This is why we need gun laws

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,100
245
A kid on a bicycle is attacked by pit bulls, and the guy that saves his life gets slapped with a fine because he owned a couple of guns.

The horrific incident that spawned the investigation occurred on a Sunday afternoon in late January as 11-year-old Jayeon Simon and his friend rode bicycles near Eighth and Sheridan streets Northwest in the Brightwood neighborhood. According to court records filed in D.C. Superior Court, three unleashed pit bulls pounced on Jayeon and attacked him.

Seeing the attack, Mr. Srigley went inside his home to get his Ruger 9 mm pistol while several other men hopped over fences to get away from the dogs, court records state.

From behind the wooden fence of his front lawn, Mr. Srigley began firing at the dogs. His shots attracted the attention of a Metropolitan Police Department officer on bicycle patrol nearby, and he also opened fire on the dogs, killing the other two.
D.C. man won't face gun charges for shooting pit bull attacking boy - Washington Times
 
Last edited:
Are you fuking confused or what?

Didn't your link say the guy wouldn't be charged?

Wtf is the problem now?
 
Just another example of the ignorance and hypocrisy of Liberalism. It is limitless in its over top stupidity.
 
God forbid we have people that can defend themselves, that’s what the government is for!!!!

Of course, the saying goes:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
 
The man should have registered his guns. He did not and he is now paying a price. I liken this to driving an unregistered car, not a big deal it is an administrative error on his part.
He gets the guns back in the end and the he may have to register those guns where he moves to.


"While investigating the case, police seized Mr. Srigley’s pistol, which he said he purchased legally in Virginia when he lived there, and close to 100 rounds of ammunition from his home. Mr. Srigley told investigators that he owned two other guns — an antique M-1 rifle and a Mossburg 12-gauge shotgun — which were in a storage space in the District.

Police also seized those guns, but authorities have agreed they will return the firearms to Mr. Srigley when he registers them in Maryland, where he plans to soon move."
D.C. man won't face gun charges for shooting pit bull attacking boy - Washington Times
 
Are you fuking confused or what?

Didn't your link say the guy wouldn't be charged?

Wtf is the problem now?

They fined him a thousand bucks and took three guns from him.
Let that be a lesson...next time let the dogs kill the kid.

probably the same reason

no one from the witnessing crowd

reached out to help that brit troop

that the terrorists sliced and diced and beheaded

in England the other day
 
Are you fuking confused or what?

Didn't your link say the guy wouldn't be charged?

Wtf is the problem now?

They fined him a thousand bucks and took three guns from him.
Let that be a lesson...next time let the dogs kill the kid.

probably the same reason

no one from the witnessing crowd

reached out to help that brit troop

that the terrorists sliced and diced and beheaded

in England the other day

Yep.
This also reminds me of the boy scout who forgot he had his shotgun in his truck.
You try and do the right thing and you get punished for it.
What kind of F'ed up world do we live in?
 
It probably would have been safer for Mr. Srigley to get a bat or something similar, & bash the dogs with it - higher risk to the rescuer, safer for the boy? Still, tough call.

I agree that the chilling effect of fining Mr. Srigley & confiscating his guns is bad policy, in the circumstances. If it were up to me, I'd have allowed him to register the guns down to the station, no fine, no confiscation - assuming that all the paperwork is in order. Other than that, he's to be commended - he came to the rescue of that boy.

Was the owner of the dogs fined for letting the dogs run loose? Were those dogs licensed? - in some jurisdictions, you need special permits for pit bulls.

Maybe the gun laws should be revised - put in kinda a Good Samaritan clause - the use of a firearm to protect an innocent's life will not trigger other charges against the rescuer? It needs more work, but I think we need to encourage people to do the right thing, not punish them after the fact. Hell, somebody should be pinning a medal on Mr. Srigley.
 
Last edited:
he should move to a free state..., like Texas or Arizona !

Wyoming as virtually no gun laws. What's the crime rate in Wyoming compared to a gun free zone like Chicago for instance?

Wyoming is #4 in the states with the highest deaths from firearms.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster

he should move to a free state..., like Texas or Arizona !

Arizona is #5, Texas #26.

I guess the fact that Washington DC is #1 shouldn't be mentioned here. Doesn't quit fit your agenda, does it?

On the other hand, who gives a shit about "Firearm Death Rates", which INCLUDES SUICIDES? I care about people hurting OTHER people, not themselves. Rather disingenuous of you to use such a bullshit statistic.

If you look at "Intentional Homicide (or murder) Rates" by state, you'll see no direct correlation between states with strict laws and those with less strict laws...but of course, Washington DC usually continues to rank #1 while states like Montana and New Hampshire have among the lowest murder rates. Wyoming usually ranks in the mid 30s.

