more than a little fine. $311 per dog. And then, if the dog does do something awful, they should be charged with criminal negligence or something like that, which should be able to hold consequences that include incarceration as an option, and inability to own a frickin dog again for a number of years. And then the victim should be able to come in and sue his butt too for damages. 

We should be tough on digressions, not on breeds. We are doing nobody any favors by being easy on dog owners who allow crap like this to go on.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

A fine for "dog at large" doesn't necessarily imply BSL. But I agree with your thought process on penalty. :thumbup:


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

selzer said:


> Only $311 for letting your dogs EAT someone??? See, this is the whole problem with BSL. People get dogs they can't or won't contain, and if they don't it's a slap on the wrist -- if they are caught. But the public and legislators see PIT BULL and immediately want to make laws against pit bulls, or German Shepherds or Rottweilers. Doesn't matter.
> 
> Someone who lets three formidable run loose needs more than a little fine. $311 per dog. And then, if the dog does do something awful, they should be charged with criminal negligence or something like that, which should be able to hold consequences that include incarceration as an option, and inability to own a frickin dog again for a number of years. And then the victim should be able to come in and sue his butt too for damages.
> 
> We should be tough on digressions, not on breeds. We are doing nobody any favors by being easy on dog owners who allow crap like this to go on.


 
Could not agree more with you.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

He might have done the right thing, but its still against the law to have an unregistered weapon.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

wildo said:


> A fine for "dog at large" doesn't necessarily imply BSL.



No, but when people are not given any reason to be responsible with their pets, incidents increase, and all people see are words like Pit Bull and Maul. What do we do??? Why of course, we ban pit bulls because we cannot expect everyone who owns them to be responsible with them. 

Incidents like this one fuel BSL.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

llombardo said:


> He might have done the right thing, but its still against the law to have an unregistered weapon.


 
True, and I am not saying there should not be any repercussions for that, but it should be a much harsher penalty for letting your dogs run loose and especially when they attack and bite someone.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I believe if that happened here you'd get 1 fine for each dog running at large. If the dogs were not licensed then you'd be fined for that too, and they would have to be in 10 day quarantine at the shelter (since they're not licensed) and you'd probably have to pay for that too. I'm pretty sure a dog at large is at least $100. It's $50 fine per dog to not have a license. Normally (ironically) people who let their dogs run at large don't license them. So here you'd be looking at at least $450 in fines plus the family can sue for damages and likely win. If you don't pay the fine you surrender the animal and considering the attack they'd be PTS.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

llombardo said:


> He might have done the right thing, but its still against the law to have an unregistered weapon.


I have a thing about obeying bad laws. Like seat-belt laws. Sometimes I don't click because I think it is a bad law. I always wore it before it became a law. 

Or, if you have a pit bull, as we have to register our dogs by breed here in Ohio, I can understand people not registering their pit bulls here. It is like giving the government a list of all the pit bulls and their addresses so when they ban them, they can come and get them. Because we have banned them in some locations here, and because you do not even get to keep dogs that were obtained legally prior to the ban, I think that registering them is very risky. 

I am not sure gun owners don't feel the same way about registering there firearms. Here they are!!! When you go and decide to ban them, you will know where to find them at. 

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. I really don't like the idea of having to jump through hoops to legally own a gun. If the guy was using the thing in a criminal way, then they should throw the book at him. If he was doing something to save a kid's life, then they should ignore the existence of the gun. Or maybe register it for him. "Oh and that gun isn't registered, well here, it's on us." That way if the guy uses the gun to kill his wife in six months the PD will not be in trouble for ignoring the existence of a gun at the residence.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

If the gun owner broke the law by owning the gun, then he broke the law. He understood what he was doing when he decided to own the gun. Sadly, the law can't say, "Oh well, we'll turn our heads because he did a good thing with his gun." If they did, then it would set a presidence for gun ownership in that area. Even felons would have an excuse for owning a gun. 

