Too Bad He Wasn't a Network Anchor or Something

D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges

City wants to know if gun he used was legal

D.C. police are investigating whether a man will face criminal charges for shooting a pit bull that was attacking a child in his neighborhood.

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.

The guy's a hero right?  He killed one of the attacking dogs and brought the attack to the attention of the police. No, that would be in a rational society.

Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said Wednesday that the entire case, including whether the man legally owned the gun he used to kill the dog, is under investigation...

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.

Low-level unregistered firearms and ammunitions charges generally are prosecuted by the D.C. office of the attorney general, but additional charges could mean the case is bumped up to the U.S. attorney’s office.

“In this case, it would likely be the U.S. attorney’s office, and their discretion is sometimes less than local prosecutors,” Mr. Gross said.

Does anyone care to put a wager on whether the U.S. Attorney's will decline to prosecute on the grounds that the person who owned the "illegal" firearm (if it is, indeed illegal) like it did for the media personality David Gregory, who broke the same statute when he waved an illegal 30 round clip in the face of Wayne Lapierre of the National Rifle Association while in his Washington D.C. studio, did not intend to do any harm with it?  I hope his lawyer raises the "Gregory" defense.