Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Man saves boy from dog mauling; faces prosecution for gun
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:55 pm    Post subject: Man saves boy from dog mauling; faces prosecution for gun Reply with quote

No good deed goes unpunished. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/man-shot-pit-bull-save-boy-gun-charges_n_2551012.html?

A Good Samaritan who shot a pit bull that was mauling an 11-year-old boy in Washington, D.C., on Sunday could face gun charges, WJLA reports.

As the unidentified neighbor witnessed three pit bulls biting Jayeon Simon, who was on his bicycle, the man went to fetch his gun, the station reports.

He then shot one of the dogs dead, catching the attention of a police officer in the vicinity. The officer then shot the other two dogs as they continued to maul the boy, who was later hospitalized with severe lacerations.

Area police confirmed the man could be charged with violating gun laws, the Washington Post reports. Even if the gun were legally registered, firing it on a D.C. street is illegal, the paper noted.

However, attorney David Benowitz, a gun law expert, told the Post that making the case stick would be difficult because the attack seemed to happen near the shooter's property line.

The Washington Times also interviewed a defense attorney not involved in the case. Daniel Gross told the Times that if the U.S. attorney’s office were to take up the case, it's not always so understanding toward those who fire weapons to save others.

Gross added that the greatest bearing on the outcome will still likely be whether the gun user was the registered owner. (Lesser charges for unlicensed guns are prosecuted by the D.C. attorney general's office, but bigger charges could elevate the proceedings to the U.S. attorney's office, the Times noted.)

Whatever the outcome, other neighbors expressed outrage over the possibility the man could face punishment for a heroic deed, WJLA reports.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Corea



Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You'd think that there'd be some room for Self Defence laws to overlap with Good Samaritan laws.

This guy should not get convicted looking at the above, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He could face charges, that's all. The story strongly suggests that he won't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're assuming the DC prosecutor is rational. He's shown that he's not.

Last year he prosecuted a vet only two weeks removed from the field for an ammo violation. The guy had some loose 9MM bullets in his duffle bag when he visited the VA hospital to turn in his medical records. He did not know or forgot that they were in his bag. No gun. Just a handful of bullets. But since they were unregistered bullets, he was handcuffed, arrested and jailed. He had to accept a plea deal from the prosecutor to get it down to a misdemeanor, take probation, and was put on the Gun Offender Registry List. That's how the prosecutor treated a veteran over a trivial offense that's legal in every other state in the nation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
You're assuming the DC prosecutor is rational. He's shown that he's not.

Last year he prosecuted a vet only two weeks removed from the field for an ammo violation. The guy had some loose 9MM bullets in his duffle bag when he visited the VA hospital to turn in his medical records. He did not know or forgot that they were in his bag. No gun. Just a handful of bullets. But since they were unregistered bullets, he was handcuffed, arrested and jailed. He had to accept a plea deal from the prosecutor to get it down to a misdemeanor, take probation, and was put on the Gun Offender Registry List. That's how the prosecutor treated a veteran over a trivial offense that's legal in every other state in the nation.



The guy shouldn't have even had those in the first place. Ammo is a Class V supply in the Canadian and American military (i.e. you're not supposed to bring it home). Had he been caught while he was still in the military, he would have also been charged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
The guy shouldn't have even had those in the first place. Ammo is a Class V supply in the Canadian and American military (i.e. you're not supposed to bring it home). Had he been caught while he was still in the military, he would have also been charged.

Is there any reason to think the 9mm didn't belong to him?
It's not exactly the kind of thing you have to steal from your military base, since you can buy a box of 100 rounds for $10 at Wal Mart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if he did violate some law or another by firing this gun on a city street, given he acted to save the life of the child in question, jury nullification would probably be in order if he were actually prosecuted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
The guy shouldn't have even had those in the first place. Ammo is a Class V supply in the Canadian and American military (i.e. you're not supposed to bring it home). Had he been caught while he was still in the military, he would have also been charged.

Is there any reason to think the 9mm didn't belong to him?
It's not exactly the kind of thing you have to steal from your military base, since you can buy a box of 100 rounds for $10 at Wal Mart.