I applaud the man for still taking action to save the child even though he knew he'd have to face the penalties of doing so. I applaud the man for putting others before self.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Lilie said:


> If the gun owner broke the law by owning the gun, then he broke the law. He understood what he was doing when he decided to own the gun. Sadly, the law can't say, "Oh well, we'll turn our heads because he did a good thing with his gun." If they did, then it would set a presidence for gun ownership in that area. Even felons would have an excuse for owning a gun.
> 
> I applaud the man for still taking action to save the child even though he knew he'd have to face the penalties of doing so. I applaud the man for putting others before self.


I agree.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

selzer said:


> I have a thing about obeying bad laws. Like seat-belt laws. Sometimes I don't click because I think it is a bad law. I always wore it before it became a law.
> 
> Or, if you have a pit bull, as we have to register our dogs by breed here in Ohio, I can understand people not registering their pit bulls here. It is like giving the government a list of all the pit bulls and their addresses so when they ban them, they can come and get them. Because we have banned them in some locations here, and because you do not even get to keep dogs that were obtained legally prior to the ban, I think that registering them is very risky.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree with this. Selzer I think you and I have abit of the rebel in us. I have a hard time with stupidity. Legally owned firearm or not, the guy saved the kids life. Whatever happened to the spirit of the law?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

When you are involved in a crime that was committed with a stolen firearm, or if your firearm is stolen and you want the police and your insurance company to be involved, then you can see why it's important they are legal and registered.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

The prosecutor has a lot of discretion in filing their cases so it will be interesting to see what actually happens. Public opinion is that the guy is a hero for doing what he did.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

selzer said:


> I have a thing about obeying bad laws. Like seat-belt laws. Sometimes I don't click because I think it is a bad law. I always wore it before it became a law.
> 
> Or, if you have a pit bull, as we have to register our dogs by breed here in Ohio, I can understand people not registering their pit bulls here. It is like giving the government a list of all the pit bulls and their addresses so when they ban them, they can come and get them. Because we have banned them in some locations here, and because you do not even get to keep dogs that were obtained legally prior to the ban, I think that registering them is very risky.
> 
> ...


So you think its alright for people to pick and choose what laws they wish to follow?

And if you don't agree with the guy being charged with owning an unlicensed weapon, you're pretty much saying that you'd be alright with a vigilante as long as they're doing things YOU agree with.


----------



## stealthq (May 1, 2011)

Lilie said:


> Sadly, the law can't say, "Oh well, we'll turn our heads because he did a good thing with his gun." If they did, then it would set a presidence for gun ownership in that area. Even felons would have an excuse for owning a gun.


Sure they can. And they do, all the time, with all kinds of laws, from felonies to misdemeanors. Whether to bring charges is up to the discretion of the police, who sometimes choose not to report an infraction though that's obviously not an option in this case; and the prosecutor, who sometimes chooses not to bring charges even if the person's been arrested and there's sufficient evidence to pass a grand jury.

Whether they should, or not, that's a different story.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

selzer said:


> If the guy was using the thing in a criminal way, then they should throw the book at him.


Umm... apparently he _was_ using it in a criminal way. Carrying without a license. Not registering when required, etc... (those might actually be civil charges, but most gun laws end up as criminal charges).


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

He's a hero, but should that exempt him from the law? What made him incapable of obtaining a gun legally?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

stealthq said:


> Sure they can. And they do, all the time, with all kinds of laws, from felonies to misdemeanors. Whether to bring charges is up to the discretion of the police, who sometimes choose not to report an infraction though that's obviously not an option in this case; and the prosecutor, who sometimes chooses not to bring charges even if the person's been arrested and there's sufficient evidence to pass a grand jury.
> 
> Whether they should, or not, that's a different story.


No, they can't. Not in a case as highly publicized as this one is. Not when gun laws are a hot topic.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

martemchik said:


> So you think its alright for people to pick and choose what laws they wish to follow?
> 
> And if you don't agree with the guy being charged with owning an unlicensed weapon, you're pretty much saying that you'd be alright with a vigilante as long as they're doing things YOU agree with.


