The going rate for saving a child’s life in Washington, D.C., is $1000. That’s not what somebody pays you for doing so; that’s what you pay.
Considering the punishment he could have suffered, though, Benjamin Srigley got off easy.
A few years ago, a Supreme Court decision forced a little liberalization in D.C.’s gun laws. Even so, city officials always seek new ways to make bearing arms onerous. So some exercisers of their Second Amendment rights simply ignore the mandatory hurdles.
On January 11, Srigley used one of three firearms not registered in DC to shoot a pit pull attacking 11-year-old Jayeon Simon. In May, authorities agreed not to pursue criminal charges. So Srigley won’t be sent to prison. He must merely turn over $1,000 of his wealth, plus his guns. Police say he’ll get the weapons back after he registers them in Maryland, to which he is moving soon.
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” says Ted Gest, a spokesman for the attorney general.
A cousin who helps care for the boy thinks the deed should be taken even more into account. “I don’t think he should be charged at all, because it’s an act of heroism,” he says.
Oh sure. The people who value the boy’s life would be prejudiced in favor of letting his savior off the hook entirely for doing everything right and nothing wrong, wouldn’t they? That shows you where their priorities lie.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
8 replies on “The Cost of Saving a Life”
Doing the right thing was neverthe easy thing, which is why everybody isn’t automatically doing it. And now, under this government, doing the right thing is the most expensive thing. Morality costs money. Corruption is free.
Should consider himself fortunate he doesn’t live in Australia whose least Left-Wing prime minister of the past forty years, John Howard, confiscated, effectively, all of the guns and stated that protecting and/or saving the lives of yourself and/or your family members is not an acceptable reason for owning a weapon.
In Australia if you kill an intruder into your home, you will be charged with murder!
Notice ‘Today In Freedom’ gives the traitor Roosevelt a passing mention.
Not a bad time, then, to remember that immediately after the awful era of the most treacherous “president” and (Soviet-agent owned, operated and controlled) “administration” in America’s history and its criminally-unconstitutional expansion of fascist federal power (that makes poor Zero appear a pathetic poor piker) and the Roosevelt Depression — and the world war he fought with our blood and treasure to preserve his Uncle Joe’s evil empire and to enslave and murder millions — came the 1950s and a boom the likes of which the world has never seen!
So after Zero and notwithstanding the damage he’ll leave behind, Please, Dear Lord, that there’s another Ike a waiting in the wings — Ted Cruz.
Rand Paul.
And Washington D.C., along with Detroit has: Democartic mayors (almost continuously) and strict gun laws. AND HIGH MURDER RATES.
Not to mention poverty. And two classes- the moinority (of all races0 wealthy and/or politically connected and the masses.
When I was collecting email contacts for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D.C. in 2004, a police officer confiscated my mace (perfectly legal in California, where I purchased it).
His rejoinder was “I don’t make the laws, I just enforce them.”
Not feeling particularly self-destructive that day, I didn’t tell him “Would you feel the same about herding black people (he’s black) into concentration camps?
No good deed goes unpunished.
The government supposedly exists to “protect” us. We know that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Our government apparently doesn’t like competition from those not in government, who actually do protect someone. So they create incentives for people to not help protect others.
Is that protecting us, or is it protecting those in government?