You need to read again what Madoka wrote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
The guy shouldn't have even had those in the first place. Ammo is a Class V supply in the Canadian and American military (i.e. you're not supposed to bring it home). Had he been caught while he was still in the military, he would have also been charged.

Is there any reason to think the 9mm didn't belong to him?
It's not exactly the kind of thing you have to steal from your military base, since you can buy a box of 100 rounds for $10 at Wal Mart.

You need to read again what Madoka wrote.

Madoka didn't say if they were U.S. government bullets or not, which is why I'm wondering why you assume that they were. Perhaps you should read his post again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
The guy shouldn't have even had those in the first place. Ammo is a Class V supply in the Canadian and American military (i.e. you're not supposed to bring it home). Had he been caught while he was still in the military, he would have also been charged.

Is there any reason to think the 9mm didn't belong to him?
It's not exactly the kind of thing you have to steal from your military base, since you can buy a box of 100 rounds for $10 at Wal Mart.

You need to read again what Madoka wrote.

Madoka didn't say if they were U.S. government bullets or not, which is why I'm wondering why you assume that they were. Perhaps you should read his post again.


In his duffel bag, unregistered...Do you need him to spell out the headstamp codes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
In his duffel bag, unregistered...Do you need him to spell out the headstamp codes?

Perhaps we're working with different definitions of "unregistered" here. To my knowledge, 9mm ammunition from Wal-Mart would fall into the category of "unregistered" and could easily be stored in a duffel bag. Is there something I'm missing which indicates that isn't the case?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Madoka didn't say if they were U.S. government bullets or not, which is why I'm wondering why you assume that they were. Perhaps you should read his post again.


Yup, the bullets were given to him by his father-in-law:

"A spokesman for the District’s Office of the Attorney General told me that they discovered 14 rounds of 9mm. In retrospect, he thinks the ammunition was thrown in the bag haphazardly after a recreational shoot. “I think the last time I went to the range to shoot, my father-in-law gave me some rounds. And I emptied a magazine and tossed them in the bag,” he said."

As you've discovered, 12ax7 is not the brightest bulb around these parts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
In his duffel bag, unregistered...Do you need him to spell out the headstamp codes?

Perhaps we're working with different definitions of "unregistered" here. To my knowledge, 9mm ammunition from Wal-Mart would fall into the category of "unregistered" and could easily be stored in a duffel bag. Is there something I'm missing which indicates that isn't the case?


I did a bit of research and, strangely enough, in DC it's illegal to own ammunition for a gun you don't have registered in your name...But, in the case he referred to, the veteran apparently did own a 9mm handgun and it appears it was is own ammunition, although it's unclear to me if the gun was properly registered in his name (the article is very vague). Needless to say, it's a strange case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jul/1/miller-dc-arrests-vet-arrested-unregistered-ammuni/

PS. Read the article with a grain of salt, though. This publication has a strong conservative bias. It's owned by the Unification Church (the Moonies), which also owns a small arms manufacturer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahr_Arms
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
comm wrote:
Madoka didn't say if they were U.S. government bullets or not, which is why I'm wondering why you assume that they were. Perhaps you should read his post again.


Yup, the bullets were given to him by his father-in-law:

"A spokesman for the District’s Office of the Attorney General told me that they discovered 14 rounds of 9mm. In retrospect, he thinks the ammunition was thrown in the bag haphazardly after a recreational shoot. “I think the last time I went to the range to shoot, my father-in-law gave me some rounds. And I emptied a magazine and tossed them in the bag,” he said."

As you've discovered, 12ax7 is not the brightest bulb around these parts.



And yet I'm bright enough to figure out why you conveniently forgot to provide a link with the story as you originally posted it and to the above quote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
I did a bit of research and, strangely enough, in DC it's illegal to own ammunition for a gun you don't have registered in your name...But, in the case he referred to, the veteran apparently did own a 9mm handgun and it appears it was is own ammunition, although it's unclear to me if the gun was properly registered in his name (the article is very vague). Needless to say, it's a strange case.

Of course, it's not strange in the "odd circumstances" way... it's strange in the "they are persecuting a combat veteran for owning small-caliber bullets he bought at Wal-Mart" way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International