Yeah, well, ya know, if cops stopped everyone and charged everyone for every toe over the line in every instance, we would not have to worry about our penal system as we would all be members of it. 

Yes, yes, I have j-walked. Did it the other day with a couple of kids. And I tend to consider stop signs, stop suggestions. Speed limits were made to be stretched. I do not believe in gun control at all, sorry. I think we should pound the snot out of people who use guns to commit crimes, and do the same if they use knives, or hammers or any other item. 

Why should someone be able to murder someone and get out of jail at all? But we are going to blame a gun for all the problems in the US. 

As for vigilantes cross the line and become criminals when they go out looking for revenge or trouble so that they can attack. I don't have any place for vigilantes. But I think if the penal system wasn't a giant revolving door, we would probably have fewer instances of people feeling that desperate. 

I think a lot of times the police need to use discretion. I think this could be handled better, and maybe it will be. Maybe the guy was a felon, and in that case, they should have confiscated his gun and ammo and prosecuted him, and leave it to the court system to be understanding of the guy's intention, lenient or what have you. If the guy isn't a felon, then I think that it just doesn't make sense to charge him.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

Syaoransbear said:


> He's a hero, but should that exempt him from the law? What made him incapable of obtaining a gun legally?


It is painfully difficult to get a license in DC/Maryland...like extremely difficult. I can't speak exactly for DC, but I believe the rules are very similar to MD where you have to have a 'reason' to have a license to carry. For example, an attempt on your life, working in one of the jails/prisons, stuff like that. I am a law abiding citizen who has had her home broken into where someone has made entry into my home while I have been sitting in said home. I applied for a license to carry and was denied. 

I can buy as many handguns as I want, but I wouldn't have a license to carry said gun across my threshold. If the gun leaves my house, it must be unloaded, the magazine(s) cannot have a single round in them, in a locked box, and the ammo must not be located anywhere near the weapon in my vehicle.

I believe that the guy should've had his hand slapped and they should've moved on. Since he went back into his home to get it, it wasn't on him illegally at the time, and he was stopping the mauling of a child. Was he violating the law by having his gun out unlicensed? Yes. Was he in the process of shaking someone down or robbing a home? No. Did he stop a kid from being killed? Yes. Ethically, yes, he should be cited/fined/have his guns taken away/whatever. Morally? He did the right thing.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Shaolin said:


> I believe that the guy should've had his hand slapped and they should've moved on.


That might still actually happen. The article says the guy _could_ be charged. Doesn't say he did.


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

*Update*

Update

*D.C. man who shot dog during attack has chance to avoid weapons charge - The Washington Post*


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

They confiscated his shot gun and shot gun shells? Wow. I mean, yeah they can be dangerous, but those are hunting weapons, not weapons you would use for criminal activity. 

I have heard that DC has one of the worst crime rates, and murder rates out there. Maybe that isn't true. It would be odd though if they also have the toughest gun laws.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

selzer said:


> They confiscated his shot gun and shot gun shells? Wow. I mean, yeah they can be dangerous, but those are hunting weapons, not weapons you would use for criminal activity.
> 
> I have heard that DC has one of the worst crime rates, and murder rates out there. Maybe that isn't true. It would be odd though if they also have the toughest gun laws.


Maryland and DC have some of the, if not the, toughest gun laws in the country. No CCP in MD or DC, can't travel with ANY firearm unless the weapon itself is in a lockbox not within reaching distance of any passenger, magazines must be unloaded and kept in a separate place away from the gun, and all ammo must be in a separate, locked place away from the gun and magazines. Basically, the ammo is in the locked glove box, the magazines in a lockable carry case in the back seat, and the gun itself in a lock box in the trunk.