Point is, people kill people, not firearms.

U. S. Crime Statistics Total and by State 1960 - 2011
 
The man did the right thing all around.

There is no reason for law abiding citizens to register firearms.

That the man knowingly risked prosecution under Kafkaesque law to rescue strangers from out of control dogs tells us DC is losing another high quality citizen and gaining nothing.

What would be interesting to know is what efforts are being made to destroy the dogs (if they survived the event) and prosecute the owners.
 
It probably would have been safer for Mr. Srigley to get a bat or something similar, & bash the dogs with it - higher risk to the rescuer, safer for the boy? Still, tough call.

I agree that the chilling effect of fining Mr. Srigley & confiscating his guns is bad policy, in the circumstances. If it were up to me, I'd have allowed him to register the guns down to the station, no fine, no confiscation - assuming that all the paperwork is in order. Other than that, he's to be commended - he came to the rescue of that boy.

Was the owner of the dogs fined for letting the dogs run loose? Were those dogs licensed? - in some jurisdictions, you need special permits for pit bulls.

Maybe the gun laws should be revised - put in kinda a Good Samaritan clause - the use of a firearm to protect an innocent's life will not trigger other charges against the rescuer? It needs more work, but I think we need to encourage people to do the right thing, not punish them after the fact. Hell, somebody should be pinning a medel on Mr. Srigley.

That would likely trigger animal cruelty charges.
 
The man should have registered his guns. He did not and he is now paying a price. I liken this to driving an unregistered car, not a big deal it is an administrative error on his part.
He gets the guns back in the end and the he may have to register those guns where he moves to.


"While investigating the case, police seized Mr. Srigley’s pistol, which he said he purchased legally in Virginia when he lived there, and close to 100 rounds of ammunition from his home. Mr. Srigley told investigators that he owned two other guns — an antique M-1 rifle and a Mossburg 12-gauge shotgun — which were in a storage space in the District.

Police also seized those guns, but authorities have agreed they will return the firearms to Mr. Srigley when he registers them in Maryland, where he plans to soon move."
D.C. man won't face gun charges for shooting pit bull attacking boy - Washington Times


I'm pro-2nd, and I totally agree with Connery.

It is the gun owners responsibility to understand and comply with local, state and federal gun laws...even those that are ill-conceived.

That said, this gun owner saved a child's life...$1000 is a small price to pay.
 
The man did the right thing all around.

There is no reason for law abiding citizens to register firearms.

That the man knowingly risked prosecution under Kafkaesque law to rescue strangers from out of control dogs tells us DC is losing another high quality citizen and gaining nothing.

What would be interesting to know is what efforts are being made to destroy the dogs (if they survived the event) and prosecute the owners.

(My bold)

Don't know if the rescuer thought about possible prosecution - he may not have taken time to think about that. If he did, of course, more credit to him.

Per the OP, 2 of dogs were shot to death. The 3rd likely didn't survive either, I'm not sure from the coverage. The owner of the dogs is under 3 charges per dog, loose dog, dangerous dog, etc.
 
Wyoming as virtually no gun laws. What's the crime rate in Wyoming compared to a gun free zone like Chicago for instance?

Wyoming is #4 in the states with the highest deaths from firearms.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster

he should move to a free state..., like Texas or Arizona !

Arizona is #5, Texas #26.

I guess the fact that Washington DC is #1 shouldn't be mentioned here. Doesn't quit fit your agenda, does it?

This is what bumps it up to No. 1:
% High school students threatened or injured by a weapon, 2003 (most recent) by state



"""Point is, people kill people, not firearms."""

And if you want to actually delve into your point, people like the easiest and fastest way to get something done because humans are lazy. That's why guns are more popular than poison, knives and rope.
 
The man did the right thing all around.

There is no reason for law abiding citizens to register firearms.

That the man knowingly risked prosecution under Kafkaesque law to rescue strangers from out of control dogs tells us DC is losing another high quality citizen and gaining nothing.

What would be interesting to know is what efforts are being made to destroy the dogs (if they survived the event) and prosecute the owners.

(My bold)

Don't know if the rescuer thought about possible prosecution - he may not have taken time to think about that. If he did, of course, more credit to him.

Per the OP, 2 of dogs were shot to death. The 3rd likely didn't survive either, I'm not sure from the coverage. The owner of the dogs is under 3 charges per dog, loose dog, dangerous dog, etc.

Thank you. Missed that in the OP. No excuse.
 

Forum List

Back
Top