D.C. prosecutors give hero a break: 'Only' $1000 fine for saving child's life

By the way, the owner of the three pit bulls is now in his own legal hot water--facing three counts each (one for each dog) of possession of a dangerous dog, having an unleashed dog and having a dog without a collar. The maximum penalty for those nine counts is very likely less than what Mr. Srigley could have faced for his seven victimless "crimes," had the prosecutors decided to aggressively make an example of him. That prosecutors are punishing the owner of the dogs seems the height of hypocrisy--by punishing the man who stopped the attack, they've already shown that they're on the side of killer dogs, rather than the people who stop them.

Here's the thing. A law that has to be broken in order to save the life of a child--to prevent him from being torn apart by vicious dogs--is very likely an evil law. And a "justice" system that punishes a man (even if "only" by fining him) for being a lifesaving hero--is institutionalized evil. Why, as a (theoretically) free citizen, does any American tolerate this? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.