And yes, the crime rate is insane. I've worked in ghettos armed with nothing but a flashlight and 360 joules of bite me, but you won't catch me wandering the streets of DC by myself, lol.


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

That's the irony, they protect the excessive thugs against law abiding citizens!!! That's hilarious!


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

selzer said:


> I have heard that DC has one of the worst crime rates, and murder rates out there. Maybe that isn't true. It would be odd though if they also have the toughest gun laws.


Not anymore, DC has changed a lot over the past 10-15 year. We are not on the top 10 list for murder rates anymore, granted DC still makes the top 100 at around 50 but much better then it used to be.

Gun laws here is a joke, yes, they are very strict, but that is only a problem for someone obtaining a gun the legal way.


----------



## Swifty (May 11, 2013)

The shooter wasn't charged, but the dog owner was:

_In addition to deciding how to handle Mr. Srigley’s case last week, authorities also made the decision to press charges against the dogs’ owner, Alan Paige. 
Mr. Paige, who lives a block north of the corner where the attack occurred, will face nine criminal charges — including three counts of possession of a dangerous dog, three counts of having an unleashed dog, and three counts of allowing a dog to go without a collar. The charges account for each of the three dogs, Mr. Gest said._


Read more: D.C. man won't face gun charges for shooting pit bull attacking boy - Washington Times


----------



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

Glad they did charge the dog owner. They (DC Council) actually just past a new law a few weeks back with stiffer sentences if your dog bites a person or another dog. I have not seen the language but I was told there is also additional protection under that law for a working dog (in my case my SAR/USAR dogs), if they are attacked and injured by someones elses dog it is treated as a felony.


----------



## Seer (May 24, 2011)

DinoBlue said:


> Not anymore, DC has changed a lot over the past 10-15 year. We are not on the top 10 list for murder rates anymore, granted DC still makes the top 100 at around 50 but much better then it used to be.
> 
> Gun laws here is a joke, yes, they are very strict, but that is only a problem for someone obtaining a gun the legal way.



These comments can be applied to all the illegal states, cities & counties that have gun laws restricting the right to own or posses or carry. I applaud the grand benevolence of not prosecuting the guy who saved the kids life. Now if something like this where to happen again he should call the police and go back inside and turn up the television so not to hear a child being eaten by dogs.

He will avoid all the hassle and still be a hero in many peoples mind because he is now a good little sheep obeying his nanny master who is violating the law by restricting his right to own a firearm.


----------



## Seer (May 24, 2011)

Its bothersome to say the least that this man appears to have more class and ethics then the the DA and the police force and those that fought against him and his rights. 

While others ran, he stepped up at great personal risk. Thanks Benjamin Srigley for representing what we as a country, use to.

JD

The Article:


A D.C. man who faced criminal charges for using an unregistered gun to kill a pit bull as it mauled a neighborhood boy is now raising funds for the 11-year-old victim to help him cope in the aftermath of the vicious attack.

The effort comes amid an outpouring of support from gun-rights activists offering to raise money for Benjamin Srigley, 39, who was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine as part of an agreement he would not be charged with a crime.

“People asked ‘Is there a hero fund or something we can do?’ I looked around and didn’t find anything,” said Peter Upton, who runs the Second Amendment Check website and decided to start a fund for Mr. Srigley.

But as Mr. Srigley learned about the campaign that was registered on the fundraising website Pledgie.com in his honor, he urged those who wanted to support him to instead donate money to his neighbor, 11-year-old Jayeon Simon.

“I am truly touched and very grateful for all the public support that I have received.” Mr. Srigley wrote on the campaign website. “If you can only afford to make one donation, I would prefer that you give the money to Jayeon.”

Straight shooter: D.C. man who shot pit bull mauling boy refuses legal aid; asks donors to help kid - Washington Times


----------



## TommyB681 (Oct 19, 2012)

Garbage....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh please.

