D.C. man fined $1000 after saving boy's life

"In D.C., no good deed goes unpunished. And conversely, evil deeds are routinely rewarded. They don’t call it the District of Corruption for nothing.

A 39-year-old man was facing jail time and a hefty fine on several counts of gun charges after he saved a neighborhood kid’s life by shooting at a few unleashed pit bulls that attacked the boy. Considering that he saved an 11-year-old boy’s life, prosecutors were merciful to him and decided not to get him on criminal gun charges. They instead opted to only charge him a $1,000 fine for being in possession of unregistered guns. The Washington Times recounted what happened:



politicaloutcast.com...

Well things like this will possibly make someone else think twice before stopping another pit bull mauling
Way to go DC morons!!!

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


In my opinion, this↓ is an important detail which should be pointed out.

[color=9DCAD1]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,

politicaloutcast.com...

Before reading that, I was under the impression that he may have already been carrying a loaded unregistered weapon.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Laws are confusing. It's amazing how people cannot keep their animals in a confined space. But a man with an unregistered weapon can pay a lot for saving a life. Crazy. I understand it's illegal to have a gun without the proper paper work. But there has to be some alternative with this situation.

Wow! He was not carrying the weapon, went out of his way to get one when everyone else was too chicken and selfish to help, and he is punished. I am just floored at the stupidity of the law sometimes. I understand rules are rules but WTH?! Seriously???!! Grr.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


This is, once again, ridiculous but not surprising.

The gung-ho pumped up charge-happy nature of both cops and the judicial system is getting entirely out of hand. This is evident in the overabundance of charges for minor offenses across the board, when simply anything can be found that a person has done illegal is the cause of a charge, from the stupidest and most minor things.

In the end, it's all about revenue; and secondarily, about "well, that's the law. And you broke it," even if you were ignorant of the law, of which there are so many it is almost impossible to break one almost daily.

I'm sure there will some of our resident state lap dogs to condone his citations and the consequences for being a "lawbreaker," and while sometimes good deeds should not overshadow breaking the law (as a technicality), this man had no malicious or criminal intent and sought only to save a freakin' boy's life.

Hopefully, prosecutors will drop the charges.

reply to post by Liquesence

Originally posted by Liquesence

The gung-ho pumped up charge-happy nature of both cops and the judicial system is getting entirely out of hand. This is evident in the overabundance of charges for minor offenses across the board, when simply anything can be found that a person has done illegal is the cause of a charge, from the stupidest and most minor things.
.........
Hopefully, prosecutors will drop the charges.

[color=9DCAD1]prosecutors were merciful to him and decided not to get him on criminal gun charges. They instead opted to only charge him a $1,000 fine for being in possession of unregistered guns.

politicaloutcast.com...

reply to post by BrokenCircles


That proves the point in my previous post:

They're mainly concerned with revenue.

Merciful? What a freakin' joke. Legal extortion.

"Pay us some money, and everything will be settled and A-ok."

That's all it's ever about. Pay a fine, make a deal and pay a fine, etc, just give us the money.

That is ridiculous! It is not like he is some illegal gun totting gangster menacing people. Maybe the law should have ordered the owners of the dogs to cough up the 1K fine, considering they are the ones that are supposed to be responsible for the dogs, which can in themselves be a lethal weapon.

He had no right to take the law into his own hands! He should have hopped the fence to safety like the other law-abiding heros and called the police, then waited on the line with the 911 operator until they arrived so he could keep her updated on the mauling in progress. Now we will never get to hear the dog's side of the story....

Either that, or the guys who hopped the fence were wimps and the shooter deserves a reward. I just can't decide! Politics can be so complicated.

eta: I have the answer! We need to regulate tooth count and bite pressure in assault dogs, and institute a background check for assault dog ownership. Shut those dog shelters loop-holes down as well.

surely he could of said it was self defense, or that he thought his life was in danger, or even out of necessity

reply to post by salmonofknowledge


Not in D.C.

I don't know what you guys expect to happen. Are you saying we should let crimes slide as long as they're committed during a good deed?

What they should do:
- Give him the minimum punishment for the crime.
- Give him a medal by the mayor.
- If they send him to jail, have the judge and mayor give him the medal upon release.

You can't just ignore laws because somebody is an awesome bad ass. At the same time, I hope they make him feel like a hero no matter what.

If the owner of the dogs was any kind of a decent human being, they would offer to pay up this guy's fine for him and then get down on their knees and thank him incessantly for saving their sorry butt from landing in jail on manslaughter charges.

In fact if the judge was any kind of a judge, he should have waived the fine against the defense and forced this fine over to the owner of the dogs to have to pay up instead or face jail time for irresponsibly putting other people's lives at risk.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


You are looking at this the wrong way. i am a firm beleiver that you should be able to have a gun. But that gun must be registered to you. its not that hard to ask. unless it is hot or stolen or whatever. but register your dam^ guns

reply to post by St0mP121


Like the article says, the guns were legally purchased and registered in the state where purchased. How many times do you suggest he register the guns--once with the BATF and State of sale--or additionally in every municipality he ever lives in???

reply to post by MuzzleBreak

The child's parents will probably take legal action against the owner of the dogs, when they win the million dollar settlement they should take some money and pay the fines. The hero should not go to jail but paid the fine by means of the parents paying it. then be given his reward.

Pit bull. Notice a common subspecies-breed anyone?

This man chose to break the law to save a life .

This action is politically correct.

Still if the prosecutors did not charge with something, it would open a big 2nd can of worms. !

I am sure this hero thought to himself protecting another person was worth a thousand dollars of just federal reserve notes.

Originally posted by Cuervo
I don't know what you guys expect to happen. Are you saying we should let crimes slide as long as they're committed during a good deed?

Well, let's look at it this way. Cop sees man driving car above speed limit. So, cop races after him, and passes him, forcing him to slow down and stop. Cop gives him ticket. But, cop had to break the law himself, going above the speed limit, in order to do his good deed. Nobody gives the cop a ticket for speeding. Why not?

If you break the law, to protect the law, should you get both reward and punishment?

If the man there didn't break the law, he couldn't save the boy. So, to a certain extent, breaking the law was required, to be in that position where a life could be saved.

You might argue, that the man broke the law before the event presented itself, and therefore he didn't break the law for the purpose of saving the boy. He already had that unregistered gun. So, the event was not the cause of him needing to break the law. But, the man might argue back, that obviously, the mere fact that he had a gun, indicated he was simply preparing for the very kind of situation like this. He anticipated needing that gun, and so the two things are, in fact, linked, just like that cop chasing the car. So if we charge the man with the gun, we should also charge every cop who breaks the speed limit, in pursuit of a crime. Hey, some cops break the speed limit, even when they are not chasing down anyone.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


police will always find a way to make the modern hero a criminal