Something to consider in the new federal push for gun registration

Presumably there are other crimes in DC that could have been stopped if it wasn't so difficult to legally obtain a gun.  This might be one person who wasn't stopped by the law and because he still got a gun he was able to save a young boy's life.  I would like to know this good samaritan's income. I have pointed out how registration doesn't help reduce crime, but, with the push for federal gun registration, just something to consider.
. . . 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. 
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. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy. 
The police report, which did not identify any of the people involved, said the boy suffered severe lacerations. The Washington Post, which first reported the details of the shooting, quoted the boy’s uncle as saying the boy was also shot in the foot. . . . 
While public opinion might be supportive of the man’s actions, he could still face significant charges depending on the outcome of the investigation, criminal defense attorney Daniel Gross said. . . . 
The man could face a host of charges depending on the specifics of the case, including whether the gun used is a registered firearm that the man was legally permitted to own, Mr. Gross said. Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine, and determining whether the man legally possessed the gun used will likely have greater bearing on the way the case is handled, Mr. Gross said. . . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Asoran said...

This article brings to mind why many people ask the question "why didn't anyone do anything to stop that, someone could have done something", when someone is beaten, raped, murdered, attacked, etc. Good Samaritans have been made into the bad guy too many times. It doesn't mean we have lost the will to protect our neighbors, just that many actually stop and think what crimes they might be charged with in today's society, while intervening, and decide not to get involved. Even medics get sued these days over bruises or other injuries they may inflict while attempting to save a life.

These days I often wonder myself, if in these situations, would I get involved, and face law suits, jail, or possibly getting taken out by police who are driven to 'shoot first' (Chicago's McCarthy), or stay out of it and look the other way for my own sake, and that of my family. I like to believe I would help regardless, and just face whatever they threw at me, knowing I did the right thing. But the media and politics has made this a serious question in some peoples minds these days.

Police can't always be there at the moment an intervention is needed, thus making the victims and regular people the real first responders. But they still want to take away all of our rights and abilities to protect our neighbors, our families, and ourselves. When they have proven they can't always help. Nor do they have to according to Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) "...official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."

1/25/2013 12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home