We just had a thread about a guy who shot an elderly lab dead (friend's of a member here). Another member had a thread about how her neighbor good ol boy was kicking the heck out her 11 YO GSD because it wandered onto his yard WHILE she was holding the collar to try and bring her dog home. First offense too, dog hadn't escaped before. You just do NOT know who is the 'good' guy and who isn't these days. 

The guy who saved the kid did the right thing in THAT moment but we here on this forum have NO NONE NADA way of knowing if he is good guy OR bad guy in life in general, he could have been a convicted felow who wasn't supposed to have gun for all we know AND the only way the authorities would know is by investigating the guy.

Bad guys sometimes do good things and 'good' guys do bad things and the police have to investigate and they did.

The charges were not pressed so it's not that big of a deal_ unless_ you want to spin it up.






Seer said:


> Its bothersome to say the least that this man appears to have more class and ethics then the the DA and the police force and those that fought against him and his rights.
> 
> While others ran, he stepped up at great personal risk. Thanks Benjamin Srigley for representing what we as a country, use to.
> 
> ...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think if he was a convicted felon and in violation of rules for convicted felons, then they would have done more than take his guns. It sounds like he had a few shot guns and some shells besides the gun he used. 

It does sound like DC has some serious gun control laws that I would probably break too. But then, when I see the sign that says click it or ticket, I feel like unbuckling my seat belt. That's just me. I hate bad laws.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

...in blue and that is something we here on this board sure as heck would not know and the police would need to investigate.

Here's the deal, you want to break a law then you're taking the risk of being charged and you have no right to complain about being treated 'unfairly' if you are caught.

There are a lot of laws I disagree with but I'm not going to break any of them, instead I work to change them.

You're exactly right that the people of DC decided they wanted those stricter laws in their district. If you live in DC you can do what this man should have done, comply with the laws WHILE trying to convince fellow citizens why they should be changed through the legislative process. If he can't change the law peacefully he can move or just accept the laws in his community. Living in a representative democracy requires discipline. 

I totally disagree with (NOT you sue but *in general*) these all hat no cattle guys with chips on their shoulders, anger management issues using various forms of force (gun/club/fists/kicking helpless dogs whatever) thinking they somehow are ENTITLED to mete out justice as they see fit. Who the heck do they think they are, what makes them so much smarter or of better judgement then their neighbors, with authority to weild over other citizens?

In TX a man shot his neighbor dead because of loud music being played at his birthday party. Here's the kicker, the shooter had also shot a neighbor's dog previously. The shooter was not a criminal with a record he was a guy who thought that he had the RIGHT to use deadly force to enforce HIS laws and ignore other laws. 

Personally if I had been a judge in the linked case, after verifying that the man who shot the dog had an otherwise clean record I would have just given him a slap on the wrist (he did break the law afterall!) and advise him to apply his civic duty wrt legislation in his community, or move. No one should be above the law, period.







selzer said:


> I think if he was a convicted felon and in violation of rules for convicted felons, then they would have done more than take his guns. It sounds like he had a few shot guns and some shells besides the gun he used.
> 
> It does sound like DC has some serious gun control laws that I would probably break too. But then, when I see the sign that says click it or ticket, I feel like unbuckling my seat belt. That's just me. I hate bad laws.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> ...in blue and that is something we here on this board sure as heck would not know and the police would need to investigate.
> 
> Here's the deal, you want to break a law then you're taking the risk of being charged and you have no right to complain about being treated 'unfairly' if you are caught.
> 
> ...


And so, I license my dogs. A lot of people here don't. People on this site don't -- some of them. Some of them are quite proud of the fact. 

I also keep my dogs contained. It IS safer for them, but it is also the law in Ohio. Lots of people think it isn't the law in the country, but it is. You need to keep them on your property, not on the street, not out of your neighbor's chickens, but on your own property. 

But then I don't have problems with those laws. 

I do have problems with some laws. And gun control laws are some of the ones I have the most problem with because I feel they are overall, unconstitutional. 

Seat belt laws I don't like, and I FEEL like unclicking when I see those signs. But generally I comply. 

But we have a bill of rights in this country, and one of those rights is the right to bear arms. If you do something to be stripped of your rights, like commit a felony, I think it is perfectly ok to say you can no longer own a gun or dog or adopt a kid, or vote, or anything else within reason. But I do not think that a state law or a muninicipality law should be able to go completely against the Bill of Rights. 

So it is not about being a law unto myself, it is about following the law of this nation, the constitution which includes the Bill of Rights, which is why a war was faught with England, which makes us our own country. Laws that take away our rights written down in the constitution are bad laws, and I think if I lived in such a place as that, for whatever reason, I would have a hard time complying with such a law. 

If a village made a law stating that everyone attend XYZ church every Sunday, would you say, either do that or move?


----------



## Seer (May 24, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Oh please.
> 
> We just had a thread about a guy who shot an elderly lab dead (friend's of a member here). Another member had a thread about how her neighbor good ol boy was kicking the heck out her 11 YO GSD because it wandered onto his yard WHILE she was holding the collar to try and bring her dog home. First offense too, dog hadn't escaped before. You just do NOT know who is the 'good' guy and who isn't these days.
> 
> ...


Wow thats crazy stuff right there, although Im not sure how a friend of a members, cousin's, uncle bob and a child abusers plays in here, Im sure disturbed that, that happened. You just cant legislate crazy, no matter how hard you kids try. 

Band together and create a law for shooting people over music choices? Super. I prefer rock and roll most often, but sometimes eminem can be heard through my speakers as well. So I could be entertained to this. May I start?

Effective immediately people with cowboy hats and no cattle should no longer have ears. Due to there chips on their shoulders and numerous anger management issues, I say we just whack them their ears right off. Cant here music,, problem solved. 

Guns, club's, fists & kicking helpless dogs should be outlawed as well. To be safe maybe we just outlaw men all together. Bet a get a **** ya on that one, from some of, ya all's.

One second.................. Ahh yes, I was just reminded we have laws already against beating children, killing people over music & shooting uncle bob's labrador. I guess those fine upstanding folks just did not get the memo.


----------



## Seer (May 24, 2011)

Seer said:


> Wow thats crazy stuff right there, although Im not sure how a friend of a members, cousin's, uncle bob and a child abusers plays in here, Im sure disturbed that, that happened. You just cant legislate crazy, no matter how hard you kids try.
> 
> ooopsey read that as kicking an 11 year old kid with a gsd, and sorry gwen I forgot this.
> 
> But you get the idea.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Sue,

I don't think we should carry this on because it's deviating way too far from the particular incident and dog related topics. Trust me I can really drill down on these sort of topics.

I will say in general (like with the seat belt law) the problem is when you get in an accident, break your kneck and are paralyzed from the neck down, who is going to pay the huge medical costs? Well that cost gets passed onto society. Just like the dog that got loose and mauled the kid, we often end up paying for things like through higher insurance and medical costs.

So- Just as you advocate for responsible ownership of dogs (good fences to keep dogs safely in the yard) you are indirectly advocating FOR people NOT spreading risk onto society, which I totally agree with. So IMO the seat belt law is similar.

Now I'm a pretty realistic pragmatic person, if we want to get rid of laws like that *then* by the same token when *you* make a dangerous choice I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. We just can't bring ourselves to apply this sort of 'justice'. It's a sort of 'you can't have your cake and eat it too' scenario. 

To be clear I'm not arguing for one way or the other as 'right' I'm just pointing out the two sides to the coin.





selzer said:


> And so, I license my dogs. A lot of people here don't. People on this site don't -- some of them. Some of them are quite proud of the fact.
> 
> I also keep my dogs contained. It IS safer for them, but it is also the law in Ohio. Lots of people think it isn't the law in the country, but it is. You need to keep them on your property, not on the street, not out of your neighbor's chickens, but on your own property.
> 
> ...


----------

